MY POV

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

How Bush really feels about you.

"If there were such a thing as Intelligent Design, we wouldn't have George W. Bush."

Christy Marx

The Mars Society

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969)
34th President of the USA
a Republican, in a letter written to his brother on November 8, 1954

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."

Benito Mussolini

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln
November 12, 1864

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided man."

Martin Luther King Jr., 1963

"CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

James Madison
(1751-1836)
4th President of the United States

"Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings."

Heinrich Heine
Almansor, 1823

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Sir Winston Churchill
(1874-1965)

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who etermine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarschall

"Authoritarian societies inevitably crumble because they silence the critics who could save them from errors of blind hubris. Dissent is not a luxury to be indulged in the best of times, but rather an obligation of free people, particularly when the very notion of dissent is unpopular."

Robert Scheer

"FASCISM: a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership together with belligerent nationalism."

American Heritage Dictionary

Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is
neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it
because it is right.

Dr. Martin Luther King

"My life is my message."

Gandhi

Posted: 31 Jan. 2007

There is a serious problem with our government when only the very rich can afford to be elected. This is simply one more indication of it. From The Center for American Progress.

MINIMUM WAGE -- SENATE MULTIMILLIONAIRES VOTE TO BLOCK WAGE HIKE: After repeated delays by conservatives, the Senate voted 87-10 yesterday to end debate on legislation that will raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 to $7.25. The bill is expected to move to a full vote in the next several days. Ten conservative senators stuck together and voted to further delay raising the minimum wage. As ThinkProgress detailed in a report last year, at least two of those 10 senators -- Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) -- are multimillionaires with a combined fortune of up to $35.5 million. In financial statements, Gregg shows holdings of between $3,402,000 and $10,055,000, including between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in Fleet Bank stock, while Isakson shows holdings of between $7,631,000 and $25,515,000, including millions in Georgia real estate. Despite their enormous personal wealth, they refuse to grant even a small raise to the nearly 8 million Americans who live on $5.15 an hour.

Posted: 30 Jan. 2007

I think it's significant that the nastiest, most vile pieces of work out there come from the radical right. This report is from The Center for American Progress.

RADICAL RIGHT -- SWIFT BOAT LEADER HIRED TO RUN RIGHT-WING 'ONLINE COMMUNITY': Over the weekend, conservative columnist Robert Novak reported that TheVanguard.org, a new right-wing advocacy group, has hired Jerome Corsi as a senior political strategist. Vanguard describes itself as an "online community of Americans who believe in conservative values," and Novak claims it is a "right-wing version of the leftist MoveOn.Org." By hiring Corsi, Vanguard has made it clear that it intends to hit below the belt and be more than just an "online community." Corsi coordinated the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth attacks against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), and plans to use Vanguard to "similarly undermine Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton" for her progressive policy stances. Media Matters documented Corsi's posts on the right-wing Free Republic site, such as calling Islam "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion." On Catholicism, Corsi wrote, "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press," and called Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) a "fat hog" and asked, "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

From the Organic Consumers Assoc.

PLANTING PEACE ALERT
The OCA has been a long-time friend of PR Watch, a nonprofit organization focused on lime-lighting manipulative practices of the mainstream media, while, at the same time, fighting to protect journalists who stick their necks out to spread the truth. This week, PR Watch launched an alert to protect a journalist, Sarah Olson, who could be sent to prison for refusing to testify about an interview she had with a military officer who has refused to be deployed to Iraq, due to his feeling that the Iraq war is a violation of international and domestic law. That soldier is also facing an increased prison sentence for speaking out against the war. At the same time, Sarah is facing jail time based on her belief that journalists shouldn’t be asked to participate in government prosecutions, especially of political speech.

Send a letter to Congress:
http://www.prwatch.org/defendthepress/congress.html

Posted: 26 Jan. 2007

So Bush authorizes going after "Iranian agents" in Iraq and makes them fair game. Not just "foreign agents", but Iranians specifically, knowing full well there are thousands of Iranians there. Can anyone doubt that this is an attempt to provoke an incident? Bush and his neocons are using the same sort of propaganda and manipulation they used to create the Iraq invasion. This is a blatant ploy to generate hostility with Iran. Then we have the news article below:

'No proof' of Iran nuclear arms
Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.

Correspondents say the alleged document appears to challenge Washington's views regarding Iranian nuclear intentions.

The article says the White House was dismissive about the CIA report.

The US and Europe say Iran is pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme - a charge Iran has strongly denied.

'Hostile' response

The CIA assessment, according to unnamed officials quoted in the article, casts doubt on how far Iran has actually progressed to making a nuclear weapon.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Hersh wrote.

It says the agency based its conclusions on technical intelligence, such as satellite photography and measurements from sensors planted by US and Israeli agents.

The article says: "A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it."

READ THE REST.

Posted: 25 Jan. 2007

From People for the American Way.

Little-known Provision in Patriot Act Rears its Ugly Head

A provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill allows the Attorney General to fill U.S. attorney vacancies with interim appointments that can remain indefinitely, circumventing the usual Senate approval of these appointments.

U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, so the administration can ask for their resignation at any time - and the administration has done just that to several U.S. attorneys in recent months. What is noteworthy is which ones have resigned. It seems that some of the U.S. attorneys who have left their posts may been involved in investigations the administration would not be happy about. In at least one case, the vacancy was filled by a partisan operative - Karl Rove's former deputy.

Senator Feinstein (D-CA), along with Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Pryor (D-AR), has introduced legislation (S. 214) that would fix this affront to checks and balances and remove the attorney general's authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies until another official appointment can be made, giving the authority back to the local district court (where it was before the Patriot Act changed it).

From The Center for American Progress.

IRAN -- HAGEL REVEALS WHITE HOUSE ORIGINALLY WANTED 2002 IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION TO COVER ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST: The Bush administration has taken a series of steps in recent weeks that appear to be setting the stage for a military confrontation with Iran. Congressional leaders have been raising red flags. "I'd like to be clear," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said last week. "The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization." Recent comments made by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) explain why Congress' resistance is so vital. In an interview in GQ Magazine, Hagel revealed that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East -- not just in Iraq -- in the fall of 2002. At the time, Hagel says, the Bush administration presented Congress with a resolution that would have authorized the use of force anywhere in the region. "They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?" the interviewer asked. Hagel responded, "Yes. Yes. Wide open."

I don't have the technical background to evaluate this, but I found it interesting enough to present here.

The Hydrogen Hoax
Robert Zubrin

“Yes my friends, I believe that water will one day be employed as fuel, that hydrogen and oxygen which constitute it, used singly or together, will furnish an inexhaustible source of heat and light, of an intensity of which coal is not capable.... When the deposits of coal are exhausted we shall heat and warm ourselves with water. Water will be the coal of the future.”

–Jules Verne, The Mysterious Island (1874-5)

Nearly everyone in American politics believes we face an energy crisis, and nearly everyone believes we need a technological solution that will make America “energy independent.” Americans are, as President Bush put it in his 2006 State of the Union address, “addicted to oil,” and in this case our addiction is enriching and empowering those who seek to destroy us. We are funding, if indirectly, the madrassahs that teach vile hatred of Western civilization and the backward cultures that create death-seeking soldiers for Islam. We are, if unwittingly, arming those who wish to kill us. To cure this self-destructive addiction, the Bush administration has placed a major bet on the so-called “hydrogen economy,” both in policy and in rhetoric. Former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham laid out this vision, in rhapsodic language, in 2002:

Hydrogen can fuel much more than cars and light trucks, our area of interest. It can also fuel ships, airplanes, and trains. It can be used to generate electricity, for heating, and as a fuel for industrial processes. We envision a future economy in which hydrogen is America’s clean energy choice—flexible, affordable, safe, domestically produced, used in all sectors of the economy, and in all regions of the country....

Imagine a world running on hydrogen later in this century: Environmental pollution will no longer be a concern. Every nation will have all the energy it needs available within its borders. Personal transportation will be cheaper to operate and easier to maintain. Economic, financial, and intellectual resources devoted today to acquiring adequate energy resources and to handling environmental issues will be turned to other productive tasks for the benefit of the people. Life will get better.

In 2003, President Bush reaffirmed this vision, offering a presidential primer on the scientific, economic, and foreign-policy dimensions of hydrogen power:

The sources of hydrogen are abundant. The more you have of something relative to demand for that, the cheaper it’s going to be, the less expensive it’ll be for the consumer.... Hydrogen power is also clean to use. Cars that will run on hydrogen fuel produce only water, not exhaust fumes.... One of the greatest results of using hydrogen power, of course, will be energy independence for this nation.... If we develop hydrogen power to its full potential, we can reduce our demand for oil by over 11 million barrels per day by the year 2040.

It certainly sounds great. Hydrogen, after all, is “the most common element in the universe,” as Secretary Abraham pointed out. Since it is so plentiful, surely President Bush must be right when he promises it will be cheap. And when you use it, the waste product will be nothing but water—“environmental pollution will no longer be a concern.” Hydrogen will be abundant, cheap, and clean. Why settle for anything less?

Unfortunately, it’s all pure bunk. To get serious about energy policy, America needs to abandon, once and for all, the false promise of the hydrogen age.

READ THE REST.

From Grist on-line.

Bush pushes "alternative" fuels plan, critics push back

President Bush got bizzy promoting his new energy goals yesterday, taking his message to a DuPont biofuels facility in Delaware and signing an executive order requiring federal agencies to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles -- including plug-in hybrids when they become available. But Bush's plan to cut gasoline use 20 percent in 10 years by pushing alternative fuels and improving fuel efficiency isn't flying with everyone. The plan "not only does not go far enough, but may actually, in some cases ... increase greenhouse-gas emissions," said California state EPA Secretary Linda Adams. With the focus on "alternative" fuels including not only renewables but also sources like liquefied coal and tar sands, said a Rice University energy expert, "We are going dirtier." National Environmental Trust President Philip Clapp summed up the collective national sigh thusly: "There is no revolution in global-warming policy in anything the president is proposing, no matter how the White House tries to spin it."

Posted: 24 Jan. 2007

From Grist on-line.

Leader Hosin'
Bush State of the Union address offers tepid energy initiatives

Today we have the high privilege and distinct honor of blurbing the State of the Union address. It was largely a muted, desultory affair, reflecting the fact that President Bush is trapped in a foreign quagmire, his Republican congressional bootlickers are abandoning him, and the public loathes him more than any president since Nixon. However! There were a few greenish moments. For the first time in a SOTU address, Bush said the dreaded words: "global climate change." Guess that means it's real. His splashy energy plan is to reduce U.S. gasoline use 20 percent in 10 years. Assuming this goal, unlike other SOTU goals, translates into action, it would mean modest increases in fuel efficiency standards and a massive increase in corn ethanol subsidies (shocking, we know). Sharp-eared listeners also noted that the Renewable Fuel Standard established in 2005 is now the Alternative Fuel Standard, to allow for coal-to-liquid fuels -- which ain't renewable in the least.


Report encourages investment in safe, clean geothermal energy

If the U.S. is going to insist on looking for energy underground, there's a better option than drilling for oil, researchers say: generating steamy geothermal electricity by circulating water down into hot rocks below the earth's surface and back up into power plants. An MIT study commissioned by the U.S. Energy Department says geothermal energy can be accessed affordably, sustainably, and large-scale-ably with an investment of as little as $800 million over 15 years. (Cost comparison: That's about the price of one "clean-coal" plant.) Current U.S. geothermal production is comparable to its solar and wind generation combined -- which we all know ain't much -- but the study estimates that with proper investment, hot rocks could meet some 10 percent of U.S. electricity needs by mid-century. "This is a big resource that is perhaps undervalued by people who are thinking of options for the country," says study leader Jefferson Tester. Maybe 'cause it's not as fun to say as "nucular."

Posted: 19 Jan. 2007

From The Center for American Progress.

"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution."
-- U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 1/19/07

VERSUS

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
-- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2


NATIONAL SECURITY -- ADMINISTRATION STONEWALLS RELEASE OF NSA ORDER: Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered few explanations about the administration's recent decision to submit the illegal National Security Agency (NSA) domestic spying program to judicial supervision, claiming that disclosing details of the program would expose sensitive security information. In a letter addressed to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked that she make public "copies of the orders and opinions" and the Court's decision concerning the domestic surveillance program. Kollar-Kotelly responded that she would have "no objection to this material being made avaialable," but she could not do so because the Department of Justice had deemed the documents classified information. Leahy asked Gonzales, "Are you saying that you might object to the court giving us a decision that you publicly announced? Are we a little Alice in Wonderland here?" The public does not yet have a good understanding of the compromise that has been reached on the NSA program. Yesterday, President Bush denied there had been any change in the program, other than to receive a court's blessing of it. "Nothing has changed in the program except the court has said we've analyzed it and it's a legitimate way to protect the country," he said. The New York Times reports that while details about the Bush administration’s shift on warrantless spying remain "sketchy," critics believe "one goal of the new arrangements was to derail lawsuits challenging the program in conventional federal courts."

From Grist on-line.

Corporations join green groups to push for U.S. climate action

Quivering under the bed was an option, but 10 major corporations have bravely formed a coalition with four U.S. green groups instead, calling for a national limit on carbon emissions. Their aim is a 10 to 30 percent cut over the next 15 years, using a cap-and-trade system that would allow over-emitters to buy credits from those who fall under the cap. The United States Climate Action Partnership, which wins today's kinda-clever acronym award, includes heavy-hitters like GE, BP, Alcoa, and Duke Energy. Such companies are motivated by fears of a patchwork of state-level regulations, the specter of a fossil-fuel tax, and the unknown predilections of a post-Bush president. Some of the same companies are also part of the new 3C Initiative, a global group looking to Combat Climate Change in the post-Kyoto world of 2013. The ringleader, Swedish utility Vattenfall, claims limiting greenhouse gases could cost 40 percent less than last year's landmark Stern report predicted. Gotta love that bottom line.

Posted: 17 Jan. 2007

From The Center for American Progress.

ADMINISTRATION -- POLITICS PUSHING OUT U.S. ATTORNEYS: As many as eight U.S. Attorneys are leaving or being pushed out of their positions by the Bush administration. Several of these prosecutors are working on high-profile cases, such as Kevin V. Ryan, "whose San Francisco office is overseeing the investigation of backdating of stock options," and Carol Lam, who successfully investigated the corruption of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA). Yesterday, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) confirmed that "a high-ranking administration official" in the Bush administration asked Lam to resign. While Lam's critics have pointed to her "failure to more aggressively prosecute illegal-immigrant smugglers" and her "lax prosecutorial standard" as reasons for her departure, others point to the right-wing politics of the Bush administration. In an editorial today, the San Diego Union-Tribune noted, "Lam had justifiably earned the respect of the law enforcement community and the gratitude of all of San Diego. Her resignation yesterday cannot paper over the disquieting truth that she was the victim of strong-arm political pressure from Washington, where officials apparently wanted to hand her job to a partisan operative." U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins was pushed out by the Bush administration in December, and replaced with a "37-year-old protege of White House political adviser Karl Rove." Yesterday on the Senate floor, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pointed out that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may be creating these vacancies to appoint interim replacements and "potentially avoid Senate confirmation." A little-noticed provision in the Patriot Act allows Gonzales to appoint a replacement for an indefinite period of time.

NATIONAL SECURITY -- GONZALES BLAMES LEGAL CHALLENGES FOR FIVE YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING GITMO DETAINEES TO TRIAL: The track record of the Guantanamo detention program "can be summed up quite simply: five years, zero convictions." More than 770 captives have been held there and just 10 have been charged with crimes. But in an interview yesterday with the Associated Press, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "blamed delays in trying terror detainees at Guantanamo Bay on legal challenges filed b their lawyers." "It's not for lack of trying," Gonzales said when asked about detainees. "We are challenged every step of the way." "We are trying as hard as we can to bring these individuals to justice," he said. The administration has been challenged because they have been operating under a shadow system of justice. During past hearings, the government "called no witnesses, withheld evidence from detainees and usually reached a decision within a day as it determined that hundreds of men…were 'enemy combatants.'" The Supreme Court rejected these tribunals because they "were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions." If President Bush had simply followed the law, these trials could have happened years ago.

From Grist on-line.

U.S. Interior Department knew about drilling loophole for years

We're beginning to detect a pattern among Bush administration responses to huge fusterclucks. It seems U.S. Interior Department officials who said they'd learned only last year that oil companies were avoiding billions of dollars in royalty payments have (surprise!) known about the problem for a while. Due to a Clinton-era screwup, more than 1,000 offshore drilling contracts don't include a clause intended to collect royalties when oil prices rise above $34 a barrel. Interior staffers apparently fixed the problem for future contracts in 2000, but Johnnie M. Burton, the official who oversees the program, wasn't alerted until 2006. Or was she? Thanks to the magic of email and the doggedness of an independent investigator, a new report shows that Burton found out in 2004. Hmm, said Burton, maybe she was told, but she "did not remember putting a great deal of thought into the matter." Investigators estimate that the feds lost out on $865 million in royalties over the last three years. Oopsy!


U.S. risk-assessment draft completely eviscerated by real live scientists

The Bush administration's quest to make federal-agency evaluations of public-health risks from chemicals and other products even more meaningless has been stymied. A draft risk-assessment policy issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget has been called "fundamentally flawed" by the National Research Council, which OMB had asked for a review. Heaping criticism on the draft, reviewers said it was broad, unclear, and unfair, covering "territory beyond what previous reports have recommended and beyond the current state of science." Wait, you mean the Bush administration is messing with science? We're shocked, shocked to find science-messing in this establishment. The NRC critics -- who surprised even themselves by trashing a policy they'd merely expected to offer feedback on -- also worried that it would make risk assessments "more susceptible to being manipulated to achieve a predetermined result." Shocked, we tell you. It's back to the drawing board for the gentle folk at OMB.

Posted: 11 Jan. 2007

From Grist on-line.

Truth

First sex, now science? What will they tell the kids about next? The parents of a high-schooler in Federal Way, Wash., have complained to the district's school board about a teacher's plan to screen Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and the board has put a moratorium on the film. "Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore," said irked father Frosty Hardison. "The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD." While the moratorium allows teachers to show the film if they present an opposing view, co-producer Laurie David expressed frustration with the first-in-the-nation Truth scuffle: "There is no opposing view to science ... and the facts are clear that global warming is here, now." What do the students think? "I think that a movie like that is a really great way to open people's eyes up about what you can do and what you are doing to the planet and how that's going to affect the human race," said one. From the mouths of babes, yo.

From The Center for American Progress.

IRAQ
Escalating Failure

Last night, President Bush disregarded the opposition of U.S. military commanders, lawmakers of both parties, the Iraq Study Group (ISG), and the American public and announced to the nation that he plans to increase America's presence in Iraq by approximately 21,500 troops, with no timetable for when troop levels would be drawn back down. The right wing tried to present this "surge" as the "last chance for success" in Iraq. But as the Associated Press noted, Bush's escalation announcement is simply the "latest repackaging of a program that's been wrapped and rewrapped many times." When Bush sent increased U.S. forces into Baghdad in June 2006, the security situation actually deteriorated further and violence increased. One Bush administration official admitted that the escalation plan is "more of a political decision than a military one" and military commanders have made clear to the President that U.S. forces are already overstretched. As Bush noted in June 28, 2005, sending more troops to Iraq will "undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead" and "suggest that we intend to stay forever." Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) has introduced legislation demanding accountability from the President, and the Center for American Progress has released a memo recommending "an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number." American Progress also has a strategic redeployment plan detailing "a responsible exit from Iraq as part of a balanced global strategy to make Americans safer."

REPACKAGING FAILURE: Even before Bush spoke to the nation last night, the escalation plan was underway. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in Baghdad yesterday and an "additional battalion of roughly 800 troops from the same division are expected to arrive in Baghdad Thursday." The troop increase will cost $5.6 billion, in addition to $1.2 billion to finance a rebuilding and jobs program. The American troop presence in Iraq will swell to approximately 153,000 soldiers. But the AP reported that the 21,500 additional troops "will include only one major combat unit that was not otherwise scheduled to go. The rest of the boost will come from sending a few brigades earlier than planned and extending the tours of others." Bush last night presented this plan as a "new strategy" that will "help us succeed in the fight against terror." But in reality, "Bush's overall strategy seems likely to remain wholly unchanged: To keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as it takes for the Iraqi government to start functioning effectively. That means using American bodies and firepower, pretty much indefinitely, to prop up a country racked by civil war and chafing under occupation. That means the American death count ticks on, with no end in sight," writes the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin. One senior Army official acknowledged that there will be "more violence than usual because of the surge."

IGNORING THE PUBLIC, MILITARY, AND EXPERTS: It is clear that Bush did not listen to the American public when figuring out the way forward in Iraq. A recent CBS poll found that just 18 percent of the American public supports an escalation of involvement in Iraq. He also didn't heed the advice of his military commanders. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were unanimously opposed to the escalation. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who publicly declared in December that he does not support escalation, "is caustic in private about the proposed 'surge,'" columnist Robert Novak reported. Military commanders also told the President that they had just 9,000 soldiers and Marines available to go to Iraq. Bush also ignored advice from America's "allies abroad." British Prime Minister Tony Blair made clear that he will not send more U.K. troops to Iraq, but will instead "stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army." The ISG also did not recommend an escalation in troops in its recent report, and group member Leon Panetta told Newsweek that increasing troops will send the "wrong message to the Iraqis."

IGNORING CONGRESS: The President also claimed that his decision came after he "consulted members of Congress from both parties." But according to a tally by The Progress Report, many more lawmakers oppose the escalation than support it. (Help us fill in this list. Call your members of Congress, ask their position, then email their response us.) After a meeting last week between Bush and 30 Republican senators, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) observed, "I think I was the only senator who acted like he would be supportive. I was surprised that no one said it but me." Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), said on the Senate floor, "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that any more." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wrote Bush a letter telling him that escalation "is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake." Even traditional Bush administration ally Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) -- who is currently in Baghdad -- yesterday said that he does "not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer."

WHY IT WON'T WORK -- TROOP STRAINS: Not only did the military admit to the President that it does not have enough troops to support the escalation, but it does not have enough armor. Yesterday, the Baltimore Sun reported that the thousands of troops Bush ordered to Iraq "will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said." A report in early 2006 found that the Army had become a "thin green line," stretched to a "breaking point." Even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a leading proponent of Bush's plan, admitted, "Is it going to be a strain on the military? Absolutely. Casualties are going to go up." More than 3,000 U.S. troops have been killed in the Iraq war.

WHY IT WON'T WORK -- POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS: With military commanders largely opposed to escalation, one Bush administration official acknowledged to NBC News "that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one." The Washington Post reported yesterday that after the ISG came out, how "to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme" and "some staff members on the National Security Council became enamored of the idea of sending more troops to Iraq in part because it was not a key feature of Baker-Hamilton."

WHY IT WON'T WORK -- PAST FAILURES: AP noted that "there's clearly a been-there, done-that feel to Bush's new plan. It's an old story: The U.S. before has temporarily raised troop levels, taken steps to encourage democracy, spent money on education and public works and set benchmarks for the Iraqi government." These past approaches have also failed. In June 2006, Bush announced a major effort to secure Baghdad, stating at a news conference that over 7,000 U.S.-led coalition troops would be moved into the city. But since that time, violence in Baghdad has drastically increased. Approximately 106 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq in December, making it the deadliest month in 2006. Then-Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad and Gen. William B. Caldwell admitted that the "big push" was a big failure, as did Bush, who conceded that "our operations to secure Baghdad have encountered greater resistance. ... I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I'm not satisfied, either." Another part of the new U.S. strategy will create "gated communities" in Baghdad by "sealing off discrete areas and forcibly removing insurgents, then stationing American units in the neighborhood to keep the peace and working to create jobs for residents." But this approach, too, was tried during the Vietnam War and was a "spectacular failure." "It didn't work," said Conrad Crane, one of the authors of the military's counterinsurgency manual. "They ended up locking up the insurgents with the population in these new hamlets. ... It actually helped the Viet Cong with recruiting."

Under the Radar

STEM CELLS -- WHITE HOUSE MISLEADS TO GARNER OPPOSITION TO STEM CELL BILL: Following the tremendous success of stem cell supporters in the 2006 election, the House of Representatives will vote today on legislation to expand the number of stem cell lines available for use in federally funded research. The Bush administration "jumped back into the bitter debate" yesterday, urging lawmakers to vote against the legislation; the House vote is "virtually certain to fall short of the two-thirds margin needed to override another Bush veto, vote counters on both sides of the issue said." On Monday, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said, “The vast majority of breakthroughs right now, virtually all, have involved those other than embryonic stem cells.” In fact, however, over the last year there have been a large number of medical breakthroughs involving embryonic stem (ES) cells. In just the last six months, media reports have noted that ES cells have been used to help paralyzed rats walk; to create T-cells, which could lead to a cure for AIDS; to create sperm that successfully fertilize mouse eggs, which could aid those with infertility; to slow vision loss in rats; to reduce the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in rats; to create insulin-secreting cells, which could be used to treat diabetes; and to make a vaccine that protects mice from lung cancer; to create cardiovascular “precursor” cells, which could be used to treat heart disease. Embryonic stem cells remain the most promising type of stem cell due to their ability to become any type of cell in the human body. Also, the White House Domestic Policy Council (DPC) yesterday released “Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life,” a white paper that misrepresents the potential of discovering and using alternatives to embryonic stem cells. Center for American Progress analysts Jonathan Moreno and Sam Berger write that the White House report "exaggerates the potential of reprogramming adult cells to behave like embryonic stem cells, distorts the potential of recently discovered amniotic-fluid stem cells, and obscures the deleterious effects of President Bush’s stem cell policy."

ADMINISTRATION -- BUSH IGNORES CONGRESS, APPOINTS ANTI-REGULATORY ZEALOT TO OVERSEE BUSINESS REGULATIONS: Earlier this year, President Bush nominated Susan Dudley to be the next head of an obscure but "super-powerful office that oversees many business regulations." The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs holds sway over federal regulatory agencies like the EPA and helps set regulatory policy for a wide range of issues, from workplace safety to water quality. Congress fiercely opposed her and didn't vote on the nomination because she had accumulated a record of opposing EPA public health standards to fight smog, opposed lower-polluting SUVs, opposed air bags in cars, and opposed measures to curb global warming. Bush has resubmitted her name to the Senate, but she is considered unlikely to be approved. So Bush engaged in an end-run around Congress. The Wall Street Journal reports today, "President Bush appointed conservative academic Susan Dudley to an influential new job advising on regulatory policy, at a time the regulatory process could serve as a conduit for the White House to push through any policies opposed by a hostile Congress." In her new position, she will act as a senior adviser to the White House's regulatory office. That position will enable her to influence policy decisions, although she won't be able to implement them on her own. "The White House is again displaying its contempt for carrying out and enforcing the law to protect the public," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen.

CONGRESS -- MCCONNELL CLAIMS CONGRESS CANNOT RESTRICT FUNDS FOR IRAQ, VOTED TO RESTRICT CLINTON IN SOMALIA: On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) came out against the Kennedy bill requiring President Bush to gain new congressional authority before escalating the war in Iraq. "I think it is inappropriate for the Congress to try to micromanage, in effect, the tactics in a military conflict,” McConnell said. "I don't think Congress has the authority to do it." But Congress does have the authority to use "several different policy levers to guide U.S. national security policy as it relates to the deployment of American troops." Congress has done so many times over the last 35 years. In Nov. 1993, McConnell supported a move by Congress to place limits on military spending for U.S. troop deployments in Somalia. Section 8151 of Public Law 103-139 "limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994" and permitted “expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization." The language passed the Senate as an amendment introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV). McConnell voted for it. He also spoke on the Senate floor in October 2003 about the legislation: The narrow issue before us tonight is simply how do you leave? We are leaving, we all agree on that. ... The only issue here tonight is how we leave and, in my judgment, the Byrd amendment better defines the proper exit for the United States in this most unfortunate experience in Somalia, at least since May."

Posted: 10 Jan. 2007

From The Center for American Progress.

ADMINISTRATION -- SNOW FALSELY CLAIMS BUSH SAID 'JUST THE OPPOSITE' OF 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED': In yesterday's press briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow tried to distance President Bush from his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, claiming that Bush said "just the opposite" of "Mission Accomplished": "You know that the mission accomplished banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the president, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn't he?" But for that May 1, 2003 speech, Bush stood in front of a large banner that read, "Mission Accomplished." In the opening of his speech, he declared, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." He called the "battle of Iraq" a "victory" In his radio address shortly after the speech, he boasted, "I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: their mission is complete and major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Additionally, as Bob Woodward reported in October, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had to pressure the White House to take out of the speech the actual phrase "Mission Accomplished," but he couldn't "get the sign down." In Oct. 2003, then-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan admitted that the White House -- not members of USS Lincoln -- had "take[n] care of the production of the banner."

MEDIA -- ABC/DISNEY SHUTS DOWN BLOGGER WHO HIGHLIGHTED INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC ON ABC STATION: For several months, a blogger nicknamed "Spocko" has been highlighting the inflammatory rhetoric used by talk radio hosts on KSFO, an ABC Radio-owned station in San Francisco. As Media Matters documents, "Spocko compiled a litany of examples on both his weblog, Spocko's Brain, and in numerous letters to corporations advertising on KSFO. He noted that KSFO hosts had claimed to have put 'a bull's-eye' on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), advocated hanging various New York Times editors, called for the murder of millions of Muslims, and so on." (Listen to several specific examples HERE and HERE.) Major advertisers, including MasterCard, Bank of America, and Visa, reportedly pulled their ads from the station. In response, "on December 21, ABC Inc., a subsidiary of the Disney-ABC Television Group, apparently issued a cease-and-desist letter targeting Spocko and his blog for copyright violation. Specifically, ABC alleged that by posting brief audio clips of various talk radio hosts on KSFO, the site was 'in clear violation' of the station's copyright. The letter demanded that the owner of the site 'remove the content immediately.' Soon after, according to Spocko, his Internet service provider shut down his blog." The major media has yet to report on this story. In related news, ABC News announced this week that right-wing talk show host Glenn Beck will soon join Good Morning America as a "regular commentator." Beck has a history of inflammatory and offensive remarks. During an interview with Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Beck said "what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'" On another occasion, Beck said that if "Muslims and Arabs" don't "act now" by "step[ping] to the plate" to condemn terrorism, they "will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West."

ADMINISTRATION -- MULTIPLE BUSH NOMINEES WITHDRAWN IN 'CONCESSION TO POLITICAL REALITY': "In an apparent effort to lower the temperature in the fierce battle over federal judges -- and in a concession to political reality," President Bush "won't rename four controversial federal appeals court nominees whose confirmations were blocked last year." "William Haynes, William G. Myers III and Michael Wallace all asked to have their appointments withdrawn, these officials said. Judge Terrence Boyle was informed of the White House's decision." "Haynes is the Pentagon's top lawyer, and was an architect of the Bush's now-abandoned policy toward treatment of detainees... He had been tapped for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals." "Myers, nominated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sparked opposition from environmentalist organizations." Wallace drew opposition from "civil rights groups and the American Bar Association." Boyle's nomination to the 4th Circuit drew opposition because of "his rulings in civil rights and disability cases, as well as his higher-than-average reversal rate by higher courts." In addition, Kenneth Tomlinson "has told the president that he would rather write a book about his experiences than undergo another confirmation process" to become chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Fox News reported. Tomlinson previously "headed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but was forced to step down from that organization after an inspector general’s report in 2005 found evidence that he had violated rules meant to insulate public television and radio from political influence."

From Common Cause.

MySpace has censored our ad about the dangers of media consolidation.

Common Cause members have already sent tens of thousands of messages to the FCC - but in this final week before the deadline, we wanted to advertise on high-traffic websites to recruit new activists. Outrageously, MySpace told us that they "won't allow that to be shown." (The ad we submitted is below.)

Maybe MySpace doesn't want the word getting out about proposed changes to the ownership rules because they themselves are owned by a media conglomerate. In 2005, MySpace was gobbled up by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which also owns Fox.

Their refusal proves our point: Big Media has too much control over what the public hears, sees and watches -- and we need to let the FCC know it.

While MySpace's decision is disappointing, there is still time to tell the FCC 'no more media consolidation' . But we need to move fast, and we need your input.

1. Go to CommonBlog and vote for the sites where you think we should place our ad. Time is short; we need to get this together in the next 24 hours.

2. If you are a MySpace user, put our ad up on your own Myspace page, or on any other website or blog you are active with.

3. Make a financial contribution. The more money we raise, the more outreach we can conduct. We need to show the FCC how important this issue is to the public.

From Grist on-line.

Dirty diesel generators proliferate in developing countries

The good news: Access to electricity is spreading to previously unserved areas, allowing residents of rural villages to grow more crops with electrically powered irrigation pumps and connect to the rest of the world through television. The bad news: The most common power source for these communities is filthy diesel generators, which pollute the air in previously clean areas. When the choice is between clean air and TV, guess which wins? Generous government subsidies for diesel and kerosene don't help matters. But some clean, renewable energy sources are making inroads into poor, rural areas -- solar water heaters, solar-powered lanterns, biomass generators, tiny hydroelectric dams. The trick is getting locals to try something new -- and getting foreign governments and foreign-aid organizations to follow up and carry through after they introduce new equipment and technologies to communities.

christymarx.com | site map | Christy Marx: Writing Credits