More Beep For Our Buck

(Cartoon by Dana Summers (3/4/14) and found at Tribune Content Agency.  Click on image to enlarge.)

On March 3, 2014, I examined one facet of the Pentagon Budget which hadn't been trimmed.  Yesterday, I found another one, one that is perhaps even more surprising.

From the Los Angeles Times:

As the Pentagon moves beyond the relatively low-tech wars in the Middle East and turns its attention to future national security challenges, it has doubled down on sophisticated new radar-jamming devices that aim to render adversaries' air defenses useless.

Although the U.S. faced limited resistance in the skies above Iraq and Afghanistan, that would not be the case in Asia, where the Obama administration plans to shift its diplomatic focus and strengthen its defense strategy in the coming decade.

China and North Korea, for example, have quietly invested in advanced sophisticated radar systems, surface-to-air missile batteries, and power-projection capabilities.

So when the Pentagon revealed its fiscal 2015 budget proposal last week, much of the attention was given to a boost in spending on drones and cybersecurity. Less heralded, but vital to U.S. strategic success, experts say, was the high-dollar investment in radar-jamming technology and other electronic warfare.  [Emphasis added.]

Interesting,  yes?

We can afford fancy electronic jamming equipment so we can fly over countries which don't want us flying over, but we can't afford extended unemployment insurance, investments to replace or repair aging  infrastructure, Medicare expansion, school lunch programs.

I guess human security isn't as important as "national" security.  Or something.

Another Voice To Be Ignored

(Cartoon by Daniel Kurtzman, published the week of 3/3/13, and found here.  Click on image to enlarge.)

As of 2:00 PM (PST) on Monday 2/17/14, President Obama still had not announced his decision on the Keystone Pipeline.  As I noted earlier (here), it's an admittedly difficult decision.  No matter what he decides, there will be plenty of screaming from one side or the other.  So, he's continuing to listen and to weigh the issue.

A group I'm reasonably sure his administration has not been listening to is one which has a major stake in the outcome:  the Native American population located near the proposed pipeline.  In many respects, their concerns are even more serious than the rest of the people living alongside the construction.

Various tribes are trying to get their message out, and at least one major national news outlet is paying attention.

From the 2/16/14 edition of McClatchy DC:

In South Dakota, home to some of the nation’s poorest American Indians, tribes are busy preparing for nonviolent battle with “resistance training” aimed at TransCanada, the company that wants to develop the 1,700-mile pipeline.

While organizers said they want to keep their strategy a secret, they’re considering everything from vigils to civil disobedience to blockades to thwart the moving of construction equipment and the delivery of materials.

“We’re going to do everything we possibly can,” said Greg Grey Cloud of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, who attended a two-day conference and training session in Rapid City last week sponsored by the Oglala Sioux Tribe called “Help Save Mother Earth from the Keystone Pipeline.” He said tribes are considering setting up encampments to follow the construction, but he stressed that any actions would be peaceful. “We’re not going to damage anything or riot or anything like that,” he said. ...

Two weeks ago, an alliance of Native American groups approved a statement saying emphatically that no pipeline would be allowed in South Dakota and that tribes stand ready to protect their “sacred water” and other natural resources.

That includes Native women, who opponents of the pipeline say would become easy prey for thousands of temporary construction workers housed in work camps. According to the federal government, one of every three Indian women are either raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetimes, with the majority of attacks done by non-Native men. [Emphasis added.]

Now, me?  I would like the president to can the whole project, explaining to Canada and the rest of the world, that the US is finally ready to fully commit to energy sources that will not pollute in their use or transport.  Coupled with that announcement should be a proposal to fund further development and installation of alternatives to carbon-based fuel across the nation as a matter of national security. 

Far more permanent jobs would be created, and far fewer climate-changing chemicals would be dumped into the air, earth, and water.  Just as important, we would end our dependence on foreign oil and our foreign policy could be based on more rational and humane bases than it is at the present.

An old broad can dream, can't she?

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/17/218219/native-americans-vow-a-last-stand.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/17/218219/native-americans-vow-a-last-stand.html#storylink=cpy

Some Unsurprising News

Remember that "virtual border" that the Bush administration promised us? The one that would use high technology to protect us from the human and drug traffickers from Mexico? Well, apparently the primary contractor on the project hasn't been able to make it work after several years and over a billion dollars later, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Department of Homeland Security, positioning itself to cut its losses on a so-called invisible fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, has decided not to exercise a one-year option for Boeing to continue work on the troubled multibillion-dollar project involving high-tech cameras, radar and vibration sensors.

The result, after an investment of more than $1 billion, may be a system with only 53 miles of unreliable coverage along the nearly 2,000-mile border.

Although it is tempting to blame Boeing for the failure so far, the government shares a whole lot of responsibility. The grandiose plans of the Bush administration called for coverage which required a technology that just hadn't been developed yet. Boeing thought it would be a slam dunk, but the project turned out to be far more difficult than they anticipated. High winds along the test section of the fence, along with the inadequate technology, resulted in the fence being able to spot tumbleweeds and vehicles, but not people. In other words, Arizona is no safer now than it was before the fence.

But given that the virtual fence has yet to pass muster even in the 53-mile test area — two sections in Arizona that officials acknowledge won't be fully operational until 2013 — and the government's lack of interest in extending Boeing's contract, most do not expect the department to invest billions more in a project that has continually disappointed.

That 53-mile test area, you will note, is still 3 years away from being operational, which would leave only about 1,947 miles to go. At that rate we would be well into the next century and who knows how many billions of dollars before completion.

It was a bad idea to begin with, and it's getting to be downright expensive. It's time to shut the project down. Maybe Congress should look into a more sane way to protect out borders and to control immigration.

Heckuva job, George.

The Perfect Storm

It's been a miserable winter so far for a large part of the country: icy rain followed by snow, lots of snow, almost immediately followed by another round of icy rain followed by snow, lots of snow. Municipal snow removal agencies have been having quite a time of it in trying to keep up, and most are now at the point that they may not be able to do the job at all because they've blown through their budgets two months early.

From the NY Times:

With states and localities facing budget cuts in a time of economic crisis, the early onset of severe storms bringing heavy, wet snow is wreaking havoc on already strained resources and raising concerns about public safety.

“Each snowflake looks like a dollar sign floating down,” said Barbara Whitmore, the town clerk in Genesee, Wis., 30 miles west of Milwaukee. “We are basically now trying to just do hills, curves and intersections rather than entire roads for salting. Everything is plowed but might not get down to bare concrete. People like to see the salt so it gets down to bare concrete, but the cost is too high.”

Many other counties, cities and states across the regions are also feeling the pinch of expensive storm cleanup — rationing of salt, not plowing side roads, canceling public works projects for fear of running out of money to clear the roads.

If the roads don't get plowed, cars, trucks, buses, taxis don't get through. People can't get to work (or get home from work); kids and teachers can't get to school; emergency vehicles (police cars, ambulances, and fire trucks) can't get to emergencies. Local governments, keenly aware of the problem, are trying to do some workarounds, as described above, but that means either more indebtedness (which will be a crushing factor for next season) or the delaying of other necessary improvements (repairing the roadways after an especially brutal winter).

Maybe, just maybe, Congress and the White House should take a brief pause in their obsessions with installing full body scanners at airports (to the tune of $150,000 per machine) and funding more troops to fight more wars in the name of "security" and take some time to find ways to help out the states in this climate and economic emergency in the name of "public safety."

That would be the rational thing to do, but I am not optimistic.

At A Glacial Pace

It appears that the Obama administration is moving to give up some of the power grabbed by its predecessor, at least in one area. The Justice Department has developed a new set of guidelines as to when the executive branch can assert the "State Secrets" doctrine to thwart lawsuits against the government. According to this NY Times article, the new policy may be released as early as today, and will involve review by the upper echelon of the Justice Department, right up to and including the Attorney General of any proposed use of the doctrine.

Here's one of the more welcome parts of the proposed policy:

The new policy would also direct the Justice Department to reject a request to use the privilege if officials decide the motivation for doing so is to “conceal violations of the law, inefficiency or administrative error” or to “prevent embarrassment.”

I have to admit that I'm still a little skeptical about this new policy. After all, the Obama administration had no qualms about using the "State Secrets" doctrine several times in its opening months. And, as the NY Times article pointed out, the new policy just happens to suddenly appear as several bills in Congress have been proposed which will likewise curtail the use of this 'hide the salami' tool and will provide guidelines for judges to use when the doctrine is asserted. It looks like the new policy is in part an attempt to blunt the drive for such congressional action.

Several lawmakers adopted a cautious stance on whether they would press forward with the privilege legislation, because they had not yet seen the policy. Still, the lead sponsor of the House version of the bill, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, noted in a statement that the bills would affect courts, too.

“Fixing the executive branch’s assertion of the privilege is only one part of the equation,” Mr. Nadler said. “Congress must still enact legislation that provides consistent standards and procedures for courts to use when considering state secrets claims. Our constitutional system requires meaningful, independent judicial review of
governmental secrecy claims.”

There is no reason for Congressman Nadler and his colleagues to back off on the bill. Bringing the executive branch back into balance with the other two branches of government would be a welcome beginning to the restoration of our democracy.

A Broken Clock

This time the editorial board of the Washington Post got it right.

The men were cleared for release by the Bush administration years ago; the federal courts that reviewed their cases concluded that there was no evidence to justify their imprisonment in the first place. Yet they languished behind bars because the United States could not return them to their native China for fear they would be tortured, or worse. Some 100 countries declined U.S. requests to take the Uighurs, in part because of Chinese threats of retaliation. U.S. lawmakers railed against the possibility of allowing the detainees into the United States, claiming that they were dangerous terrorists despite the assessments of a Republican and a Democratic president, military officers and an independent judiciary. ...

The Uighurs who are headed to Bermuda and Palau will finally get a chance to start their lives again -- albeit in foreign surroundings and without the comfort of family or an extended community that speaks their language and shares their culture. But it is disappointing that the United States has had to beseech its allies to correct an injustice wholly of its own creation. It is maddening that U.S. administrations and lawmakers of both parties did not act with cooler heads and good faith to welcome at least some of these men into this country -- especially when well-established and reputable Uighur organizations and communities offered to provide food and shelter and help to get the men established. [Emphasis added]

It is maddening, indeed. US military and civilian officials have known for years that the Uighurs should never have been picked up and dropped into Guantanamo Bay and that they didn't constitute any danger to the US. Even now, it is unlikely that any of the 17 men pose any real threats, yet members of Congress decided to strut their demagoguery over the issue, completely glossing over all of the information given to them, including the mistakes made by the CIA and Pentagon in seizing and holding them. Instead, they insisted that the White House find other nations to take the responsibility for our mistakes.

While some of the Uighurs are being relocated to two of the most beautiful places in the world, they are going there with none of the support system which could have been provided to them in the US by the Uighur community already here and well established as reputable members of their communities and who offered to take them in and to help them adjust to their new status and new home.

So the mistakes we made are being compounded just so some closed-minded morons can strut around in front of television cameras, huffing and puffing about keeping America safe.

Morons.

The Mine Shaft Gap

"Cyber-" , as in "cyberdefense," "cyberattack," and "cybersecurity", has become a very popular building block for Washington-speak, the neologisms that pour out of government whenever a new propaganda campaign to pitch a controversial project is released into the ether. Both the Washington Post and the NY Times have articles laden with the "cyber-" words because the Pentagon is about to announce a new command ("cybercom," naturally) that with the National Security Agency will begin monitoring computer networks abroad and internally in order to keep us "cybersafe."

From the NY Times article:

A plan to create a new Pentagon cybercommand is raising significant privacy and diplomatic concerns, as the Obama administration moves ahead on efforts to protect the nation from cyberattack and to prepare for possible offensive operations against adversaries’ computer networks.

President Obama has said that the new cyberdefense strategy he unveiled last month will provide protections for personal privacy and civil liberties. But senior Pentagon and military officials say that Mr. Obama’s assurances may be challenging to guarantee in practice, particularly in trying to monitor the thousands of daily attacks on security systems in the United States that have set off a race to develop better cyberweapons.

Much of the new military command’s work is expected to be carried out by the National Security Agency, whose role in intercepting the domestic end of international calls and e-mail messages after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, under secret orders issued by the Bush administration, has already generated intense controversy.

There is simply no way, the officials say, to effectively conduct computer operations without entering networks inside the United States, where the military is prohibited from operating, or traveling electronic paths through countries that are not themselves American targets. ...

While the N.S.A.’s job is chiefly one of detection and monitoring, the agency also possesses what Michael D. McConnell, the former director of national intelligence, called “the critical skill set” to respond quickly to cyberattacks. Yet the Defense Department views cyberspace as its domain as well, a new battleground after land, sea, air and space.

Village-speak at its finest, eh?

So, what does this all mean, after the garbage language designed to hide rather than illuminate is stripped away? To begin with, the new military command working in conjunction with the NSA will be developing systems to snoop with more sophistication on domestic emails and internet usage. Because of the howls of outrage when the Bush program to do the same came to light, the Obama administration has decided to gamble on more openness when it comes to invading our rights to privacy. To accomplish this, they're framing the issue as a matter of national security.

Our banks and other commercial institutions might get hacked and our iffy economy might be sent swirling down the commode as all of our savings and checking accounts get drained by the nefarious Chinese/Russian/North Korean/Iranian evildoers who are jealous of our capitalist wealth and freedoms.

More importantly, our government computer systems, including those of the Pentagon, might get attacked by the same miscreants and leave us with no defenses whatsoever. Missiles and bombs will come raining down on us because our military will not be able to engage in any kind of defense as all of its computers get hit simultaneously with the blue screen of death.

There's nothing we can do to prevent such awful consequences but to open a new battlefield, a cyberbattlefield, if you will, a battlefield which has no boundaries in the traditional sense. Not only will the military be able to now spy on Americans (something which to this point has been forbidden), it will be able to electronically invade and spy on other countries, many of them our allies.

The scenario is only too familiar, especially after the last eight years. In fact, it was predicted decades ago, it just took a little longer than George Orwell expected.

This needs to be stopped.

Scary Dark Skinned President

The wingers have to take a back seat to the most frightened of losing their constituency this week. al-Qaeda is even more afraid that good sense and good behavior by President Obama will rot the insides out of their appeal.

Fundamentalism has a lot to lose when our president succeeds; it shows all the weaknesses in their hate spiels.

A double blast from al Qaeda against Barack Obama shows the group is as worried as ever by the persuasive skills of the U.S. president, who makes a speech to Muslims on Thursday.

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in an audio recording aired on Wednesday by Al Jazeera television, said Obama had planted the seeds of "revenge and hatred" towards the United States in the Muslim world and he warned Americans to prepare for the consequences.

A day earlier, the militant network's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri urged Egyptians not to be seduced by Obama's 'polished words' when he makes a major address in Cairo seeking to repair ties with the Muslim world.

For some, al Qaeda's concerted attempt to upstage Obama is a propaganda own goal that shows its normally media-savvy operatives in disarray following the departure of Obama's predecessor George W. Bush. They found Bush easy to stereotype as a belligerent, Muslim-hating cowboy.

"Zawahri is right to be worried," said Edwin Bakker, a senior research fellow at the Dutch Clingendael Institute in the Hague.

"Al Qaeda partly lives on anti-Americanism and the 'war on terror'. Now Bush has gone and been replaced by a guy who's second name is Hussein. And they fear his speech really is going to have a positive effect."

Success is a terrible thing to waste. Traveling to other countries, President Obama has given a great boost to the lagging image of this country. Pursuing policies that transfer out the cowboy movie irascibility, that bring on the capacity to understand and sympathize with other cultures, has threatened the right wing of this country and of the other enemies of our success.

Good job, keep it coming, Mr. President


(With thanks to Dan Froomkin, who points out that the president does have a lot of accumulated wingnut offenses to apologize for.)

"Truth Is Relative" Doesn't Make It Incest

What, we can cut the cord now? If Pres. Obama keeps on like this, some one will discover that the country called U.S. of A. is not joined at the waist with Israel. In watching our Department of Justice work on the assumption that our security is gained by fighting against Palestinians in that conflict, against Palestinians' freedoms, I would say that's all to the good.

We will, as Dan Froomkin observes, do Israel a favor too, if we stop backing them in their indefensible positions. It is time for the Israelis to work with their neighbors. We cannot turn their neighbors pliable unless we all are working toward a reasonable settlement. That does not mean one of those places where Israelis occupy territory they can only claim by force.

President Obama's call for a "new dialogue" in the Middle East -- one in which the U.S. would be "honest" about what Israel has to do to achieve security -- is the clearest indication yet that the new administration is taking a dramatically different and much more assertive approach with its long-time ally.

Obama's comments indicate that he believes Israel has been indulged -- even deluded -- by previous administrations, to its own detriment. By contrast, this president's view seems to be that what Israel really needs is to be pushed into making the difficult concessions that are in its own long-term interests.

And Obama has been clear that the first concession Israel needs to make is to freeze the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank that both literally and figuratively set the occupation of Palestinian territories in concrete.

Stopping the growth of settlements -- not to mention dismantling them -- is a hugely sensitive political issue for Israelis, and and Israel's current right-wing leadership is already talking about defying Obama's request.

But on the eve of an overseas trip that will include a major address to the Muslim world from Cairo on Thursday, Obama is showing no signs of, as he would put it, "equivocation."

This has been a long time coming, and that has led to any number of conspiracy theories. While I would not clear the past maladministration of any war criminal charges, after the irresponsibility it has shown toward this country, I think that is one element we really can 'put behind' us.

The nation of Israel has a long way to go, and this country can be more help to them than it has been in the past, by applying and insisting on realistic treatment of other countries.

Exiting the Tent

Actually, I have no doubt that leaders of the party of wingnuts are sincere in saying they are sorry about the shooting of Dr. Tiller yesterday by a 'pro-life' activist. The rational and decent outliers in the party are rapidly finding out they're associated with raving maniacs, and leaving. There were enough people of goodwill to elect President Obama, and polls show that the majority deplore U.S. war on Iraq, torture, and fiscal irresponsibility and associate them with the maladministration just past. They.Did.It.

The dilemma of trying to keep the red meat base while working towards a majority of the U.S. is full of trauma, no doubt.

The time when the nice folks could poopoo the fanatics and feel comfortable inside the GOPerv tent are past now. When ex-Darth and Rush are the party's representatives, and its officials throw out the red meat that appeals to the base, it's not tea partying, but teabagging, territory.

The official representative of the right had to show his incendiary colors to keep his post, at the party's annual convention.

Steele delivered a speech full of red meat, serving up heaping portions of criticism to leading Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Rep. Barney Frank and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

The national committee chairman, though, saved his most scathing critique for Obama on issues ranging bailouts and banning guns to potentially taxing soft drinks.

"The last Democrat president declared that the era of big government was over," Steele said. "Can some[one] please send President Obama a copy of that memo? Because this new Democrat president has ushered in a new era of left-wing, old school, top-down, Industrial Age, bureaucratic big government the likes of which our country has never seen."(Emphasis added.)

Elections have results, indeed. To hold onto their increasingly indecorous base, leaders are pushing the bounds of polite discourse, calling the 'Democrat' party socialist, and blaming it for the very squandering of national treasure that ... it was doing for eight years of winger control.

At one time, there was a separate party for the recidivists, but now to give it electoral victories those two have merged. What is resulting, a community of extremists, forces at least superficially peaceful GOPervs to depart, or to admit to their crazy aunties and batty uncles in the shotgun concession line.

The proto-Nazis wearing swastikas no longer can be dismissed as Dixiecrats. They're official, mainline GOPervian, and they are extremists who are a danger to the country. The outrage GOPerv leaders expressed over reports by DHS that violence is predictable no longer rings even partially true.

One passage from the DHS report that provoked nonstop outrage said that right wing extremists “may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Some on the right read this passage and decided it was a reference to them. Top conservative blogger Michelle Malkin warned that it meant you’re being targeted by Obama’s big brother government “if you are a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion” or if you are active on other issues.

This wasn’t a fringe interpretation of the report, by the way. RNC chair Michael Steele for instance, blasted the report for labeling peaceful dissenters on issues “as terrorists.” Other Republican members of Congress sounded similar tones. (Emphasis added.)

I recall Sen. Barry Goldwater evoking revulsion when he declared that 'extremism' in the cause of virtue' was acceptable to party leaders. The 60's wingers were delighted, but the still rational party stalwarts were horrified. Remember Claiborne Pell, white-maned Sen. Everett Dirksen, Sen. Robert Taft? They're long gone, replaced by the likes of an ex-Darth promoting torture and Texas Gov. Perry promoting secession.

The barricades are down. Today, its the wingers that are carrying the day. The rabble-rousing came in from the sideshow (no aspersions intended, Avedon), and is inside the tent. Remaining people of good will are on the way to the exit. Those of good sense departed during the past election.

Insisting Wrong is Right

The kind of discussion you get when you try to convince a die-hard believer is now typical of news releases from the representatives of what used to be the Republican party. I recall as a teenager pointing out to some one who insisted that Jonah (in the Bible) was swallowed by a whale, that the bible says 'big fish', not whale. The response was that it was, indeed, a whale, and nothing would change her mind. That sort of dug in adamant rejection of reason is becoming the standard in rightwinger claims.

It may be that 'becoming' is a false concept. It probably has always been the standard. As Frank Rich points out today at the NYT, Cheney's recent speech about torture - that wasn't torture - keeping us safe was easily torn apart, and while most media treated the lies as facts, McClatchy reporters did the job.

With selective quotations, Cheney falsified the views of the director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, on the supposed intelligence value of waterboarding. Equally bogus was Cheney’s boast that his administration had “moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.” In truth, the Bush administration had lost Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, not least because it started diverting huge assets to Iraq before accomplishing the mission of vanquishing Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. That decision makes us less safe to this very minute. (Emphasis added.)

As the misnomer 'the media' increasingly refers to a masquerade, right wing talking points paraded as the news, some of those who have taken responsible positions and still crusade for actual security for this nation are forced to speak out.

Richard Clarke, who served in the Clinton administration and in the recently ended maladministration of war criminals, spoke out today in a WaPo op-ed.

Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques -- but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive.

"I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities," Cheney said in his recent speech. But this defense does not stand up. The Bush administration's response actually undermined the principles and values America has always stood for in the world, values that should have survived this traumatic event. The White House thought that 9/11 changed everything. It may have changed many things, but it did not change the Constitution, which the vice president, the national security adviser and all of us who were in the White House that tragic day had pledged to protect and preserve.

The facts should be headlined, and presented as the major news, but I have heard more about Britain's Got Talent than about truths on the wrongheaded war on Iraq. The lies were treated as real news.

Irresponsible lies are the basis for the deaths of our troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We will be supporting mind-numbing numbers of severely injured soldiers for the next generation. Those are some of the costs of allowing lies to stand, and form our policies.

This disaster wasn't caused just by reality-challenged criminals in our executive branch. It was caused just as much by our media, that kept its sources by ignoring the truth that contradicted them.

I repeat myself, but it's time to stop giving hits to the media pretenders who front for rightwing lies. "_blank">Avedon named several of them, and we see them constantly featured on news commentaries, repeating those same lies.

When we stop playing their numbers game by adding traffic to their sites, we are battling for the truth to be news, instead of a footnote. If you haven't thanked them yet, please join me in commenting at the sites linked above, with a thank you.

Keeping the Country Secure

This has been a week of tortuous arguments in public, and on This Week there was an interesting juxtaposition of the one person totally agreeing with ex-Darth, Liz ex-Darth, and Katrina VanDen Heuvel, a really outspoken clear thinker. Beginning their discussion, host George Stephanopolous questioned the panel about President Obama's decision not to release the torture photos.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... How significant are these shifts and are they the right moves?

GEORGE WILL, COLUMNIST: Well, they come after he essentially affirmed warrantless wiretapping and escalated in Afghanistan. So you can see why a certain faction of the Democratic Party is unhappy.

On the other hand, he has changed his mind on the photographs, but he’s changed his mind by keeping a promise. The promise he made during the campaign was I will always consult with my commanders. He consulted with the commanders who said among other things, the 10 days after the Abu Ghraib photos were released, there was a spike of violence in Iraq. They strongly urged him not to release these and he won’t.

Now there is a court involved in this and the court has so far said that under the Freedom of Information Act, they have to be released. He can appeal that, he can lose, and he can then say I did my best and the photos come out.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That good enough?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, “THE NATION”: Obama was elected in part to correct the illegal shameful policies of these last eight years. I’m interested in the military commission’s decision. Because he sided ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you support him on the photos?

VANDEN HEUVEL: I don’t.
(snip)
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I want to press one thing there, because there was a report -- no, but you (LIZ CHENEY) explained one part of it. I just want to ask you to explain another part of it. The report, though, that the vice president’s office did ask specifically to have information about Iraq-Al Qaida connections presented to this detainee, do you deny that?

CHENEY: I think that it’s important for us to have all the facts out. And the first and more important fact is that the vice president has been absolutely clear that he supported this program, this was an important program, it saved American lives.

Now, the way this policy worked internally was once the policy was determined and decided, the CIA, you know, made the judgments about how each individual detainee would be treated. And the vice president would not substitute his own judgment for the professionals...

STEPHANOPOULOS: No one in his office either?

CHENEY: ... at the CIA. So I think it’s very important for us to look at exactly what the facts are. And the facts are that three people were waterboarded. The people that, you know, claimed to have been waterboarded in these articles are not any of those people. And I think, frankly, you’ve also got to look at the source of some of these allegations, and one of the big sources is Colonel Wilkerson. Now, Colonel Wilkerson gets coverage because of his associations with General Powell.

STEPHANOPOULOS: His former chief of staff.

CHENEY: And has made a cottage industry of out, you know, fantasies about the vice president...

The issue of torture being wrong has been kept pretty sidelined during all the discussions, but Wilkerson obviously has struck a raw nerve in insisting that the obsession with torture was part and parcel with the politicizing of the basic functions of government. What the former vice president insists was keeping it secure has reduced our security. Reducing government's function in the past maladministration to blasting away at our principles is increasingly evident as a major cause of our insecurity, growing disaffection on the major part of the Middle East.

From John Dean whose testimony helped save the country from the Nixon criminality comes an analysis that VenDen Heuvel should be familiar with.

From generals and admirals at the Pentagon to Foreign Service officers in Foggy Bottom, along with untold thousands of the nameless and unknown career civil servants who soldier on to protect our national security, there is anger and resentment. Most of these people are not political in the partisan sense; rather, they work in and for our government to keep the nation safe, and take pride in their work.

For the past eight years, the Bush Administration has marginalized them, manipulated them, and beaten them down. Dick Cheney, in particular, worked to keep the national security professionals submissive, and to ignore their good advice. In a move that was unheard of for a Vice President, Cheney created his own National Security Council...Cheney cost the nation blood and treasure with his preemptive Iraq war. He embarrassed the United States the world over by demanding (and continuing to demand) that we use torture.
(snip)
Rather than risk alienation, Obama has given in to them, at the expense of his natural constituency, the political progressives who find it appalling that the Bush/Cheney torture is not being fully exposed (and prosecuted) to prevent it from happening again -- and sooner, rather than later.

I would encourage those who are demanding exposure and prosecution to keep pounding their drums. Clearly, they are on the right side of this issue, and Obama knows it. While he is going to placate the national security bureaucrats from time to time in order to lead them effectively, hopefully the pressure for him to deal with the atrocious behavior of Bush and Cheney is only just getting started.

The president has a bumpy ride before him, and its purpose is to get the country functional again. So much destruction went into making the mess, it's going to take a long time to get the chaff sorted out from the good.

The president's talent in community organization will be sorely needed, in a community that has been so violated as this government. Reining in the abuses has been accomplished by defeat of the criminal element. Bringing the executive branch back into compliance with the law will take a concerted effort on all of our parts.

Another Border Issue

Most of you probably don't know that under the late unlamented maladministration trucks not licensed in the U.S. were allowed to operate here over the Mexican border. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers' Association made a lot of trouble over that, for several reasons, and of course not the least of those was its own business.

The Sierra Club and Public Citizen, along with the Teamsters, raised objections about safety and environmental standards, but were of course driven over by a White House that thought the public interest was interference with its absolute power. However, these were issues that concerned all of us, as Mexico does not require a lot of the safety measures that have developed in the U.S. Another issue was raised here about language ability and training. Last month Congress ended that experiment in unsafety at any speed.

Rescinding that measure, whose legality was always questionable, has created a stir with Mexico that has resulted in their placing tariffs on items like grapes from California. That was a direct slap back at Speaker Nancy Pelosi who was instrumental in ending the measure. Other growers affected by the tariffs have been outspoken in asking to return the commerce at any cost.

The long-simmering dispute over allowing Mexican trucks onto U.S. highways is escalating into a trade war that could cost Washington state agricultural interests millions of dollars in lost sales and present the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress with an early test of their trade policies.

Washington's pear, cherry, apricot and Christmas tree growers find themselves in the middle of a trade clash not of their own making and facing 20 percent tariffs on their exports to Mexico.

The biggest impact, however, could be on the state's potato growers and processors. Mexico buys $83 million worth of frozen potato products annually, the bulk of them from Washington state, where 10 plants employing 20,000 people produce frozen French fries, hash browns and Tater Tots.

On the other side, organized labor, led by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and consumer groups continue to insist Mexican trucks and their drivers present a major road hazard to U.S. motorists. They also charge that Mexico illegally imposed the tariffs without living up to its obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
(snip)
The dispute dates to 1995, when the United States refused to allow Mexican trucks across the border as required under NAFTA. The trade agreement, which also includes Canada, allowed for cross-border truck traffic, but U.S. officials said Mexican trucks and their drivers were unsafe.

Rather than allowing Mexican trucks free access to U.S. roads and highways, a pilot program was launched that allowed a limited number of trucks into the United States while safety issues were resolved.

Earlier this month, in approving a $410 billion spending bill, Congress killed the pilot program. Within days, Mexico retaliated by imposing tariffs on nearly 90 U.S.-produced goods worth about $2.4 billion.

The tariffs covered such products as cherries, pears, apricots, frozen potato products, Christmas trees, strawberries, onions, fresh grapes, pet food, books, shampoo, pet food, toothpaste and dishwashers.

Mexican Economic Minister Gerardo Ruiz Mateos said Congress' decision to eliminate the pilot program was "wrong, protectionist and clearly in violation of the treaty."

Teamsters President James Hoffa said Mexican trucks and drivers still don't meet U.S. safety standards and records on Mexican driving violations are often incomplete and inaccurate, records of how many hours Mexican drivers have driven can't be found and there were questions about certified testing facilities to detect alcohol and drugs in drivers.

"Mexico has had 15 years to meet safety standards set by Congress and until they are met, the American public doesn't want these unsafe trucks on our highways," Hoffa said in an e-mail statement.

The NAFTA agreements have never looked like a plus to the U.S. anyway, but safety standards are a real issue in Texas, where most of the traffic would occur. The last eight years gave us a feel for what total lack of public interest spending and regulation would be like. We can do better than let poorly maintained vehicles with overworked drivers loose on our roads.

Another issue raised locally has been the increasing refusal of U.S. drivers to go south of the border because of the mayhem there. Without traffic from the U.S. going south, it is reasonable to assume truck business would increase for the Mexican trucks.

Trade wars may be a burden to growers in other states, but safety should be a big consideration in Transportation Secretary LaHood's agenda. Having driven in traffic that was largely huge trucks to get to various places, I really would want to know that the trucks at least had met basic safety standards. I'll buy the grapes from California myself, thank you.

Queasy Feeling

I guess one way to show that as the new president you are not soft on security issues is to put military people in key positions. That would probably explain why President Obama appointed a retired Marine general, James L. Jones, to the position of National Security Adviser. I'm sure General Jones will do his job, but something about the attitude he displayed in this article has me feeling, well, a little nervous.

Jones, a retired Marine general, made it clear that he will run the process and be the primary conduit of national security advice to Obama, eliminating the "back channels" that at times in the Bush administration allowed Cabinet secretaries and the vice president's office to unilaterally influence and make policy out of view of the others.

"We're not always going to agree on everything," Jones said, and "so it's my job to make sure that minority opinion is represented" to the president. "But if at the end of the day he turns to me and says, 'Well, what do you think, Jones?,' I'm going to tell him what I think." ...

Although Jones said he strongly supports increased resources for the State Department, which is increasingly dwarfed by the size and expanding missions of the Defense Department, he has long been an outspoken proponent of a "pro-active military" in noncombat regions. He has advocated military collaboration with the oil and gas industry and with nongovernmental organizations abroad.

And it's not like the general is "a token" in the administration, a mere nod to the defense department. He has company, according to the article:

The Obama administration -- with powerful figures such as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates -- appears crowded at the top of the national security pyramid and heavy with military officials, including Jones himself and retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair as director of national intelligence. ...

What concerns me is that the stunning growth of power and influence of the Pentagon which we saw under the Bush administration appears to be continuing, rather than being checked. Why do we need a "pro-active military" in noncombat regions? Why did we need Africom? Is the State Department going to be relegated to official visits and polite diplomacy while the Defense Department does the heavy lifting?

It is possible that General Jones is the right person for the job: organized, disciplined, and knowledgeable, a man who will present the President with all of the options when a difficult problem arises. It's too soon to tell.

But I'll tell you what: I've still got a queasy feeling.