CBS Refuses to Air the Best Super Bowl Commercial

Congrats CBS, now people will really want to know what this ad is about.

Moveon.org, the left-leaning organization whose political advertisement critical of President Bush was rejected by CBS for broadcast during the Super Bowl, is hoping to air the ad on CNN during halftime on Sunday.

Moveon.org said Thursday it has a "lock" on two airtimes during halftime. A CNN spokesman confirmed that the ad would air Sunday but could not say precisely when.

The advocacy group has been waging a public campaign to force CBS to air the ad--for which Moveon.org is willing to pay the $1.6 million asking price--during what is traditionally the most-watched television event of the year. CBS, which like all the broadcast networks has a long-standing policy against issue advertising, rejected the ad last week.

"It looks like censorship to us," said Eli Pariser, campaign director for Moveon.org. "[CBS is] saying political ideas have no place in this show, which is the nation's best advertising opportunity."

Pariser said Moveon.org would encourage its members to switch to CNN during halftime to watch the ad, which has been airing on the news network for a week. CNN averaged 878,000 viewers in prime time last week, according to Nielsen Media Research. By contrast, 88,637,000 people watched the Super Bowl last year.

The ad, called "Child's Pay," is a 30-second spot featuring children working as janitors, dishwashers and garbage collectors with the caption, "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?"

CBS pointed to its policy, enforced numerous times over the years, of not selling network time for advocacy ads.

Martin Franks, an executive vice president for CBS whose duties include vetting ads, said Thursday that "it does seem rare for a television network to be turning away money for stated reasons of principle. But it does happen to be the case. This is a substantial marketplace, at least at the network level, that we have declined."

CBS has been deluged with calls from Moveon.org supporters, and 20 members of Congress wrote to Moonves last week accusing him of censorship and of "bowing to the wishes of the Republican National Committee."

The networks' advertising policies do not apply to local stations, which share advertising time with networks and many of which regularly air issue ads. If Moveon.org chose to, it could buy time station by station and reach the same audience during the Super Bowl, but Pariser said the organization would not do so.

"If CBS isn't willing to take our money, we're not going to give it to their stations," he said.
- posted by a Vet @ 2:49 PM -

 
Another Chink Removed from the Patriot Act

Little by little the excesses of the Patriot Act are being corrected and restoring your freedoms. But this, along with the actions (see Jan 22 blog entry below) being taken in many of our communities around the country, is just the beginning of what needs to be done to undo the biggest of the Big Brother Acts and its even nastier sister, Patriot Act II, coming your way - as we look the other way.

A federal judge in Los Angeles has struck down as too vague part of the Patriot Act that bars providing "expert advice and assistance" to foreign terrorist groups -- marking the first time a court has declared part of the law unconstitutional.

"The ruling is significant in that it strikes the statute down as being in violation of the Fifth and First Amendments," David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case for the Humanitarian Law Project.

"It underscores what so many have said all along about the Patriot Act -- that Congress, in acting so hastily after 9-11, swept far too broadly and didn't pay significant attention to constitutional rights and liberties," he said.

"The Patriot Act is an essential tool in the war on terror, and has played a key part -- and often the leading role -- in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life," Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said.

"The provision at issue in today's decision was a modest amendment to a preexisting anti-terrorism law that was designed to deal with real threats caused by support of terrorist groups," he said.

"By targeting those who provide material support by providing 'expert advice or assistance,' the law made clear that Americans are threatened as much by the person who teaches a terrorist to build a bomb as by the one who pushes the button."

Collins, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in her 36-page ruling, which was made public on Monday, that the Patriot Act was too vague when it attempted to bar "expert advice or assistance" to groups designated as terrorist by the U.S. government.

What wasn't said in this report was that the act made no distinction between those who knowingly give money to known terrorist groups and those who unknowingly give to groups posing as charities, but who also give money to terrorist groups. Your Attorney General will say that we have nothing to worry about with this part of the Patriot Act, and that the court went too far. The difference between freedom, and the lack thereof, escapes him.
- posted by a Vet @ 7:55 AM -

 
A Disabled Veteran Speaks Out

"Disabled Retirees Win Partial Victory."

This is the headline used by the Disabled American Veterans in the January/February edition of the DAV Magazine, to declare victory in the battle for concurrent receipt for disabled retirees. A disabled vet speaks his mind.

"This is not a victory, partial or otherwise. When hundreds of thousands of veterans are still left behind with this legislation, these are essentially mere scraps being thrown to the floor to satisfy an otherwise obedient dog.

"Allowing certain military retirees to receive both their longevity retired pay and veterans disability compensation is a positive step forward," said DAV National Commander Alan W. Bowers. "But it falls short of full victory on the issue of concurrent receipt, and we're not going to give up the fight for those veterans who have not been included." Joseph A. Violante, DAV National Legislative Director, agreed.

"The DAV and other veterans groups have had to push and prod lawmakers to end this century-long injustice toward disabled military retirees. And while the compromise is welcome news for some of the nation's most severely disabled veterans, it fails to provide a full measure of justice for thousands of others."

House Resolution 303, proposed by Representative Mike Bilirakis (R-Fla.), and companion legislation, S. 92, proposed by Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), would have provided full and unfettered concurrent receipt for all disabled retirees, not simply those who are receiving compensation as a result of combat, or combat-related training.

[Under the new law just passed, however] a veteran who receives a 100% disability compensation rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs, might well discover his or her service branch has determined only a certain percentage of their disability rating is combat-related, essentially denying the veteran full concurrent receipt.

A great many of the veterans who have yet to receive a "full measure of justice" are members of the DAV, and have supported this organization through their dues, raffles, and other fund-raising efforts by the DAV. Supporting legislation which left many of their members out of the loop is disheartening. An attitude which declares "something is better than nothing" is a disservice all veterans who have served this nation.

Remember, veterans, concurrent receipt had been consistently fought by the Bush administration, noted several times on this blog previously. Then Mr. Bush took credit for passing this defective bill that leaves out many deserving veterans. The job is not finished yet, even though some well meaning veterans organizations also want to now leave this issue behind.
- posted by a Vet @ 7:32 AM -

 
Homeless Vets, Revisited


Dorothy Sanchez admitted she should have known better.

But the County Board member, D-Aurora, said recent developments have opened her eyes to a problem she did not realize was as critical as it is: homeless veterans.

She said the realization came as she watched Democratic Party presidential candidates donating to a homeless shelter for veterans in Iowa.

"I'll be the first to admit I did not realize the situation," Sanchez said Monday at a County Board Public Service Committee meeting. "You just assume that people who go to fight for this country are cared for. When you find out they're not, it's nauseating. They risked their lives, and now they're homeless, and we can't do enough about it?"

Her comments were made to John Carr, Kane County Veterans Affairs office director, who said estimates are that of the about 3,000 homeless people in Kane County, 1,000 are veterans. That one-third ratio holds true nationally, Carr said. There are 26,480 veterans living in Kane County, he added, the seventh most in the state.

Carr said his office has an outreach program for homeless vets, so they at least can get the benefits and medical care they have coming to them. He said it is a long-standing problem for which there is no easy solution.

"We have a largely mobile society," Carr said. "When people go from one place to another, certain benefits may not be available. When veterans leave the military, some don't have a place to come back to."

He pointed out that military pay is not hefty — there are plenty of military families who qualify for food stamps, he said. Also, many veterans suffer from mental illness or substance abuse, a key contributor to homelessness in general, he said.

He said "a very large block of veterans are moving through the system" at one time. They run the gamut, from World War II veterans who average 80 years old, to Vietnam vets who average 54 years old. Korean War veterans are in between. He said there are about 15 million veterans in the country who saw some type of combat.

"Unfortunately, as we all know, there are only so much resources to go around," Carr said. "When you put programs together, no matter how you make the guidelines, there's always someone on the outside."

They've earned it.


Carr said in addition to homeless veterans, there are more who "are hanging by their fingernails."

"For those on the verge of becoming homeless, we have a financial assistance program," he said. "We try to get to them before they are evicted."

Sanchez said this should be a time particularly attune to the problems of veterans, with a war going on and more coming home. Board member Jack Cook, R-Elgin, himself a veteran, said the public is "apathetic" in dealing with the veteran population.

"We in society tend not to think about things until it affects us. There are those who argue that veterans are a special interest group. Well, that's true, they are. But the difference is, they've earned the benefits."

As detailed here before, veterans are more than 3 times likely to be homeless than anyone else. If you want to find out more, see the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans website.
- posted by a Vet @ 8:27 AM -

 
Surely, You Thought, This Was Fixed Months Ago - It Wasn't...

With the biggest troop rotation since World War II under way, Pentagon officials told a House panel Wednesday they would do whatever it takes to avoid the mistakes that last year left sick and injured troops at U.S. bases waiting weeks and months for doctors. Many had served in Iraq.


The Pentagon and the Army have still not fixed the problem of wounded and sick GIs at Ft. Stewart and other places, noted here several times (see Oct 21 blog post in archives). The Acting Secretary of the Army then said they would "study" the issue. This blog said that wasn't responsive enough for our people coming back from a war zone. Now the Army Surgeon General says that he didn't know there was a problem.

The solutions include moving ill soldiers from steamy cement barracks without running water into nearby hotels, adding more doctors and setting aside $77 million to improve conditions.

"We recognize that last fall, we temporarily lost sight of the situation," Daniel Denning, an assistant secretary of the Army, told the House Total Force Subcommittee Wednesday.

"It is likely that during this period of force rotations, patient loads at some installations may exceed local capacity," Denning said. "The Army has developed a series of options to handle this surge. The Army will be successful."

Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. James B. Peake told the panel he "was not aware" last fall that soldiers were waiting for medical care at U.S. bases in substandard living conditions.

United Press International first reported last October that more than 1,000 National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers at Fort Stewart and Fort Knox, including hundreds who served in Iraq, were waiting weeks and months in "medical hold" to see doctors. At Fort Stewart in Georgia, many waited in hot concrete barracks with no air-conditioning or running water.

Soldiers complained they were being treated like "second-class citizens" compared with active duty soldiers, and vowed to leave the Army after years of service.

"In October of last year a series of articles revealed that many mobilized Reserve and National Guard soldiers in a medical holdover status felt the Army was not treating them as equals to their active component counterparts," said Chairman John McHugh, R-N.Y. "The articles described substandard living conditions at two Army posts in particular -- Fort Stewart, Ga., and Fort Knox, Ky."

"Many of the ill and injured soldiers interviewed at these posts reported having to wait for long periods of time -- sometimes weeks or months -- before receiving the medical care they needed," said McHugh.

Sgt. Craig Allen LaChance, a soldier who was on medical hold at Fort Stewart, told the panel that it "took months to get appointments" with specialists while sick, injured and ill soldiers waited in what he said were substandard barracks. "We lived in deplorable conditions," LaChance said. "We were made to feel like we had failed the Army."

Col. Keith Armstrong, garrison commander at Fort Knox, told the committee "we were stretched pretty thin" last fall. Fort Stewart Garrison Commander Col. John M. Kidd said, "We recognized that we had some difficulty here. We recognized that we had a problem with medical hold."

Both commanders said they had asked for help from the Army and both described it as slow in coming.

During the first four months of this year, between 200,000 and 250,000 soldiers, including 120,000 reservists, will be going to or returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to the Pentagon.
The garrison commanders and Army officials described a flurry of initiatives that they said assure the medical hold problem does not occur again.

-- At problem bases like Fort Stewart, the Army opened a Troop Medical Clinic to provide additional health care by doctors, case managers and other professionals. Soldiers at Fort Knox have been moved out of the worst barracks. At Fort Stewart, many are in hotels as far as 50 miles away to keep them out of cement training barracks while ill.

-- The Army has implemented a 25-day rule so that Reserve or Guard troops who show up at bases to go to war and are sick are sent back home within 25 days. Part of the problem was that many soldiers showed up unfit for duty in the first place, further clogging health care facilities at mobilization sites like Fort Stewart and Fort Knox.

-- The Pentagon has set aside $77 million to improve medical hold problems.
McHugh said Congress would be watching closely to make sure the Pentagon fixes the problems during the next, massive troop rotation. "I think we can reasonably anticipate what the challenges are going to be," he said.

It's outrageous to have to have to say this again four months later. There is no excuse. Stop talking about it, and get it fixed!

- posted by a Vet @ 7:45 AM -

 
"Blind Into Baghdad"

The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a debacle not because the government did no planning but because a vast amount of expert planning was willfully ignored by the people in charge.

Failure of leadership from Mr. Bush and his administration has been a key theme pursued on this blog for the last several months. Now, in an extensively researched account by James Fallows in The Atlantic, we find more detailed evidence, summarized in excerpts below from the 20-page article, that:

Not only was the war in Iraq a massive failure of judgment and personal agendas, but we also have the proof verifying that the tangled web of post-war problems was expected and predicted - and could have been avoided. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, chose not to listen.

This blog post is a little longer than most on this site, but hang in there.


Leadership is always a balance between making large choices and being aware of details. George W. Bush has an obvious preference for large choices. This gave him his chance for greatness after the September 11 attacks. But his lack of curiosity about significant details may be his fatal weakness. When the decisions of the past eighteen months are assessed and judged, the Administration will be found wanting for its carelessness. Because of warnings it chose to ignore, it squandered American prestige, fortune, and lives.

The Administration could not have known everything about what it would find in Iraq. But it could have—and should have—done far more than it did.

Almost everything, good and bad, that has happened in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime was the subject of extensive pre-war discussion and analysis. This is particularly true of what have proved to be the harshest realities for the United States since the fall of Baghdad: that occupying the country is much more difficult than conquering it; that a breakdown in public order can jeopardize every other goal; that the ambition of patiently nurturing a new democracy is at odds with the desire to turn control over to the Iraqis quickly and get U.S. troops out; that the Sunni center of the country is the main security problem; that with each passing day Americans risk being seen less as liberators and more as occupiers, and targets.

All this, and much more, was laid out in detail and in writing long before the U.S. government made the final decision to attack… the Administration will be condemned for what it did with what was known. The problems the United States has encountered are precisely the ones its own expert agencies warned against. And the ongoing financial, diplomatic, and human cost of the Iraq occupation is the more grievous in light of advance warnings the government had…But during the months when the Administration was making its case for the war—successfully to Congress, less so to the United Nations—it acted as if the long run should be thought about only later on.

And yet, from the beginning, the administration ignored the evidence from a variety of sources, and pursued its own path, flagrantly disregarding the facts before them, as well as the advice from an overwhelming number of experts, inside and outside the government.


From the beginning, there was also disagreement among senior administration officials.


One week before Labor Day [2002], while President Bush was at his ranch in Texas, Vice President Cheney gave a speech at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Nashville. "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction [and that he will use them] against our friends, against our allies, and against us," Cheney said. Time was running out, he concluded, for America to remove this threat. A few days later CNN quoted a source "intimately familiar with [Colin] Powell's thinking" as saying that Powell was still insistent on the need for allied support and would oppose any war in which the United States would "go it alone ... as if it doesn't give a damn" about other nations' views.

The experts began to weigh in – to help, only to be ignored.

The NGOs [nongovernmental agencies, e.g. relief agencies] had experience dealing with a reality that has not fully sunk in for most of the American public. "But we were corrected when we raised this point. The American troops would be 'liberators' rather than 'occupiers,' so the obligations [of the Geneva Conventions] did not apply. Our point was not to pass judgment on the military action but to describe the responsibilities."


The civilian leadership in the Defense Department refused to let senior military officers into the planning or give their points of view. No, we’re not talking about Vietnam…


There was no concealing the hostility within the Pentagon between most uniformed leaders, especially in the Army, and the civilians in [the Defense Department]. The military-civilian difference finally turned on the question of which would be harder: winning the war or maintaining the peace …Cheney three days before the war began, in an exchange with Tim Russert on Meet the Press [said]:

RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

CHENEY: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators ... The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.


Fallows then says, Through the 1990s Marine General Anthony Zinni [former CENTCOM commander], …told me, because of reasoning like Cheney's, "we went in with the minimum force to accomplish the military objectives, which was a straightforward task, never really in question. And then we immediately found ourselves shorthanded in the aftermath. We sat there and watched people dismantle and run off with the country."

Additionally, the Bush administration refused to put a dollar figure on war operations and the aftermath, because they didn’t want to be derailed. Rumsfeld refused to answer questions on what he thought the aftermath of Iraq would look like. Instead he stated that it was impossible to predict such things because of the uncertainty involved. This is strategic planning?


When Administration officials stopped being vague, they started being unrealistic. On March 27, eight days into combat, members of the House Appropriations Committee asked Paul Wolfowitz for a figure. He told them that whatever it was, Iraq's oil supplies would keep it low. "There's a lot of money to pay for this," he said. "It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money…Only in September did President Bush make his request for a supplemental appropriation of $87 billion for operations in Iraq.


In the first of what would be a series of stinging reports, the Army War College, took the administration to task – unheard of by a military think tank during a current administration’s activities.


By the end of [Dec 2002] the War College team had [also concluded]:
“Long-term gratitude is unlikely and suspicion of U.S. motives will increase as the occupation continues. A force initially viewed as liberators can rapidly be relegated to the status of invaders should an unwelcome occupation continue for a prolonged time. Occupation problems may be especially acute if the United States must implement the bulk of the occupation itself rather than turn these duties over to a postwar international force.”

Fallows notes: If these views about the risk of disorder and the short welcome that Americans would enjoy sound familiar, that is because every organization that looked seriously into the situation sounded the same note.

Mr. Bush’s leadership failed, not only in judgment, but in the actions of his advisors.


This is the place to note that in several months of interviews I never once heard someone say "We took this step because the President indicated ..." or "The President really wanted ..." Instead I heard "Rumsfeld wanted," "Powell thought," "The Vice President pushed," "Bremer asked," and so on.

The other conspicuously absent figure was Condoleezza Rice, even after she was supposedly put in charge of coordinating Administration policy on Iraq, last October. It is possible that the President's confidants are so discreet that they have kept all his decisions and instructions secret. But that would run counter to the fundamental nature of bureaucratic Washington, where people cite a President's authority whenever they possibly can ("The President feels strongly about this, so ...").

To me, the more likely inference is that Bush took a strong overall position—fighting terrorism is this generation's challenge—and then was exposed to only a narrow range of options worked out by the contending forces within his Administration. If this interpretation proves to be right, and if Bush did in fact wish to know more, then blame will fall on those whose responsibility it was to present him with the widest range of choices: Cheney and Rice…What David Halberstam said of Robert McNamara in The Best and the Brightest is true of those at OSD as well: they were brilliant, and they were fools.


Fallows is right in his comparison to McNamara and Vietnam, but that doesn’t excuse where Mr. Bush has led us: the lives and injuries it has cost, the damage to our military structure, the standing we have lost in the world, an out-of-control budget, and the massive split among our people – straight through the heart.


On March 19 the first bombs fell on Baghdad.



- posted by a Vet @ 9:25 AM -

 
As Yogi Berra Used to Say: "It's Not Over 'til the Fat Lady Sings."

UPDATE now included on this post, first published Saturday.

This blog was admonished by another vet to not chill out for the whole weekend, especially with New Hampshire coming on Tuesday. What, he asked, needed to be said to encourage the "troops" - the veterans and everyone else out there wanting to press on, or come on board, with Howard Dean. He's right, and here's how I would rally the troops at this point:

As far as New Hampshire, having lived there, the good news for Gov Dean is that they (the New Hampshirites) take pride in not following the lead of Iowa - and 25%+ are still undecided. The media are all quoting the Boston Globe survey (um, do you think they are for their Senator?). It's now more of an uphill battle, and there isn't much time there. But those of you who live in New England know that the New Hampshirites have a visceral hate for anything and anybody from Massachusetts (and vice versa). And, despite the nonsense coming from the talking heads, my opinion is that Gov Dean isn't dropping out anytime soon after NH, no matter what happens there - not with $40 million (rising a lot every day) and a great organization going in every state.

This is not unlike a military operation - and it ain't over yet, not by a long shot.

Pessimists and trolls aside, look for a turn-around in the polls begin to happen starting this weekend across the country for Gov Dean - let's start it in New Hampshire.

UPDATE: OK, this blog won't say "I told you so" - but it's true: Democratic presidential contender John Kerry [now only] holds a shrinking three-point lead over Howard Dean on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, according to a Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby poll released Monday.

Dean shaved four points off Kerry's advantage in the latest three-day tracking poll, as supporters who wavered after his dismal third-place Iowa finish and screaming concession speech appeared to be returning to the fold.

Kerry led Dean 31 percent to 28 percent in the new poll, with John Edwards jumping three points to narrowly trail Wesley Clark for third place, 13 percent to 12 percent. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman remained static at 9 percent.

"There is no question that the race has tightened up," pollster John Zogby said. "Dean stopped the bleeding in the middle of the week and he has slowly regained some of the support he had lost."
- posted by a Vet @ 8:40 AM -

 
The New Acronym

Forget Weapons of Mass Destruction. A high school friend suggested a new acronym since we are all tired of WMD. What we need now is WMDRPAFPFA - Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Program Activities for Possible Future Application.

UPDATE: Colin Powell says it's an "open question" whether Iraq had WMD. Notice where this disclosure was made: in Georgia - no, not in Atlanta, but in Tbilisi, part of the former Soviet Union. The only place further away, with a U.S. presence, to make the announcement, was Mars.

- posted by a Vet @ 7:27 AM -

 
First on Mr. Bush's Agenda - Renew the Patriot Act

The applause was approving and rowdy, only not at a place in his speech that he expected. Mr. Bush had just said, in the annual State of the Union (SOTU), that the Patriot Act was due to expire next year. Several times the Democrats let him know that that's what should happen.

The rest of the country isn't waiting. In an unprecedented show of defiance, we are pushing back against this law which significantly restricts our freedoms. Waiting for just such a chance, the Patriot Act was shoved through an uninformed and unaware Congress just a few days after 9/11. It played on the sympathies of all of us after the terrorist attack. It's sister, Patriot Act II is being sneaked into other laws bit by bit. But now cities, and even whole states, are rejecting the Patriot Act - the law's nastiness outweighs the benefits it provides to law enforcement.

Resistance to Patriot Act Gaining Ground - Foes Organizing in Communities
By Thanassis Cambanis

More than two centuries ago, the patriots of Brewster shut down the Colonial courts on Cape Cod in one of the first acts of resistance against the tyrannical rule of King George III.

Now, deliberately evoking its Revolutionary history, Brewster Town Meeting has formally condemned the antiterrorist USA Patriot Act, united against the laws of a different leader named George.

While the act is largely symbolic -- federal law enforcement agencies, not local governments, enforce the Patriot Act's new search, seizure, and detention provisions -- the grass-roots opposition has forged an unlikely alliance of people angry at Washington's domestic handling of the war on terror. In Brewster, anger at the Patriot Act has drawn together libertarians, an antitax group, and a Unitarian congregation, as well as a more traditional coalition of civil libertarians and antiwar activists.

A similar story has already played out in 16 Massachusetts communities, and 16 more, including Salem, Waltham, Watertown, Gloucester, Beverly, and Bedford are preparing measures against the Patriot Act this spring.

Opponents of the antiterrorism measure say the nascent bipartisan groundswell in communities across the nation signals a growing dissatisfaction with the expansion of federal powers -- and will reshape the national debate if it continues to accelerate with support from disparate groups, from gun owners to librarians to fiscal conservatives.

The burgeoning nationwide movement has prompted three state governments, and 236 communities in 37 states, to pass resolutions against the Patriot Act. If the backlash continues to grow, opponents of the Patriot Act believe, their momentum will force Congress and the White House to address some of the law's unpopular elements.

"If anyone takes time to read the Patriot Act, there's no question that our First Amendment rights are being eroded," said James Geisler, treasurer of the Brewster Taxpayers Association, a 52-year-old group whose mission is to curtail government spending.

His family has been Republican "for a hundred years," Geisler said. But it was loyalty to the Constitution, not party politics, that drove the Taxpayers Association's board of directors to support the ultimately popular Brewster resolution.

Across the Commonwealth, Republicans, gun lobbyists, and libertarians have taken up the call against the Patriot Act. So have a cadre of previously apolitical people such as Jake Beal, 25, a self-described computer nerd who is now leading the drive for a resolution against the Patriot Act in Somerville.

"It's the first political issue I've taken an active stand in," said Beal, an MIT graduate student who characterizes himself as a conservative Democrat.

He was spurred to action after hearing the sheriff in his hometown of Portland, Maine, describe the federal government's new powers at a forum one year ago. The sheriff said immigration officials took a detainee suspected of terrorist activity to an undisclosed location and never told the detainee's family -- or local law enforcement officials -- where the suspect was taken or what charges he faced.

The Somerville group has collected 1,200 petition signatures and said the City Council is likely to consider the measure next month.

"These local efforts will build up the pressure nationally," Beal said. "Wouldn't you like to live in a community where you know that nobody is going to get `disappeared' by the federal government?"

Local resolutions aren't the only vehicle of grass-roots fervor.

Dozens of Commonwealth libraries have purged lending records -- or stopped keeping them -- to protect patrons from federal agents newly empowered to monitor their reading habits.

"What people read is their own business, and as professional librarians we don't feel it's appropriate to share that information," said Ann Montgomery Smith, librarian at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth and president of the Massachusetts Conference of Chief Librarians of Public Higher Educational Institutions.

At her university library, Smith changed the computer system so that lending records are erased as soon as a book is returned.

The US Department of Justice says that such alarm over the Patriot Act is unfounded. Attorney General John Ashcroft, in Boston in September on a nationwide speaking tour to rally support for the legislation, said critics misrepresent the law.

Federal law enforcement officials in Massachusetts have said that they rarely, if ever, use the most controversial provisions of the act -- such as the measure allowing federal agents to secretly subpoena library records, or "sneak-and-peek" warrants that allow investigators to conduct a secret search.

Those assertions have done little to allay the increasing anxiety over the Patriot Act, which in New England has drawn in equal measures on strains of Yankee independence, social libertarianism, and liberal progressivism.

In New Hampshire last week, the Legislature began debating a bill to nullify the Patriot Act, sponsored by four Republican representatives who see the legislation as part of a larger trend of federal law overwhelming the independence of states.

The Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union is quietly paving the way for a statewide resolution, said Nancy Murray, who follows the issue for the union. Murray said that as more and more municipalities pass resolutions, state lawmakers will be compelled to follow suit. Alice Weiss, 62, began the petition drive that led to Brewster's resolution. She found that people she considered politically conservative quickly made it a common cause once they read the Patriot Act. It was after a session in the library studying the text of the bill with Weiss that the conservative Taxpayers Union secretary decided to back the anti-Patriot Act campaign.

"This is not a liberal town," Weiss said. "I was amazed at the support we got."
- posted by a Vet @ 8:05 AM -

 
The State of the Union Scorecard Results

There will be more to be discussed here about the speech in the coming days, but one thing was agreed upon by the news talking heads last night: the issues will be clear and so will the differences. Mr. Bush said that, take it or leave it, these are the elements of his foreign policy: Pre-emptive Wars, Regime Changes, the Patriot Act, threats to Iran and North Korea, and no diplomacy is OK because it takes too long to get results. This is a reckless, arrogant foreign policy which has every opportunity to lay the groundwork and incentives for more terrorism in the future. But clothed in the flag and 9/11, you can't possibly be a patriot if you disagree with it.

Did you notice the support of Veterans, our Reserves, and National Guard was a crucial element - of the Democratic response. Mr. Bush never said a word about this country's commitment to its veterans and its citizen soldiers. "Support your Troops" means more than giving active duty forces the equipment they need (and that hasn't even been done well to date). "Support Your Troops" also means support your veterans, and the people you rip away from their civilian jobs. How much more evidence do you need to see that "Support your Troops" is not a true high priority with this administration?
- posted by a Vet @ 12:23 AM -

 
The State of the Union Scorecard

I know, many of you don't want to look at Mr. Bush's face or hear him tonight, but it's important to do so. One good way to help you know the opponent better for November is to understand how to beat him. Using this "scorecard" tonight is one good way to do so. But add one more topic: Support of veterans, active duty military, the Reserves and National Guard.
- posted by a Vet @ 7:47 AM -

 
New Hampshire

So, the question this morning is: how will the Dean campaign react to last night in Iowa? The self-fulfilling prophecy, mentioned yesterday, may or may not yet happen. Of all the blathering analysis, one comment stood out as important: the top 3 can go out of Iowa still confident. But Iowa has not been a very good predictor of the final results at the convention. However, New Hampshire is much more so of a predictor, with only the top two realistically having enough momentum to generate a lot of continuing optimism and support to carry on. The odds from past elections say that's not enough: you should win one of the two or it gets difficult after that. Gov Dean is going to have to find a way to win New Hampshire or come in a very close second - and shed the negative perceptions of himself.

The makeup of the election process has changed from the past, largely due to the campaign methods of Gov Dean - and the strategies are changing overall. So the impact of Iowa and New Hampshire may also play less of a role as candidates pick and chose which ones they will enter. Gov Dean does have the advantage of the best organization and the money to go on for a long time, something that no candidate has ever had the same ability to do effectively past Iowa and New Hampshire. As Yogi Berra once said (supposedly), "It ain't over 'til it's over."
- posted by a Vet @ 7:39 AM -

 
Iowa

It's time to start making your choice for the Democrat candidate who will beat George Bush, beginning in Iowa.

The media frenzy to knock Howard Dean out the race is reaching it's frenzy. Starting several months ago with Mr. Bush, the Democratic party leadership and insiders, and the media, Gov Dean has been labeled as "angry" , "mean", "ill-tempered", and any other related words they can think of.

They grant that Gov Dean has the best organization, but that he "can't win against Bush." Many in the media have picked up on these claims and are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, to force Gov Dean out of the race. Some cover their tail so they can't be wrong and go to amazing mental gymnastics to do so - like O'Reilly this morning, who declared that Dean is out of the race as of today - even if he wins Iowa - figure that one out.

Now these folks think they control you (the inference being that you can't think for yourself) and will ultimately influence how you vote. The question is: will they?

There's no doubt that's where O'Reilly, for example, is coming from. Since Gov Dean won't bow to O'Reilly's demands to come on his show, O'Reilly can't figure why someone would not talk to him, and arrogantly and pompously attacks the governor every day.

Think about the terms being used - none of them relate to Gov Dean's stand on the issues, because the media and other candidates are having trouble countering his arguments on the issues.

Let's talk about "anger." Are the other candidates showing "anger" about what Mr. Bush has done in Iraq and to this country? You bet they have - all through the debates. If they didn't, no one would give them a second thought. But the distortions just begin there, because Gov Dean's passion and determination are always translated as "anger."

There's a certain irony in all this. The term "mean-spirited" has been justifiably used to describe Mr. Bush many times since before the 2000 election. Mr. Bush, and some of Gov Dean's opponents and the media have usurped the term which has now become "anger". And "anger" is interpreted to be politically incorrect - and it's the only emotion that Gov Dean's opponents accuse him of having.

So the first question is: what about the issues, voters? Or does the name calling have more weight with you?

Secondly, the cry that "Gov Dean can't beat Mr Bush" is hollow in that none of the other candidates have convinced us they can do so better than Gov Dean. And here, if you are thinking rationally, is where this argument falls on its head: everyone of the candidates and the media, as mentioned above, grants that Gov Dean has the best organization and funding. What does it take to beat George Bush? Organization & funding - and of course the belief in the candidate.

Thirdly, for veterans especially, beginning with veterans who are going to the Iowa caucuses tonight: check out any of the "veterans" sections for each candidate on their internet sites. Even the ones who are pushing their veteran's status have just a couple of paragraphs of generalities. Compare that to the detailed issue statements of Gov Dean on veterans and his strong national defense policy.

So it's now up to you veterans, and other voters, to weed through the name calling, look closely at the issue positions, and decide who has the passion, ability, and means to lead this country and beat George Bush. This is serious business, but it will be fun to watch.
- posted by a Vet @ 10:45 AM -

 
Halliburton on Mars

The cartoons were rampant a couple of days ago, joking that the administration would probably give Mars exploitation contracts to Halliburton. It's no joke. More dollars for the friends of Mssrs. Bush & Cheney are on the way, but the two of them long ago stopped worrying about what you think of the money trail between them and their buddies:

If there is life on Mars, it would probably be microorganisms in water deep below the surface of the planet. Dr. Geoffrey Briggs, director, Center for Mars Exploration at the NASA Ames Center, told “Meet Alaska” that NASA is looking at ways to drill on Mars to look for water — and the life it might contain.

Briggs said NASA has been working with Halliburton, Shell, Baker-Hughes and the Los Alamos National Laboratory to identify drilling technologies that might work on Mars.

The first goal, he said, would be “to drill a hole down into the permafrost, maybe 100 meters as a trial of the technology; ultimately we want to go to several kilometers.”

The earliest drilling opportunity would be 2007, and one of the problems will be power. A very power-efficient system might cut out cores a meter at a time, Briggs said, perhaps grinding away at material needed to get the core at a rate of one core a day for hundreds of days.

Deeper drilling, into the multi-kilometer range, might occur as part of a 2014 Mars mission which would put astronauts on the planet to assist.

Los Alamos developed a melting tool intended for use in high-technical geothermal drilling, he said, and that’s one of the things NASA is looking at. The melting tool would also “tend to sterilize the hole on the way down” which would help with the problem of contamination issues.

Halliburton and Baker-Hughes are working on some very advanced systems, Briggs said, some so advanced they aren’t willing to talk much about them. He said the NASA Ames Center relies on working with people in the industry who “really understand the problems and make us face up to the realities …

“We do appreciate,” he said, “that this is a non-trivial activity.”
- posted by a Vet @ 11:24 AM -

 
The Scariest Book Out There – Part II

David Frum & Richard Perle are now on a tour to promote their new book, An End to Evil first reviewed here yesterday, which maybe should be renamed How to Continue Evil. Frum & Perle are running into an avalanche of responses - and you get the impression they can't figure out why rational people don't agree with them that America needs to take out several more regimes. Here is one take on the neocons manual for war:

The Neocons' Last Gasp

Perle and Frum are running scared. Despite their bravado, the Iraqi adventure is turning out to be an utter failure. Everything that Perle and Frum told us before the war turned out to be wrong. They said that Iraq was stuffed with weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam maintained close ties to Al Qaeda that U.S. forces would be welcomed in Baghdad with open arms, that Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress would be a popular leader—that the invasion of Iraq would transform of the Middle East. None of that turned out to be true. And even Perle’s claim that Iraq is now better off because of the U.S. invasion isn’t so obvious; should Iraq plummet into civil war, pitting Kurdish warlords against Sunni sheikhs and fundamentalist Shi’ite mullahs, Iraq will be far worse off than it was under Saddam.

Having been responsible for the mess in Iraq, you’d think Perle, Frum & Co. would be a little gun shy. But no. On the theory, perhaps, that the best defense is a good offense, they propose their headlong prescription for Two, Three, Many Iraqs. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Perle, Frum and Co. are worried that America’s appetite for a bullying foreign policy—and America’s ability to stomach neoconservatism—may be wearing off.

Consider this: Perle has been laboring for years to win support for his version of a "muscular" foreign policy, to little avail. It’s not only the left that has resisted him and his friends, it’s the establishment—including the Council on Foreign Relations, the mainstream foreign policy thinktanks and, above all, the foreign affairs veterans at the State Department, the CIA and among the U.S. military. Indeed, Perle and Frum’s plan to "radically reorganize" the U.S. national security bureaucracy is explicitly aimed at defanging the critics of the neocons inside the establishment. Perle and Frum themselves admit, in the book, that they and their friends are a “tiny minority” against the "enormous majority in government who wish to continue to do things as they have always done." Because they are a noisy but influential minority, Perle, Frum et al. are often unfairly characterized as conspiratorial, they write. "It’s no wonder that those few policy makers who have urged a strong policy against terror have been called a 'cabal.'"

In the book, Perle and Frum are at pains to dispel the "myth of the neoconservative cabal." Indeed, cabal may not be the right word. I prefer fraternity. There’s no doubt that Perle and his allies inside and outside of government are a closely knit band who share a history, a worldview and a web of thinktanks, associations and journals that bind them together. For decades, they’ve almost reveled in their outsider status, seeing themselves (not entirely incorrectly) as a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen whose ideas never quite captured the public imagination. In my reporting on the Iraq policy, however, over the past 15 months, it’s become clear to me that the neocons believe that 9/11 changed all that, and that the shock and trauma of the 2001 attacks caused America, and President Bush, to yearn for exactly the kind of muscle-bound foreign policy bullying that the neoconservatives have called for all these years.

It was, at last, their moment in the sun.

Now their fear is that the moment is wearing off. The impact of 9/11 is slowly dissipating. America may be coming to its senses. In a moment of utter shock, America pushed the panic button, and called for a foreign policy directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now, we are all collectively coming out the matinee, rubbing our eyes in the sunlight, and realizing that this is not a movie. This is real life. And—what?—the neocons are running things? All of a sudden, it seems more and more likely that Perle’s "tiny minority" could get the collective boot. That’s infinitely more likely should Iraq’s tottering accomplishment collapse into chaos, and if public concern that President Bush lied about Iraq’s threat to the United States—it’s mythical ties to terrorism and WMD—becomes a major political issue in 2004.

In the end, Perle and Frum make the breathtaking argument that they are fighting for civilization itself, even if civilization doesn’t appreciate it. "We are fighting on behalf of the civilized world," they write. "We will never cease to hope for the civilized world’s support." Well. The civilized world may not be listening to Perle and Frum. The problem is, President Bush is.
- posted by a Vet @ 7:06 AM -

 
The Scariest Book Out There Is Not Your Almanac!

The novelist Stephen King might shake his head in admiration at a book which far outstrips any of his, for fans of horror stories - only this one is non-fiction: An End to Evil, How to Win the War on Terror by David Frum and Richard Perle. Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and a Bush insider, you will remember, made the statement last month that our war with Iraq was illegal but who nevertheless said it was necessary. Perle, Frum, Wolfowitz, Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld, are all hard liners who continue to significantly influence Mr. Bush to consider more pre-emptive invasions and regime changes. Is this the foreign policy you want for your country?

Frum and Perle's new book sets out to justify Bush administration actions in the past and for the future. This blog will take some time in the coming days to lay out their strategy, although you may have trouble sleeping after you read about it. But the point is you should know who is really behind George Bush's thinking, and you should know what they are saying, before you vote again.

You don't need to go to the movies - stand by for your hair to stand on end. Here, among other things are what Perle & Frum are pushing Mr. Bush to do:
- Overthrow Iran's mullahs
- End the regime of Syria
- Regard Saudi Arabia and France as enemies
- Withdraw support from the U.N. "if it does not reform"
- Squeeze China and blockade North Korea
- Abandon the "illusion of a Palestinian state"

In other words, keep us in an aggressive state of warfare for the foreseeable future. And don't forget, that's how they intend to use our troops. Perle and Frum need help, maybe from a mental institution. Don't buy the book yourself - browse through it at your local bookstore. Stephen King's stuff will seem tame afterwards.


- posted by a Vet @ 9:33 AM -

 
Wounded and Disabled American Veterans Fight Back

There are people out there who think that it is a huge exaggeration to say that George Bush is forgetting about veterans. However, this blog has documented a variety of flagrant examples that show there is no exaggeration. And there are some especially grievous injustices, whether or not you are a veteran that at least should arouse your concern and perhaps even your anger (although the media tells us that “anger” is a politically incorrect emotion these days). This is a prime example of why we can’t trust this administration to look out for the best interests of veterans:

Wounded "Held Captive" at Walter Reed

The organization known as Disabled American Veterans has been helping U.S. combat casualties figure out what benefits they have coming to them and how to apply for them since 1920. Lately the Bush administration has been going out of its way to make the DAV's job harder.

Their job would be hard enough even if the government appreciated their efforts and was glad to see them coming. Incredibly, it doesn't and it isn't. Not any more.

An army of U.S. veterans more than twice the size of Operation Iraqi Freedom have lost their health insurance benefits since Bush took office.

Although it hasn't hesitated to send them to face death in Iraq, the administration has consistently opposed any attempt to extend full benefits to Reservists and National Guardsmen, twenty percent of whom have no health insurance by General Accounting Office estimates.

It was one thing when the White House tried to roll back increases in monthly imminent-danger pay and family separation allowance, and another when it called a modest proposal to increase the sum given to families of soldiers who die on active duty "wasteful and unnecessary."

And so now we learn that ever since Operation Iraqi Freedom got underway, it has been easier for a terrorist to get into the United States legally than for a DAV representative to get into a military hospital to help wounded soldiers with their benefit applications. Sickeningly, the Pentagon has been severely limiting DAV access to wounded veterans and doing it on grounds of "security." Oh, yes, and protecting "privacy."

It protects the veterans' privacy by not allowing them to speak with DAV representatives "unmonitored."

Fortunately someone blinked and it wasn't the Disabled American Veterans.

When he got back to the office after celebrating New Year's and opened his mail, Donald Rumsfeld found a letter informing him that he had messed with the wrong people this time.

Here's part of what DAV Washington Headquarters Executive Director David W. Gorman had to say to the Secretary of Defense:

"At one facility in particular [Walter Reed Army Medical Center] our efforts to visit with wounded patients have been severely restricted. For example, all requests to visit patients must now be made through the WRAMC headquarters office, which then selects the patients we may visit and strictly limits information about the patients, even the patient's name and the nature of the injury is withheld without express permission. The DAV's representatives also are escorted at all times while in the facility, and all contact with patients is closely monitored by the escort. This is particularly unnerving and inappropriate as all conversations between a representative and client are confidential in nature.

"I believe these overly broad restrictions on patient access inhibit the ability of our professional accredited representatives to help ensure these wounded service members have the vital information they and their families need in order to obtain the medical care and benefits many of these veterans will depend on for decades to come.

"The American public would be outraged if these restrictions became public knowledge."

[Would they? Hard to tell. There has been little or no coverage in the mainstream media since the DAV released the letter.]
Gorman goes on to say:

Think of it ... wounded veterans "held captive" ... prevented from seeing people who have a congressional charter to serve them ... not allowed to speak with DAV reps in private, lest their "privacy" be violated ... an administration that regards Disabled American Veterans as security risks.

Please note: the DAV is not a political organization with an election agenda. Its only axe to grind is that of helping us veterans to obtain the health and other benefits we are authorized by law, and they have been doing so superbly for 85 years. For example, the DAV Voluntary Service Program also organizes veterans-helping-veterans activities so that those of us more fortunate than our disabled brethren can help them by doing such mundane things as providing transportation to doctors appointments. See the link provided at the right to find out more about the DAV.

The bottom line: The DAV is chartered by Congress to carry out their mission, and they are being prevented from doing so by the Bush administration that is treating hospitalized vets like prisoners of war. This idiocy needs to stop now, period.

- posted by a Vet @ 7:53 AM -

 
Nation's Army War College Slams the War!

Rarely, if ever, have so many retired senior military officers come out in public to criticize current administration policies, but they are now. On top of that, the Army War College, one of our most respected military “think tanks,” is joining the chorus.

A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The report, by visiting professor Jeffrey Record, who is on the faculty of the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point."

It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network.

"[T]he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."

His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government.

But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., the director of the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said.

Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj. Gen. David H. Huntoon Jr., Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom."

Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made before by critics of the administration… But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution.

In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism.

Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew… He also scoffs at the administration's policy, laid out by Bush in a November speech, of seeking to transform and democratize the Middle East. "The potential policy payoff of a democratic and prosperous Middle East, if there is one, almost certainly lies in the very distant future," he writes. "The basis on which this democratic domino theory rests has never been explicated."

He also casts doubts on whether the U.S. government will maintain its commitment to the war. "The political, fiscal, and military sustainability of the GWOT [global war on terrorism] remains to be seen," he states.

Mr. Record's report is courageous, especially considering the source, and is right on the mark. The adventurous, unaffordable war in Iraq (both in people and money) and the effects of its "aftermath" will not go away Mr. Bush. Nor will we forget how we were talked into war based on your agenda, not on any true evidence. More and more veterans are changing their minds about you. It's time to start the ball rolling for a change in the White House, beginning next week with a Gov Dean win in Iowa. You can make this happen Iowans, and happen convincingly.
- posted by a Vet @ 7:59 AM -

 
Keeping Track of Your Loss of Freedoms (Continued)

Because many of you are asking to understand more about the Patriot Act, and now the Bush administration's attempts to surreptitiously pass pieces of the widely denounced Patriot Act II, this blog will continue to keep a focus on your real (not perceived) loss of freedoms as Americans and veterans. Here's another update, this one interestingly from the conservative Washington Times:

The number of Americans coming under scrutiny of the Patriot Act is growing significantly, and so is the number of Americans calling on Congress to repeal or modify the law.

Hundreds of city and county governments across the nation last year initiated the grass-roots effort by passing resolutions declaring they would not cooperate with the federal government in enforcing the law, which they claim undermines civil liberties.

Those voices grew louder last week when the nation's oldest and largest national group of elected municipal government officials, the National League of Cities (NLC), passed a resolution at its annual meeting calling for Congress to repeal parts of the act.

"Cities and towns need a partnership with the federal government on homeland security issues that makes sure we have the resources we need to get the job done but also preserves the liberties that Americans hold dear," Charlie Lyons, NLC president and Arlington, Mass., selectman, said in a written statement.

The NLC members represent 18,000 cities with 225 million residents.

The concerns listed by the NLC mirror those expressed by civil liberties and national librarian organizations, as well as some Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing legislation to overhaul the act, which became law in the month after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Critics question the law's broad powers, such as allowing law enforcement to perform "sneak and peek" searches without notification or anyone present, and permitting FBI officials to obtain records from libraries while prohibiting librarians from notifying the persons involved.

Justice Department officials defend the Patriot Act as a needed tool in the war on terrorism, and say criticism of its use is overblown.

After the American Library Association last year attacked a provision allowing the review of library records, Attorney General John Ashcroft declassified information to show the act had never been used to look at library records.

The resolution passed by the NLC urges the president and Congress to amend the Patriot Act "to restore and protect our nation's fundamental and inalienable rights and liberties."

The group also cited the following concerns:

•The secretary of state is given broad powers to designate domestic groups as "terrorist organizations" and the attorney general has power to subject immigrants to indefinite detention or deportation even if they have committed no crime.
•Public universities are required to collect information on students who may be of interest to the attorney general.
•Law enforcement officials are given broad access to sensitive mental health, library, business, educational and financial records.

Many Americans are encountering the Patriot Act when opening bank accounts. The law requires financial institutions to run the names of customers through the Office of Foreign Asset Control database, which lists people who are known terrorists or who associate with known terrorists.

New bank customers are asked how many wire transactions they expect to make each month. If the reply is five or more, the customer would be reported to the federal government.

The Patriot Act also gives the Treasury Department authority to order financial institutions to search private accounts and transaction records and report suspicious activity.

This information program administered by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is used by federal law enforcement agencies and in 2003 provided data for 64 terrorism financing cases and 124 money-laundering investigations.

"The program enables federal law enforcement agencies, through FinCEN, to reach out to over 29,000 financial institutions to locate accounts and transactions of persons that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering," said a statement posted on FinCEN's Web site.
- posted by a Vet @ 9:34 AM -

 
"Systematic Misrepresentation" - Another Confirmation of the Ultimate Bait-and-Switch by George Bush

At 1215pmEST today, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will release a report confirming the real basis for the war in Iraq. You can hear it at this site.

Bush administration officials "systematically misrepresented" the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to war, according to a new report to be published on Thursday by a respected Washington think-tank.

These distortions, combined with intelligence failures, exaggerated the risks posed by a country that presented no immediate threat to the US, Middle East or global security, the report says.

The study from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace concludes that, though the long-term threat from Iraq could not be ignored, it was being effectively contained by a combination of UN weapons inspections, international sanctions and limited US-led military action.

It says the evidence shows that although Iraq retained ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction, almost all of what had been built had been destroyed long before the war.

Inspectors from the US-led coalition are still seeking evidence of the programs in Iraq. But Joseph Cirincione, director of Carnegie's non-proliferation project, said: "We think it's highly unlikely that there will be any significant finds from now on."

Carnegie is regarded as a moderately left-of-centre think-tank. It opposed the war, saying Iraq's disarmament could be achieved via inspectors, if necessary backed up by force. Mr Cirincione said the report, which took more than six months to compile, was based on hundreds of documents and dozens of interviews with specialists, former weapons inspectors and current and former US officials.

It concludes that before 2002 the US intelligence community appears to have accurately perceived Iraq's nuclear and missile programs, but overestimated the threat from chemical and biological weapons. But it also says that during 2002, published intelligence became excessively politicized.

A "dramatic shift" in intelligence assessments during the year was one sign that "the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in 2002".
The report says administration officials misrepresented the threat in three ways.

They presented nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as a single WMD threat, lumping together the high likelihood that Iraq had chemical weapons with the possibility that it had nuclear weapons, a claim for which there was no serious evidence. The administration also insisted without evidence that Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader, would give WMD to terrorists.

Finally, officials misused intelligence in many ways. "These include the wholesale dropping of caveats, probabilities and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public statements," it says.

The Carnegie assessment concluded: "There is no evidence of any Iraqi nuclear program", contrary to assertions by Dick Cheney, vice-president, and others in 2002. It notes that since the war the US-led coalition has found no chemical weapons or programs and no biological weapons or agents.

The report says the White House approach to the war was based on what it called "worse case reasoning", assuming that what intelligence agencies did not know was worse than what they did know. "Worst-case planning is valid . . . [But] acting on worst-case assumptions is an entirely different matter."

The picture of an Iraqi arsenal existing only on paper is reinforced by an article in Wednesday's Washington Post, based partly on interviews with Iraqi scientists. It said that none of Iraq's weapons programs had got past the planning stage since the 1991 Gulf war.
- posted by a Vet @ 8:43 AM -

 
Patriot Act II Provisions Signed by Mr. Bush While You Watched Saddam’s Teeth & Hair Being Examined

While the nation was distracted last month by images of Saddam Hussein's spider hole and dental exam, President George W. Bush quietly signed into law a new bill that gives the FBI increased surveillance powers and dramatically expands the reach of the USA Patriot Act.

Wait a minute – you thought Patriot Act II was dead, right? Read on:

The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 grants the FBI unprecedented power to obtain records from financial institutions without requiring permission from a judge.

Under the law, the FBI does not need to seek a court order to access such records, nor does it need to prove just cause.

Previously, under the Patriot Act, the FBI had to submit subpoena requests to a federal judge. Intelligence agencies and the Treasury Department, however, could obtain some financial data from banks, credit unions and other financial institutions without a court order or grand jury subpoena if they had the approval of a senior government official.

The new law (see Section 374 of the act), however, lets the FBI acquire these records through an administrative procedure whereby an FBI field agent simply drafts a so-called national security letter stating the information is relevant to a national security investigation.

And the law broadens the definition of "financial institution" to include such businesses as insurance companies, travel agencies, real estate agents, stockbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service and even jewelry stores, casinos and car dealerships.

The law also prohibits subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of their transactions.
Bush signed the bill on Dec. 13, a Saturday, which was the same day the U.S. military captured Saddam Hussein.

Some columnists and bloggers have accused the president of signing the legislation on a weekend, when news organizations traditionally operate with a reduced staff, to avoid public scrutiny and criticism. Any attention that might have been given the bill, they say, was supplanted by a White House announcement the next day about Hussein's capture.

This is exactly how the massive Patriot Act I was pushed through after 9/11 before Congress had adequate time to even see it.

Critics... say the government is trying to pass legislation that was shot down prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when the Bush administration drafted a bill to expand the powers of the Patriot Act.

The so-called Patriot Act II was discovered by the Center for Public Integrity last year, which exposed the draft legislation and initiated a public outcry that forced the government to back down on its plans.

But critics say the government didn't abandon its goals after the uproar; it simply extracted the most controversial provisions from Patriot Act II and slipped them surreptitiously into other bills, such as the Intelligence Authorization Act, to avoid raising alarm.

The Intelligence Authorization Act is a favorite vehicle of politicians for expanding government powers without careful scrutiny. The bill, because of its sensitive nature, is generally drafted in relative secrecy and approved without extensive debate because it is viewed as a "must-pass" piece of legislation. The act provides funding for intelligence agencies.

The provision granting increased power was little more than a single line of legislation. But ...it was written in such a cryptic manner that no one noticed its significance until it was too late.

Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that reviewed the bill, introduced the legislation into the House last year on June 11, where it passed two weeks later by a vote of 264-163. The Senate passed the legislation with a voice vote in November, which means there is no record of how individual senators voted or the number who opposed or supported it.

Goss's staff said he was out of the country and unavailable for comment. But Goss told the House last year that he believed the financial institution provision in the bill brought the intelligence community up to date with the reality of the financial industry.

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota), who opposed the legislation, told the House, "It is clear the Republican leadership and the administration would rather expand on the USA Patriot Act through deception and secrecy than debate such provisions in an open forum."

A number of other representatives expressed concern that the financial provision was slipped into the Intelligence Act at the 11th hour with no time for public debate and against objections from members the Senate Judiciary Committee, which normally has jurisdiction over the FBI. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the minority leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with five other members of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to the Intelligence Committee requesting that their committee be given time to review the bill. But the provision had already passed by the time their letter went out.

"In our fight to protect America and our people, to make our world a safer place, we must never turn our backs on our freedoms," said Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) in a November press release. "Expanding the use of administrative subpoenas and threatening our system of checks and balances is a step in the wrong direction."

Charlie Mitchell, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said many legislators failed to recognize the significance of the legislation until it was too late. But the fact that 15 Republicans and over 100 Democrats voted against the bill in the House signifies that, had there been more time, there probably would have been sufficient opposition to remove the provision.

"To have that many people vote against it, based on just that one provision without discussion beforehand, signifies there is strong opposition to new Patriot Act II powers," Mitchell said.

He said legislators are now on the lookout for other Patriot Act II provisions being tucked into new legislation.

"All things considered, this was a loss for civil liberties," he said. But on a brighter note, "this was the only provision of Patriot II that made it through this year. Members are hearing from their constituents. I really think we have the ability to stop much of this Patriot Act II legislation in the future."

It's hard to be optimistic about catching further arrogant actions by this administration. How many times can Congress be fooled and deceived by this President who refuses to operate in the open? Your fast departing freedoms are flying out the window.

The question for you is this: Do you care?

Thanks to Buzzflash.
- posted by a Vet @ 10:07 AM -

 
Another Big Endorsement

This will be a short post today. We have white-out snow, sleet and freezing rain in the NorthWest today, so before we might lose power...

Bill Bradley's endorsement of Gov. Dean, after that of Al Gore, is another important one.

Veterans, if you still are trying to make up your mind about whether to vote for someone other than always for the Republican candidate, it should be coming clear that Gov Dean is not the far left radical that Mr. Bush and the media portray him - and he deserves your consideration.

There is a clear element of desperation in the attacks now on Gov. Dean, as the primaries approach, that started up over the holidays and continues now daily. Yet, more and more respected leaders are joining in the support of Gov. Dean, recognizing that he has breathed fresh air into the political process - and he cares about our veterans and our military.

On cable TV news this morning, Bradley called Gov. Dean "the best thing that's happened to American politics." Stand by for the attacks to intensify.
- posted by a Vet @ 11:08 AM -

 
The Real Casualty Count

Over the holidays US News & World Report, after an in-depth investigation, concluded that, without question: The Bush administration has been promoting secrecy in the executive branch and withholding information from the public, claiming national security concerns.

An Example? Try getting total casualty counts for the war in Iraq. The media adds confusion because they don't understand that casualties equals deaths plus other combat wounded and war zone injuries requiring evacuation from the theater - not just the count of those who died.

Up to now the numbers of combat wounded and injured have been reported as under 2,000 for the war. David Hackworth (retired Army Colonel) finds that the number may be 10 times as high:

Even I – and I deal with that beleaguered land seven days a week – was staggered when a Pentagon source gave me a copy of a Nov. 30 dispatch showing that since George W. Bush unleashed the dogs of war, our armed forces have taken 14,000 casualties in Iraq – about the number of warriors in a line tank division... Lt. Col. Scott D. Ross of the U.S. military's Transportation Command told me that as of Dec. 23, his outfit had evacuated 3,255 battle-injured casualties and 18,717 non-battle injuries.

We're not talking about cut fingers or stubbed toes here, but battle zone evacuations.

The Pentagon has never won prizes for the accuracy of its reporting, but I think it’s safe to say that so far somewhere between 14,000 and 22,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have been medically evacuated from Iraq to the USA.

So at the end of this turbulent year, we must ask ourselves: Was the price our warriors paid in blood worth the outcome? Are we any safer than before our pre-emptive invasion?

Even though Saddam is in the slammer and the fourth-largest army in the world is junkyard scrap, Christmas 2003 was resolutely Orange, and 2004 looks like more of the same. Or worse.

Our first New Year’s resolution should be to find out if the stated reasons for our pre-emptive strike – Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s connection with al-Qaeda – constituted a real threat to our national security. Because, contrary to public opinion, the present administration hasn’t yet made the case that Saddam and his sadists aided and abetted al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11. We also need to know why our $30 billion-a-year intelligence agencies didn’t read the tea leaves correctly, as well as what’s being done besides upgrading the color code to prevent other similar strikes.

Congress should get with the program and lift a page from the U.S. Army handbook on how to learn from a military operation. When an Army-training or actual-combat op is concluded, all the key players assemble for an honest, no-holds-barred critique of everything that’s gone down – the good, the bad and the ugly. Some of the participants might walk away black and blue, but everyone learns from the mistakes.

Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and retired Gen. Tommy Franks should be required to report to a congressional committee convened to investigate both the invasion and the planning – or lack of planning – for the occupation of Iraq. This committee must operate without the political skullduggery that occurred during the numerous investigations into the Pearl Harbor catastrophe – when high-level malfeasance that cost thousands of lives and put America’s national security in extreme jeopardy was repeatedly covered up for more than 50 years.

Our Iraqi casualties deserve nothing less than the unvarnished truth. Only then will their sacrifices not have been in vain. And only then can we all move on with the enlightenment we need to protect and preserve our precious country’s future.
- posted by a Vet @ 9:58 AM -

 
Another Important Benefit at Risk to You, Veterans (and Veterans-to-be), from Your "Friends" in the Bush Administration

Thanks to A.J. from Corvallis for the following article:

The Bush administration is considering dramatic increases in the fees military retirees pay for prescription drugs, a step that would roll back a benefit extended just 30 months ago and risks alienating an important Republican constituency at the dawn of the 2004 campaign season.

Pentagon budget documents indicate that retirees may be asked to pay $10 - up from the current $3 - for each 90-day generic prescription filled by mail through Tricare, the military's health insurance program. Tricare's current $9 co-pay for a three-month supply of each brand-name drug would jump to $20.

The proposal also would impose charges for drugs the retirees now receive free at military hospitals and clinics. There would be a $10 fee for each generic prescription and a $20 charge for brand name drugs dispensed at those facilities.

A Pentagon spokesman declined Wednesday to comment on the drug plan, calling it "pre-decisional." But word of the proposal was being spread at the speed of light by veterans service organizations, who were e-mailing their thousands of members to solicit calls and letters of protest to the White House and members of Congress.

"It's something that we're going to look at very closely when we return," said Tom Gordy, chief of staff for Rep. Ed. Schrock, R-2nd District. The House is to reconvene on Jan. 20.

"You're tampering with a benefit that was earned by people putting their lives on the line," fumed James F. Lokovic, a retired Air Force chief master sergeant and deputy director of the Air Force Sergeants Association.

Lokovic's 136,000-member association already has sent Bush a letter warning of "significant backlash from millions of retired military voters" if the plan is included in the 2005 defense budget the administration will unveil in a few weeks.

"Somebody just isn't paying attention," the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) said in a "special alert" sent to its 390,000 members. "The war on terrorism is reminding the nation of servicemembers' sacrifices every night on the evening news ... and yet the administration seems to continue going out of its way to penalize the military community."

The MOAA alert and an Internet site run by the Sergeants Association recall attempts by the administration to impose a $1,200 deductible for care provided to most military retirees at Veterans Affairs hospitals and the Pentagon's long-running opposition to bills providing for "concurrent receipt" of military pension and VA disability payments.

Bush and lawmakers agreed earlier this year on a concurrent receipt plan, a move widely seen as an attempt to shore up support for Republicans among military-minded voters. Military veterans and retirees generally are seen as providing Bush with his 2000 margin of victory in several key states, including Florida.

The budget documents circulating Wednesday gave no hint of the current status of the plan or the thinking behind it. Military retirees - those who served 20 years or more - had no prescription drug coverage until April 2001.

But the documents indicate that the proposed charges would considerably ease the burden of prescription drug costs on the defense budget. The new co-pays would generate more than $728 million in 2005, the Pentagon estimated, and nearly $4.2 billion by the end of 2009.

The proposed fees also would bring the military's co-pays into line with those imposed by the VA, the documents assert.

But spokesmen for veterans groups noted that the VA fills prescriptions for service-related illnesses and injuries at no charge. It's $7 co-pay applies only for medications given to outpatients for ailments unrelated to their service. And even those prescriptions are provided free when the veteran receiving them has an annual income of less than $9,690 if single and $12,692 if married.


A.J. added his comments to the article as follows:

"Ok Dean People.

Know any military active duty, reserve, National Guard, Veterans or Retired military? Show them this little Shrubco plan. Then ask them if they are so in love with Bushco and the GOP what have they done for them lately besides cut more and more benefits.

See this NOT only will affect them individually BUT their families. See wives and children (up to age 21) are also part of this plan so that medication that little Julie or Jimmy needs come under this little plan.

Remind them that their sons, daughters, husbands and wives currently on active duty in such holiday spots as Iraq who wish to some time retire will be affected. In addition, ALL those wounded troopers now awaiting a medical discharge, medical retirement for wounds received in battle will fall into this plan. And for what? More Bush tax cuts?

So when that person who smirked at your Dean button says Bush is for the troops show them this little jewel. "

Thanks A.J. - couldn't have said it any better!



- posted by a Vet @ 10:48 AM -