The REAL State of the Union: New Spy Program Set For Inside the US

“I have had a firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law from this administration… I won’t make the same mistake… I want to see the legal underpinnings for the whole program.”

(snicker & snort)

You Think, Rep Harman? How about the young man from Mississippi? Is he blue-dog enough to predict that the right-wing power brokers from Mississippi and elsewhere will own him and many other in the Dem Party?

I don’t know… but I do know that I don’t trust this administration, Mr Chertoff specifically, nor my representatives to keep a check on them.

The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation’s most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon, rebuffing challenges by House Democrats over the idea’s legal authority.

Challenges? Since when?

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department will activate his department’s new domestic satellite surveillance office in stages, starting as soon as possible with traditional scientific and homeland security activities — such as tracking hurricane damage, monitoring climate change and creating terrain maps.

Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement once privacy and civil rights concerns are resolved, he said. The department has previously said the program will not intercept communications.

OK… so no more sex in the back yard… cover up that skylight over my Quaker Meeting Room… install sound deadening material on all walls.

“There is no basis to suggest that this process is in any way insufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans,” Chertoff wrote to Reps. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.), chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee and its intelligence subcommittee, respectively, in letters released yesterday.

Forgive me if I can not find any way possible to trust you and your boss to protect my privacy after all the lies and deceit. I cannot “trust” you because you squandered my trust.

“I think we’ve fully addressed anybody’s concerns,” Chertoff added in remarks last week to bloggers. “I think the way is now clear to stand it up and go warm on it.”

Side note to self: Am I an “anybody”?

His statements marked a fresh determination to operate the department’s new National Applications Office as part of its counterterrorism efforts. The administration in May 2007 gave DHS authority to coordinate requests for satellite imagery, radar, electronic-signal information, chemical detection and other monitoring capabilities that have been used for decades within U.S. borders for mapping and disaster response.

But Congress delayed launch of the new office last October. Critics cited its potential to expand the role of military assets in domestic law enforcement, to turn new or as-yet-undeveloped technologies against Americans without adequate public debate, and to divert the existing civilian and scientific focus of some satellite work to security uses.

Since this is the first I have heard anything about this, I can attest that the “public debate” has NOT been “adequate“.

Democrats say Chertoff has not spelled out what federal laws govern the NAO, whose funding and size are classified. Congress barred Homeland Security from funding the office until its investigators could review the office’s operating procedures and safeguards. The department submitted answers on Thursday, but some lawmakers promptly said the response was inadequate.

Let B’Man take a guess as to “what federal laws govern the NAO“. Whatever Bush says. Makes it simple, stupid.

“I have had a firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law from this administration,” said Harman, citing the 2005 disclosure of the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program, which included warrantless eavesdropping on calls and e-mails between people in the United States and overseas. “I won’t make the same mistake. . . . I want to see the legal underpinnings for the whole program.”

Thompson called DHS’s release Thursday of the office’s procedures and a civil liberties impact assessment “a good start.” But, he said, “We still don’t know whether the NAO will pass constitutional muster since no legal framework has been provided.”

I hope that Americans (Californians and Mississippians, specifically) pay attention and hold these two (and the rest of Congress) accountable. It is long past time for any “trust” in their actions and something this potentially dangerous in their hands is the last thing this country needs.

DHS officials said the demands are unwarranted. “The legal framework that governs the National Applications Office . . . is reflected in the Constitution, the U.S. Code and all other U.S. laws,” said DHS spokeswoman Laura Keehner. She said its operations will be subject to “robust,” structured legal scrutiny by multiple agencies.

Yeah, right… I suppose the Bush Administration’s Justice Department will lead the legal scrutiny? Or perhaps you have Mr Gonzales and Mr Yoo on retainer?

(h/t CommonDreams… originally at the Washington Post)

“Teflon John” McCain by Max and the Marginalized

BuelahMan’s 2nd music video featuring Max and the Marginalized and their rockin’ tune, “Teflon John”, featured at HuffPo. My first video was ELO: The Jungle.

John McCain, whether he’s calling his wife the C-word, mixing up Sunni with Shia, making repeated false claims about Iran, is repeatedly proving to everyone that doesn’t work for CNN or MSNBC that he’s completely batshit insane. Enjoy our song Teflon John for McCain and the MSM that refuses to scrutinize him.

 

 

Teflon John

It’s so funny everyone forgot to laugh
At your temper even shorter than the shelf life of a gaffe
From your lips to no one’s ears, somehow disappears into the past
If it came from my side no one would ignore
That stupid joke about Barbara Ann, or when you called that wife of yours–
a country needs a whole lot better
than the mixed up words and letters, evermore

But the nonsense only echoes for about three seconds long
They’ve got their fingers in their ears, they can’t point out where you’re wrong

Teflon John, is this thing on?
All the microphones are broken
And the lines that you’ve misspoken
Are met with nothing but a token nod-along
They just move on, so move along

I never ever would’ve guessed
That when you ride for half the price on the old Straight Talk Express
You get the Denny’s senior special
And it comes with a free pass from the press
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.bold.gif
So let’s not put no huffy hotheads where they really don’t belong
I’d so much rather see you feeding ducks down at the pond

Teflon John, is this thing on?
All the microphones are broken
And the lines that you’ve misspoken
Are met with nothing but a token nod-along
They just move on
Oh Teflon John, where have they gone?
Let that sucking up begin
All your friends will let you in and that microscope will never focus on
How you’ve got it wrong
So move along, Teflon John

Ventura For President?

The Largest Minority has a video clip up of a Fox News (Sean Hannity/Alan Colmes) interview with Jesse Ventura.

Jesse will not let them bulldoze him.

Please watch Jesse as he begins to get “fired up”. He rocks (literally). Only when he starts getting fired up…

Good or bad? He is passionate and speaks from the heart (I also happen to agree with him on virtually every point).

Comparing Generals: Who Cares More About The Troops?

Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution
By William E. Odom, lieutenant general, USA (retired)

    Wednesday 02 April 2008

Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq.

 

    Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.

    I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.

    Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant inseveral other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province.

    More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.

    No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.

    Also disturbing is Turkey’s military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey.

    Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.

    Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime. As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran.

    Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government’s troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation.

    Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating deals with the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified among themselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and join our forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses.

    This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications. At the same time, Prime Minister Maliki’s military actions in Basra and Baghdad, indicate even wider political and military fragmentation. We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are being asked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power and finance to so many local chieftains is the road to political centralization. He describes the process as building the state from the bottom up.

    I challenge you to press the administration’s witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history of feudal Europe’s transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It is the story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War. It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense.

    To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over extended army. When the administration’s witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy.

    The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran’s policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.

    No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president’s policy has reinforced Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.

    Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.

    A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don’t make sense.

    First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills.

    Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the “domino theory” in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it. The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.

    Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.

    I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq.

    Thanks for this opportunity to testify today.

The Hummus Man Responds

In response to this post, the Hummus Man turned me on to how Hummus can be used as an Anti-Bush food (which causes me to want to buy a serving for every American alive).

Anti-Bush Voting for Hummus

Some of you may have already seen this hummus-related-humor video; Elon Gold, a stand-up comedian, is talking about hummus and politic. Well, I decided I have some things toI want say about it. And for those of you who didn’t: be patient. It’s pretty annoying in the beginning, only to become VERY funny in the end.

Gold’s theory explains how come the Palestinians voted for hammas, and American elected George W. Bush. It sound perfectly reasonable - and very funny, although you might get a little upset at first (Especialy if you didn’t vote to George W. Bush.

Watch it, then read the rest of the post.

So, ironically, it turns out that Gold is an Anti-Bush activist…
Or some would probably classify him that way.I’m not that much into Anti-Bush humormyself (in Israel we have many evil politicians of ourself). Also, I don’t think W. is as stupid as some people say he is, which make some of the Anti-Bush jokes less funny and actually pretty dumb.I do think, though, that George Bush Junior is the worst president US could ever had such a time in history, when it could benefit from being not only bold, but also smart and humane and generous - which it isn’t. And that’s bad for people all over the world, not just for Liberal Democrats in Americans.Plus, I saw Fahrenheit 911[Trailer], and “Supersize America”, and read Joseph Stiglitz’s book (which I might talk about more in a future post). I hate Neo-Conservatism and Evangelism and Fascism - no matter what form they take, and if they occur in Israel, the US or any other place.

So is eating hummus an Anti-Bush act? In some way it is, at list for me - and maybe also for Gold, I don’t know. Because it reminds us how Palestinians and Israelis - as well as rich and poor people or Muslims and Christians - are already bound together, so they ought to have to learn to live with one another.

Bushism is about making other people more like you - so it’s about McDonald’s hamburgers. Anti-Bush kind of thought is about eating hummus, which is a demonstration of our rewarding co-existence with people and cultures different of ours.

Above all, in my eyes Elon Gold’s stand-up is beautifully naive, in a good way. His “characters” are good people, from both sides, who can’t understand whygood people elect bad leaders. This is how many people in Israel also feel about our current leadership, and also about the given alternatives.

B’Man: A few things about this post (I know nothing about Hummus, other than the several times I ate it, I didn’t particularly like it… no offense).

Did you notice how this person sees Bush, neo-conservatism, evangelism and fascism (which I can wholeheartedly agree on)? I assume he is not an American, but Israeli??? And he discusses some of the same issues he sees at home.

“Bushism is about making other people more like you“… how true is that? They want you to simply “believe” in Bush and their vision. But their vision is world dominance, which is not what this country has ever been about, except in the minds of a few mad men.

Also, I must wonder with him, why do good people elect such bad leaders? How could 50 Million Americans be so stupid? Or brainwashed, maybe?

U.S. Declares War On Iran

skiman gives us a very powerful video…

The U.S has been at war with Iran as of Thursday, March 20th So who made it official?
http://www.fincen.gov/fin-2008-a002.html
A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world’s financial institutions under the title: “Guidance to financial institutions on the continuing money laundering threat involving illicit Iranian activity.”

The US is currently blackmailing all the Banks of the World into not doing any trade with Iran to devastate their economy and provoke them into a war that the media will spin.

go to youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqlk3yHTJwY for additional links related to this video that are listed in the video description field.

What kind of world would we have if the Big Money Dickheads didn’t run it.

Visit the Stop Fascism Network. New and Growing with concerned Americans.

Definition of Fascism -
1 - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government.
2 - extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
Source - The Compact Oxford English Dictionary

Richard Noggin’ Saturday: Trent Lott Forced To Pay For His Own Lunch

Hey you Mississippi rednecks!

Not only has Senator Trent Lott been scamming you for 30 years, he tells it how it was around lunch time for all those years.

Poor (poor and destitute, now) Trent (scumbag) Lott:

Trent Lott: Man of the People, Fledgling Lobbyist

Former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is struggling a bit to adjust to life as a lobbyist.

“I took the Metro for the first time,” Lott told the Sleuth Thursday afternoon in the makeup room of MSNBC, where he and his new lobbying partner, former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), were fixin (as Lott says) to do a TV segment.

Ain’t that good ole country boy charm so… endearing?

“He’s been standing in front of his house waiting for his car and driver,” laughed Breaux from the makeup chair, adding with a tinge of a low-country twang, “He’s learning how to hail a cab.” (Read: HAY-ul a cab.)

Life in the private sector isn’t as cushy as Lott thought it would be. No more free lunches, no more taxpayer-funded car and driver, no more overprotective press secretary guarding him from the pesky media.

That poor bastard had to give up his government provided car and driver and that sweet salary for THIS?

Lott says he doesn’t drive. He doesn’t own a car. Usually, he walks. One day, he says, he walked the 30 or so blocks from his downtown office on 14th Street Northwest to his home in Southeast Washington on Capitol Hill.

Lott took his first Metro ride ever last weekend, when thousands of tourists were in town enjoying the annual Cherry Blossom Festival. Could there be a more perfect time for a prima donna first-time rider?

“I stood up the whole time,” Lott said, smiling, as if he enjoyed it.

Damn, this here big city, living-with-the regular-people life is swell.

Lott really had no idea how to even go about taking public transportation. He didn’t know how to use the Metro fare card machines, or how much money to put on his trip ticket, or how to add money to one of the fare cards his wife gave him. Truly: clueless.

So Patricia Lott did what any good spouse would do. “I took my wife with me and she helped me out,” Lott said.

The fare card his wife gave him was demagnetized, Lott said, so he got a “special note” from the station manager so he and his wife could proceed to Metro Center, where she showed him how to go to the counter and turn in his demagnetized and used fare cards for a new one. (Special notes, it should be noted, are not just for important former members of Congress; that’s the way it works for everyone who has a demagnetized card in the in D.C. transit system.)

“I’m a man of the people now,” said Lott, who retired in December of last year, less than a year into serving a new six-year term.

Yeah, just like me, right? I think I could figure out how to use public tranportation, but a Senator? Sorry, EX-Senator, a regular guy.

Besides taking public transportation, the one-time Senate majority leader is learning how to pull out his wallet, which should certainly be a lot fatter these days after bolting from public service to rake in cash in the private sector.

“I haven’t paid for lunch in 30 years,” he joked. Breaux chimed in with an eye roll, saying, “Yeah, he’s learning how to pay for lunch.”

Lott is learning the ropes of lobbying from Breaux, a close friend who retired in 2005 after spending 32 years in Congress. The partnership so far, from what we gleaned in the makeup room at MSNBC, has the makings of a made-for-reality-TV show.

I just hope that the show includes jail time. POS.