China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan, a senior Chinese military official said Thursday.
"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," the official, Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, said at an official briefing.
General Zhu, considered a hawk, stressed that his comments reflected his personal views and not official policy. Beijing has long insisted that it will not initiate the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict.
But in extensive comments to a visiting delegation of correspondents based in Hong Kong, General Zhu said he believed that the Chinese government was under internal pressure to change its "no first use" policy and to make clear that it would employ the most powerful weapons at its disposal to defend its claim over Taiwan.
"War logic" dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival, he said, speaking in fluent English. "We have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States," General Zhu said. "We can't win this kind of war."
Whether or not the comments signal a shift in Chinese policy, they come at a sensitive time in relations between China and the United States.
The Pentagon is preparing the release of a long-delayed report on the Chinese military that some experts say will warn that China could emerge as a strategic rival to the United States. National security concerns have also been a major issue in the $18.5 billion bid by Cnooc Ltd., a major Chinese oil and gas company, to purchase the Unocal Corporation, the American energy concern...
Either the Chinese General is a political novice, or he's part of the dance.
Remember, there is no Blank Check without Endless War.
The problem for the Cowboys on all sides is that they don't understand the guns they're playing with. They don't know what they don't know. And so they constantly reveal it.
The reality is with a standing army the size of the entire American population, they're better prepared for a conventional war than we are.
This is a known that Zhu acts like is an unknown.
He's not stupid or Clueless, General Zhu Chenghu, so who's he dancing with?
Friday, July 15, 2005
More Lies for the Crusade
An Army general who has been criticized for his role in the treatment of prisoners at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has contradicted his sworn congressional testimony about contacts with senior Pentagon officials.
Gen. Geoffrey Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004 that he had only filed a report on a recent visit to Abu Ghraib, and did not talk to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or his top aides about the fact-finding trip.
But in a recorded statement to attorneys three months later, Miller said he gave two of Rumsfeld's senior aides - then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary for Intelligence Steve Cambone - a briefing on his visit and subsequent recommendations.
"Following our return in the fall, I gave an outbrief to both Dr. Wolfowitz and Secretary Cambone," Miller said in the statement on Aug. 21, 2004, to lawyers for guards accused of prisoner abuse, a transcript of which was obtained by the Tribune.
"I went over the report that we had developed and gave them a briefing on the intelligence activities, recommendations, and some recommendations on detention operations," Miller said.
Specific interrogation techniques, he said, were not discussed.
Miller's statement about the meeting, if true, suggests that officials at the very top of the Pentagon may have been more involved in monitoring activities at the prison than previously disclosed. Abu Ghraib was later at the center of a scandal surrounding prisoner abuse, which has led to punishments for U.S. soldiers.
Miller, Cambone and Wolfowitz, who is now acting director of the World Bank, declined to respond to written questions about Miller's contradictory statements. Rumsfeld, Cambone, Wolfowitz and Miller have denied any knowledge of prisoner abuse.
In the Aug. 21 statement, Miller says that he never spoke directly to Rumsfeld about his Abu Ghraib visit or his subsequent recommendations for new, tougher interrogation tactics there.
Miller's name came up again this week, when he was named in a military investigation made public Wednesday into FBI allegations that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were being mistreated. The report recommended that Miller be reprimanded for not monitoring the interrogation tactics used on one detainee, Mohamed al-Qahtani, who allegedly intended to be the 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 plot.
Miller's superior officer, Gen. Bantz Craddock, overruled the reprimand, arguing that there was no evidence that laws had been broken.
Cambone has asserted that he was not briefed by Miller after the general returned from Abu Ghraib. During his appearance on May 11, 2004, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Cambone said he and Miller did not speak about Abu Ghraib after Miller's return from the September 2003 fact-finding mission.
Wolfowitz, who also testified before Congress in May 2004 about prisoner abuses, was not asked during the hearings whether he had been briefed by Miller...
Thanks to Digby for the tip. Digby also has a good read on this:
Here's the thing. After artillery officer Miller showed such pluck and spunk down at Gitmo with his novel interrogation techniques, they sent him to Iraq to see what he could do. See, the Iraqis weren't behaving like the grateful liberated people they were expected to be. He made an evaluation and then sent his "best guys" from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib to implement his techniques. We have recently had it confirmed that many of the techniques authorized by Miller at Gitmo were of the same ilk as those captured in the pictures at Abu Ghraib.
And in a bizarro world decision worthy of Wil E Coyote, after the scandal broke they sent Miller in to "straighten things out."
...It looks now as if he was doing all this with the express knowledge and permission of Rumsfeld's top brass and presumably Rumsfeld himself. (Remember Rumsfeld weighed in on "interrogation" techniques in some detail --- "why shouldn't they have to stand for longer than four hours, I do!") This is not surprising either.
These guys picked a sadistic amateur to run both Gitmo and Abu Ghraib because his predecessors were insufficiently willing to "take the gloves off." This is in keeping with their over-arching theory about how to fight the War on Terror. It's worked out awfully well.
Today, we know that Bush administration loose lips are sinking ships all over the place, and their zeal to fear monger at home combined with their desire to treat the wogs with maximum ferocity has resulted in the US actively encouraging terrorism. It's a f*cking miracle we've escaped another hit, and it's no thanks to anything these clowns have done.
I know Digby would disagree, largely because it's irrational to think anyone could be this stupid, but it's all going according to the Dominionist plan.
Gen. Geoffrey Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004 that he had only filed a report on a recent visit to Abu Ghraib, and did not talk to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or his top aides about the fact-finding trip.
But in a recorded statement to attorneys three months later, Miller said he gave two of Rumsfeld's senior aides - then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary for Intelligence Steve Cambone - a briefing on his visit and subsequent recommendations.
"Following our return in the fall, I gave an outbrief to both Dr. Wolfowitz and Secretary Cambone," Miller said in the statement on Aug. 21, 2004, to lawyers for guards accused of prisoner abuse, a transcript of which was obtained by the Tribune.
"I went over the report that we had developed and gave them a briefing on the intelligence activities, recommendations, and some recommendations on detention operations," Miller said.
Specific interrogation techniques, he said, were not discussed.
Miller's statement about the meeting, if true, suggests that officials at the very top of the Pentagon may have been more involved in monitoring activities at the prison than previously disclosed. Abu Ghraib was later at the center of a scandal surrounding prisoner abuse, which has led to punishments for U.S. soldiers.
Miller, Cambone and Wolfowitz, who is now acting director of the World Bank, declined to respond to written questions about Miller's contradictory statements. Rumsfeld, Cambone, Wolfowitz and Miller have denied any knowledge of prisoner abuse.
In the Aug. 21 statement, Miller says that he never spoke directly to Rumsfeld about his Abu Ghraib visit or his subsequent recommendations for new, tougher interrogation tactics there.
Miller's name came up again this week, when he was named in a military investigation made public Wednesday into FBI allegations that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were being mistreated. The report recommended that Miller be reprimanded for not monitoring the interrogation tactics used on one detainee, Mohamed al-Qahtani, who allegedly intended to be the 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 plot.
Miller's superior officer, Gen. Bantz Craddock, overruled the reprimand, arguing that there was no evidence that laws had been broken.
Cambone has asserted that he was not briefed by Miller after the general returned from Abu Ghraib. During his appearance on May 11, 2004, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Cambone said he and Miller did not speak about Abu Ghraib after Miller's return from the September 2003 fact-finding mission.
Wolfowitz, who also testified before Congress in May 2004 about prisoner abuses, was not asked during the hearings whether he had been briefed by Miller...
Thanks to Digby for the tip. Digby also has a good read on this:
Here's the thing. After artillery officer Miller showed such pluck and spunk down at Gitmo with his novel interrogation techniques, they sent him to Iraq to see what he could do. See, the Iraqis weren't behaving like the grateful liberated people they were expected to be. He made an evaluation and then sent his "best guys" from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib to implement his techniques. We have recently had it confirmed that many of the techniques authorized by Miller at Gitmo were of the same ilk as those captured in the pictures at Abu Ghraib.
And in a bizarro world decision worthy of Wil E Coyote, after the scandal broke they sent Miller in to "straighten things out."
...It looks now as if he was doing all this with the express knowledge and permission of Rumsfeld's top brass and presumably Rumsfeld himself. (Remember Rumsfeld weighed in on "interrogation" techniques in some detail --- "why shouldn't they have to stand for longer than four hours, I do!") This is not surprising either.
These guys picked a sadistic amateur to run both Gitmo and Abu Ghraib because his predecessors were insufficiently willing to "take the gloves off." This is in keeping with their over-arching theory about how to fight the War on Terror. It's worked out awfully well.
Today, we know that Bush administration loose lips are sinking ships all over the place, and their zeal to fear monger at home combined with their desire to treat the wogs with maximum ferocity has resulted in the US actively encouraging terrorism. It's a f*cking miracle we've escaped another hit, and it's no thanks to anything these clowns have done.
I know Digby would disagree, largely because it's irrational to think anyone could be this stupid, but it's all going according to the Dominionist plan.
A Theory Like Gravity or Evolution
Conspiracy theory:
Finally we've got some names. The White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was in charge of "fixing the facts and the intelligence around the policy." The ringleaders are Hughes, Libby, Card, Matalin, Wilkinson, and, of course, Rove.
Joe Wilson saw it firsthand awhile back, but it's because Valerie Plame was their target. At the beginning of the Administration, Wilson was a Colin Powell State Department Republican, too. He's seen the WHIGs from both sides.
Billmon sees the diversion and the ramifications of the current crisis to the WHIG.
...if Rove isn't indicted, then the game is over -- even if a few low-level "bad apples" have to take a fall. Rove will be damaged goods, but he'll be damaged goods that still have their own office in the West Wing.
Nothing the Reptiles say about the Wilsons, and nothing we say in their defense, is going to change that. What's more, Left Blogostan doesn't have nearly enough collective firepower to protect them. Joe Biden and the Republocrats aren't even going to try. So it's really up to the corporate press to decide whether it will let itself be used, once again, as Rove's political vegomatic (It slices! dices! grates! etc.)
In the end, it probably will -- even if some of the cutting edges on the vegomatic are a little pissed right now at the shoddy treatment they've been getting. The institutional pressures are just too strong...
Since the main$tream media is owned by the same robber barons that own Bu$hCo, there may be some noise to sell the corporate product about the accusations, but the drama of it all as Patriot Rove emerges Righteous will sell nicely too.
Finally we've got some names. The White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was in charge of "fixing the facts and the intelligence around the policy." The ringleaders are Hughes, Libby, Card, Matalin, Wilkinson, and, of course, Rove.
Joe Wilson saw it firsthand awhile back, but it's because Valerie Plame was their target. At the beginning of the Administration, Wilson was a Colin Powell State Department Republican, too. He's seen the WHIGs from both sides.
Billmon sees the diversion and the ramifications of the current crisis to the WHIG.
...if Rove isn't indicted, then the game is over -- even if a few low-level "bad apples" have to take a fall. Rove will be damaged goods, but he'll be damaged goods that still have their own office in the West Wing.
Nothing the Reptiles say about the Wilsons, and nothing we say in their defense, is going to change that. What's more, Left Blogostan doesn't have nearly enough collective firepower to protect them. Joe Biden and the Republocrats aren't even going to try. So it's really up to the corporate press to decide whether it will let itself be used, once again, as Rove's political vegomatic (It slices! dices! grates! etc.)
In the end, it probably will -- even if some of the cutting edges on the vegomatic are a little pissed right now at the shoddy treatment they've been getting. The institutional pressures are just too strong...
Since the main$tream media is owned by the same robber barons that own Bu$hCo, there may be some noise to sell the corporate product about the accusations, but the drama of it all as Patriot Rove emerges Righteous will sell nicely too.
Spelled Out Again for the Main$tream
Krugman:
...What Mr. Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern.
I first realized that we were living in Karl Rove's America during the 2000 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush began saying things about Social Security privatization and tax cuts that were simply false. At first, I thought the Bush campaign was making a big mistake - that these blatant falsehoods would be condemned by prominent Republican politicians and Republican economists, especially those who had spent years building reputations as advocates of fiscal responsibility. In fact, with hardly any exceptions they lined up to praise Mr. Bush's proposals.
But the real demonstration that Mr. Rove understands American politics better than any pundit came after 9/11.
Every time I read a lament for the post-9/11 era of national unity, I wonder what people are talking about. On the issues I was watching, the Republicans' exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering...
Mr. Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics. Attacks on someone who contradicts the official line don't have to be true, or even plausible, to undermine that person's effectiveness. All they have to do is get a lot of media play, and they'll create the sense that there must be something wrong with the guy.
And now we know just how far he was willing to go with these smear tactics: as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson IV, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason.
But what we're getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven't just gone along with the diversionary tactics, like the irrelevant questions about whether Mr. Rove used Valerie Wilson's name in identifying her (Robert Novak later identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), or the false, easily refuted claim that Mr. Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. They're now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.
...What Mr. Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern.
I first realized that we were living in Karl Rove's America during the 2000 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush began saying things about Social Security privatization and tax cuts that were simply false. At first, I thought the Bush campaign was making a big mistake - that these blatant falsehoods would be condemned by prominent Republican politicians and Republican economists, especially those who had spent years building reputations as advocates of fiscal responsibility. In fact, with hardly any exceptions they lined up to praise Mr. Bush's proposals.
But the real demonstration that Mr. Rove understands American politics better than any pundit came after 9/11.
Every time I read a lament for the post-9/11 era of national unity, I wonder what people are talking about. On the issues I was watching, the Republicans' exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering...
Mr. Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics. Attacks on someone who contradicts the official line don't have to be true, or even plausible, to undermine that person's effectiveness. All they have to do is get a lot of media play, and they'll create the sense that there must be something wrong with the guy.
And now we know just how far he was willing to go with these smear tactics: as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson IV, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason.
But what we're getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven't just gone along with the diversionary tactics, like the irrelevant questions about whether Mr. Rove used Valerie Wilson's name in identifying her (Robert Novak later identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), or the false, easily refuted claim that Mr. Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. They're now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Protecting Al Qaeda's Interests Worldwide
From AmericaBlog:
Bush admin may be responsible for botching effort to thwart London bombing
ABC News just reported that the British authorities say they have evidence that the London attacks last week were an operation planned by Al Qaeda for the last two years. This was an operation the Brits thought they caught and stopped in time, but they were wrong. The piece of the puzzle ABC missed is that this is an operation the Bush administration helped botch last year.
1. The London bombers, per ABC, are connected to an Al Qaeda plot planned two years ago in Lahore, Pakistan.
2. Pakistani authorities recovered the laptop of a captured Al Qaeda leader, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, on July 13, 2004. On that laptop, they found plans for a coordinated series of attacks on the London subway. According to an expert interviewed by ABC, "there is absolutely no doubt that Khan was part of a worldwide Al Qaeda operation, not just in the United States but also in Great Britain and throughout the west."
3. ABC reports that names in the computer matched a suspected cell of Britain's of Pakistani decent, many of who lived near the town of Luton, England. According to ABC, authorities thought they had stopped the subway plot with the arrest of more than a dozen people last year. Obviously, they hadn't.
4. Those arrests were the arrests that the Bush administration botched by announcing a heightened security alert the week of the Democratic Convention. Because the US let the cat out of the bag, the media got a hold of Khan's name, his Al Qaeda contacts found out he was co-opted, and they fled. The Brits had to have a high speed chase to catch some of them as they fled, and, according to press reports, the Brits and Pakistanis both fear that some slipped away.
Again, these were guys involved with the plot to blow up the London subway last week. Some may have escaped because of Bush administration negligence...
Read it all, for links to Juan Cole on this, and stories from CNN and the NY Daily News from when the leak happened in the summer of '04.
Atrios has more.
Lambert at Corrente has been all over this for awhile.
Now do I think this will be enough for Rove to resign? In a rational world, yes, but Bu$hCo is not reality-based. They're busy making the reality they want.
That reality is their Dominion, and by the time most realize it, there will be nothing most can do about it.
Bush admin may be responsible for botching effort to thwart London bombing
ABC News just reported that the British authorities say they have evidence that the London attacks last week were an operation planned by Al Qaeda for the last two years. This was an operation the Brits thought they caught and stopped in time, but they were wrong. The piece of the puzzle ABC missed is that this is an operation the Bush administration helped botch last year.
1. The London bombers, per ABC, are connected to an Al Qaeda plot planned two years ago in Lahore, Pakistan.
2. Pakistani authorities recovered the laptop of a captured Al Qaeda leader, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, on July 13, 2004. On that laptop, they found plans for a coordinated series of attacks on the London subway. According to an expert interviewed by ABC, "there is absolutely no doubt that Khan was part of a worldwide Al Qaeda operation, not just in the United States but also in Great Britain and throughout the west."
3. ABC reports that names in the computer matched a suspected cell of Britain's of Pakistani decent, many of who lived near the town of Luton, England. According to ABC, authorities thought they had stopped the subway plot with the arrest of more than a dozen people last year. Obviously, they hadn't.
4. Those arrests were the arrests that the Bush administration botched by announcing a heightened security alert the week of the Democratic Convention. Because the US let the cat out of the bag, the media got a hold of Khan's name, his Al Qaeda contacts found out he was co-opted, and they fled. The Brits had to have a high speed chase to catch some of them as they fled, and, according to press reports, the Brits and Pakistanis both fear that some slipped away.
Again, these were guys involved with the plot to blow up the London subway last week. Some may have escaped because of Bush administration negligence...
Read it all, for links to Juan Cole on this, and stories from CNN and the NY Daily News from when the leak happened in the summer of '04.
Atrios has more.
Lambert at Corrente has been all over this for awhile.
Now do I think this will be enough for Rove to resign? In a rational world, yes, but Bu$hCo is not reality-based. They're busy making the reality they want.
That reality is their Dominion, and by the time most realize it, there will be nothing most can do about it.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Hubri$
Bolton May Accept Recess Appointment
Stalemate Continues on U.N. Nomination
John R. Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations was the hottest issue in Congress a few months ago. But it has virtually evaporated this summer, eclipsed by speculation over a Supreme Court nominee and the fate of the president's top political adviser.
With neither the White House nor Senate Democrats showing any sign of yielding in their long-running dispute over documents related to Bolton's State Department work, speculation is rife that Bolton is prepared to accept a recess appointment good through the end of 2006, despite warnings from some GOP senators that it would weaken his influence and effectiveness...
"He'll take the recess" appointment, said the administration source, who is familiar with Bolton's thinking. "The president has made his selection, and the president is asking the Senate to confirm the selection, and if the Senate refuses to do that, then most assuredly [Bush] will make a recess appointment."
The president is constitutionally empowered to fill vacancies when the Senate is in recess, and the appointments are effective through the final adjournment of the sitting Congress...
Bolton? He's going to go to the U.N. anyway.
Rove? There is no Bu$hCo without him. Or Cheney. Or Rumsfeld. Or a dozen others, who will not back down, because if they don't hang together, separately they will be hung by a court of law.
There's no rational reason for me to think this, just a hunch.
The gunboats are circling Ft. Sumpter.
Darth Cheney is worried about the security of the Wrepublic.
Look for a big one, and martial law soon, if they can't get Gonzales to fire Fitzgerald legally.
Stalemate Continues on U.N. Nomination
John R. Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations was the hottest issue in Congress a few months ago. But it has virtually evaporated this summer, eclipsed by speculation over a Supreme Court nominee and the fate of the president's top political adviser.
With neither the White House nor Senate Democrats showing any sign of yielding in their long-running dispute over documents related to Bolton's State Department work, speculation is rife that Bolton is prepared to accept a recess appointment good through the end of 2006, despite warnings from some GOP senators that it would weaken his influence and effectiveness...
"He'll take the recess" appointment, said the administration source, who is familiar with Bolton's thinking. "The president has made his selection, and the president is asking the Senate to confirm the selection, and if the Senate refuses to do that, then most assuredly [Bush] will make a recess appointment."
The president is constitutionally empowered to fill vacancies when the Senate is in recess, and the appointments are effective through the final adjournment of the sitting Congress...
Bolton? He's going to go to the U.N. anyway.
Rove? There is no Bu$hCo without him. Or Cheney. Or Rumsfeld. Or a dozen others, who will not back down, because if they don't hang together, separately they will be hung by a court of law.
There's no rational reason for me to think this, just a hunch.
The gunboats are circling Ft. Sumpter.
Darth Cheney is worried about the security of the Wrepublic.
Look for a big one, and martial law soon, if they can't get Gonzales to fire Fitzgerald legally.
If It Ain't Broke, Don't De-regulate It
Molly Ivins says There Goes the Electrical Grid:
The trouble with deregulation is that it always takes some disaster like Enron before we realize there was a reason for the regulation to begin with.
We are about to repeat one of the huge mistakes of the 1920s and '30s because we have forgotten why PUHCA (pronounced Pooka) was instituted in the first place. PUHCA is the Public Utility Holding Company Act, passed in 1935, which prevents concentration of ownership of power plants. Both the House and Senate versions of the energy bill contain a repeal of PUHCA.
As Kelpie Wilson pointed out in an article for Truthout, "For 50 years we have had reliable, cheap electric power that has allowed strong economic growth, and no PUHCA-regulated energy holding company has ever gone broke."
PUHCA was partially repealed in the '90s, and even that much deregulation was part of what led to Enron, Westar and other slight mishaps.
PUHCA puts utilities under strict regulation by both state and federal governments. It restricts ownership of utilities to public or private companies that are in the business of producing power.
The most likely candidates to take over power companies are the big oil companies, now awash in cash. There goes the electrical grid: Why fix it when you can charge more for doing nothing?
Lynn Hargis, an attorney who spent 10 years at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is now with Public Citizen, says repeal means a repeat of the same dreary mistakes. In the 1920s, three huge companies owned half of the nation's power plants and built them into speculative power-holding companies that used the reliable money from utilities for flights of fancy in the stock market.
When you are paying your electric bill to Exxon/Mobil, Halliburton or some Chinese firm, you will see why this is a monumentally bad idea...
Read it all.
The trouble with deregulation is that it always takes some disaster like Enron before we realize there was a reason for the regulation to begin with.
We are about to repeat one of the huge mistakes of the 1920s and '30s because we have forgotten why PUHCA (pronounced Pooka) was instituted in the first place. PUHCA is the Public Utility Holding Company Act, passed in 1935, which prevents concentration of ownership of power plants. Both the House and Senate versions of the energy bill contain a repeal of PUHCA.
As Kelpie Wilson pointed out in an article for Truthout, "For 50 years we have had reliable, cheap electric power that has allowed strong economic growth, and no PUHCA-regulated energy holding company has ever gone broke."
PUHCA was partially repealed in the '90s, and even that much deregulation was part of what led to Enron, Westar and other slight mishaps.
PUHCA puts utilities under strict regulation by both state and federal governments. It restricts ownership of utilities to public or private companies that are in the business of producing power.
The most likely candidates to take over power companies are the big oil companies, now awash in cash. There goes the electrical grid: Why fix it when you can charge more for doing nothing?
Lynn Hargis, an attorney who spent 10 years at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is now with Public Citizen, says repeal means a repeat of the same dreary mistakes. In the 1920s, three huge companies owned half of the nation's power plants and built them into speculative power-holding companies that used the reliable money from utilities for flights of fancy in the stock market.
When you are paying your electric bill to Exxon/Mobil, Halliburton or some Chinese firm, you will see why this is a monumentally bad idea...
Read it all.
Conspiracy Fact
A classic piece of CIA disinformation was a pornographic movie made in the 1960s with an actor pretending to be President Sukarno of Indonesia. It was meant to undermine Mr. Sukarno with Muslims.
The subject of disinformation is back with a report that it was one of the tools considered by the Pentagon's short-lived Office of Strategic Influence. The office circulated classified proposals for aggressive campaigns using the foreign media to improve America's standing abroad.
History teaches that this kind of "black" propaganda cannot be confined to the foreign media. In 1986, national security adviser John Poindexter wrote for President Reagan a "disinformation program" aimed at destabilizing Libya's Col. Muammar Qaddafi by false reports in the foreign press about an impending conflict between the two countries.
But the false information reached an American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal - a phenomenon known in the trade as "blowback."
And, with no effort by the White House to steer it away from the phony story, the Journal headlined that Libya and the United States were on a collision course. Soon, the Poindexter memo was revealed in The Washington Post, and in the ensuing flap about a policy of lies, Bernard Kalb resigned as assistant secretary of State...
... in Salt Lake City, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said "The Pentagon is not issuing disinformation to the foreign press or any other press," and he gave assurance that "what we tell the public is accurate and correct."
Maybe that rules out disinformation as a policy.
But, then how do we know?
Guess who knowingly released this into media for the Party?
I wonder how much money she's made over the years doing this? Or is that Classified? And is that fact, and who paid her, why she went to prison rather than talk?
Thanks to rorschach for the link.
The subject of disinformation is back with a report that it was one of the tools considered by the Pentagon's short-lived Office of Strategic Influence. The office circulated classified proposals for aggressive campaigns using the foreign media to improve America's standing abroad.
History teaches that this kind of "black" propaganda cannot be confined to the foreign media. In 1986, national security adviser John Poindexter wrote for President Reagan a "disinformation program" aimed at destabilizing Libya's Col. Muammar Qaddafi by false reports in the foreign press about an impending conflict between the two countries.
But the false information reached an American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal - a phenomenon known in the trade as "blowback."
And, with no effort by the White House to steer it away from the phony story, the Journal headlined that Libya and the United States were on a collision course. Soon, the Poindexter memo was revealed in The Washington Post, and in the ensuing flap about a policy of lies, Bernard Kalb resigned as assistant secretary of State...
... in Salt Lake City, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said "The Pentagon is not issuing disinformation to the foreign press or any other press," and he gave assurance that "what we tell the public is accurate and correct."
Maybe that rules out disinformation as a policy.
But, then how do we know?
Guess who knowingly released this into media for the Party?
I wonder how much money she's made over the years doing this? Or is that Classified? And is that fact, and who paid her, why she went to prison rather than talk?
Thanks to rorschach for the link.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Coincidence Detector
SUNDAY, JULY 10, 2005
CRISIS PLANNING
When there is an emergency like the London bombings, the public instinctively turns to professionals for help. We speak to two experts who are in Toronto today for the World Conference on Disaster Management. Adrian Gordon is the Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness, and Peter Power is Managing Director of a London-based consulting firm that specializes in crisis management, Visor Consultants - which on the morning of July 7 was co-incidentally running a security exercise for a private firm, simulating multiple bomb explosions in the London Underground, at the same stations that were subsequently attacked in real life.
Note: temporary link. You have to pay for a transcript.
Thanks to Rigorous Intuition for the link.
This may get me banned in some places, but once again, Jeff Wells has some disturbing points to make. Like kos, I will say that many of Jeff's untestable ideas do not seem grounded in reality.
Then again, mine don't either, possibly because I test everything I can. My untestable ideas can be quite radical. Perhaps the difference is I don't take my untestable ideas seriously.
Many of Jeff Wells' testable ideas are good questions.
Count on Oliver Stone using Jeff's Coincidence Theorists Guide to 9/11 for his upcoming storyline.
Let's ask a question here: is someone, in a position to observe, setting attacks like 9/11 and the London bombing into motion at a time when emergency personnel would be likely to discount them as part of a drill?
CRISIS PLANNING
When there is an emergency like the London bombings, the public instinctively turns to professionals for help. We speak to two experts who are in Toronto today for the World Conference on Disaster Management. Adrian Gordon is the Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness, and Peter Power is Managing Director of a London-based consulting firm that specializes in crisis management, Visor Consultants - which on the morning of July 7 was co-incidentally running a security exercise for a private firm, simulating multiple bomb explosions in the London Underground, at the same stations that were subsequently attacked in real life.
Note: temporary link. You have to pay for a transcript.
Thanks to Rigorous Intuition for the link.
This may get me banned in some places, but once again, Jeff Wells has some disturbing points to make. Like kos, I will say that many of Jeff's untestable ideas do not seem grounded in reality.
Then again, mine don't either, possibly because I test everything I can. My untestable ideas can be quite radical. Perhaps the difference is I don't take my untestable ideas seriously.
Many of Jeff Wells' testable ideas are good questions.
Count on Oliver Stone using Jeff's Coincidence Theorists Guide to 9/11 for his upcoming storyline.
Let's ask a question here: is someone, in a position to observe, setting attacks like 9/11 and the London bombing into motion at a time when emergency personnel would be likely to discount them as part of a drill?
The Bolton-Rove-Plame Connection
Steve Clemmons may have the right idea:
I would like some of you in the intelligence industry to send me notes as to whatever you might know -- or might have an educated guess -- regarding the likelihood that such a brief, held by Powell, would have come from the Bolton/Fleitz shop.
Fleitz continued to hold a CIA portfolio while working at State as Bolton's acting Chief of Staff. He is clearly the person who empowered Bolton's abilities to cherry-pick intelligence and to outmaneuver on some occasions and intimidate other State Department intelligence analysts.
Henry Waxman, in March 2005, sent Chris Shays a letter documenting concerns about Bolton's office's role in promulgating the Niger/Uranium story in the administration. Bolton tried to cover his tracks as this post on TWN works through -- but there may be links to the Rove/Plame story that are worth sniffing out. Any assistance from intel observers would be helpful however.
One thing that bothers me about the potential link is that Fitzgerald has not sought to subpoena or interview either John Bolton or Fred Fleitz. He's a smart guy -- and if there was a connection between Bolton and Plame -- one would think we would have seen inclusion of these personalities in the grand jury investigation.
Alternatively, Fitzgerald might not want to stampede Bolton or Fleitz- yet.
I would like some of you in the intelligence industry to send me notes as to whatever you might know -- or might have an educated guess -- regarding the likelihood that such a brief, held by Powell, would have come from the Bolton/Fleitz shop.
Fleitz continued to hold a CIA portfolio while working at State as Bolton's acting Chief of Staff. He is clearly the person who empowered Bolton's abilities to cherry-pick intelligence and to outmaneuver on some occasions and intimidate other State Department intelligence analysts.
Henry Waxman, in March 2005, sent Chris Shays a letter documenting concerns about Bolton's office's role in promulgating the Niger/Uranium story in the administration. Bolton tried to cover his tracks as this post on TWN works through -- but there may be links to the Rove/Plame story that are worth sniffing out. Any assistance from intel observers would be helpful however.
One thing that bothers me about the potential link is that Fitzgerald has not sought to subpoena or interview either John Bolton or Fred Fleitz. He's a smart guy -- and if there was a connection between Bolton and Plame -- one would think we would have seen inclusion of these personalities in the grand jury investigation.
Alternatively, Fitzgerald might not want to stampede Bolton or Fleitz- yet.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Bu$hCo Continues to Hire the Best Money Can Buy
Confessed Iran-Contra Figure Lands Sensitive Pentagon Post
Robert Earl, who helped in the failed coverup of the '80s scandal, is now chief of staff to Gordon England, acting deputy secretary of Defense.
In 1987, Robert L. Earl told a grand jury that he had destroyed and stolen national security documents while working for Lt. Col. Oliver L. North during the Iran-Contra scandal.
Now, he sits in one of the most coveted offices in the Pentagon as chief of staff to Gordon R. England, acting deputy secretary of Defense. Earl has clearance to review the kinds of classified documents he once destroyed.
As England goes through his Senate confirmation process, his hiring of Earl has drawn criticism from government ethics watchdogs. But congressional sources said it was unlikely to affect support for England, who was popular on Capitol Hill but whose nomination was tied up over an arcane financial rule.
President Bush nominated England to replace Paul D. Wolfowitz, who left the deputy secretary's post this spring to head the World Bank.
England's chief of staff is the latest figure from the Iran-Contra scandal to play a role in the Bush administration.
Elliott Abrams, who pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress about the illegal funding of the Nicaraguan Contras during the Reagan administration, serves on Bush's National Security Council as head of the Mideast bureau.
Retired Adm. John M. Poindexter, who as national security advisor under Reagan also was implicated in the scandal, has periodically served as a consultant to the Pentagon.
The Iran-Contra case involved the U.S. supplying arms to Iran as part of a complicated deal to fund anti-Sandinista Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Congress had forbidden direct U.S. aid to the Contras.
A report to Congress by independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh stated: "Earl attempted to conceal evidence regarding the arms sales to Iran and the diversion of profits…. He destroyed [National Security Council] documents, assisted North in the destruction of documents … and made false statements to the FBI."
He was granted immunity for his testimony in the Reagan administration's most damaging scandal and was never prosecuted.
Common Cause spokeswoman Mary Boyle noted that some of President Clinton's nominees got into trouble for hiring illegal immigrants for domestic work.
Boyle said of Earl: "Allowing this guy to become the chief of staff to England sends a message … that paying your nanny under the table is grounds not to get a job, but deceiving the FBI and destroying documents will get you a job."
Thanks to Laura Rozen for the link.
Robert Earl, who helped in the failed coverup of the '80s scandal, is now chief of staff to Gordon England, acting deputy secretary of Defense.
In 1987, Robert L. Earl told a grand jury that he had destroyed and stolen national security documents while working for Lt. Col. Oliver L. North during the Iran-Contra scandal.
Now, he sits in one of the most coveted offices in the Pentagon as chief of staff to Gordon R. England, acting deputy secretary of Defense. Earl has clearance to review the kinds of classified documents he once destroyed.
As England goes through his Senate confirmation process, his hiring of Earl has drawn criticism from government ethics watchdogs. But congressional sources said it was unlikely to affect support for England, who was popular on Capitol Hill but whose nomination was tied up over an arcane financial rule.
President Bush nominated England to replace Paul D. Wolfowitz, who left the deputy secretary's post this spring to head the World Bank.
England's chief of staff is the latest figure from the Iran-Contra scandal to play a role in the Bush administration.
Elliott Abrams, who pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress about the illegal funding of the Nicaraguan Contras during the Reagan administration, serves on Bush's National Security Council as head of the Mideast bureau.
Retired Adm. John M. Poindexter, who as national security advisor under Reagan also was implicated in the scandal, has periodically served as a consultant to the Pentagon.
The Iran-Contra case involved the U.S. supplying arms to Iran as part of a complicated deal to fund anti-Sandinista Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Congress had forbidden direct U.S. aid to the Contras.
A report to Congress by independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh stated: "Earl attempted to conceal evidence regarding the arms sales to Iran and the diversion of profits…. He destroyed [National Security Council] documents, assisted North in the destruction of documents … and made false statements to the FBI."
He was granted immunity for his testimony in the Reagan administration's most damaging scandal and was never prosecuted.
Common Cause spokeswoman Mary Boyle noted that some of President Clinton's nominees got into trouble for hiring illegal immigrants for domestic work.
Boyle said of Earl: "Allowing this guy to become the chief of staff to England sends a message … that paying your nanny under the table is grounds not to get a job, but deceiving the FBI and destroying documents will get you a job."
Thanks to Laura Rozen for the link.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
It's Not Over 'Til It's Over
Steve Clemmons seems a little premature:
Perhaps the Bush administration is trying to send a signal to Mr. Bolton that he should withdraw his name.
TWN believes that time has come. There are better candidates to send to the United Nations, and Mr. Bolton can only harm American interests by going to the U.N. by way of recess appointment. This would send a tremendously negative message to the rest of the world.
Many Republicans in the Senate would be seriously disturbed as well because this really would harm the standing of America in a valuable international institution.
There are now so many complicating factors building that the White House can ill afford to allow this nomination-ulcer to keep bleeding.
The White House must deal with Karl Rove's complicity in the Valerie Plame outing. This issue could easily backfire on President Bush who -- at the time -- demanded to know who the villain among his staff was who would compromise American national security by this petty and vindictive exposure of Plame's CIA identity.
The administration also has three weeks to push through a mountain -- a real huge pile -- of important appropriations bills and other legislation that it hopes to get through before the August recess, which will probably mark the definitive beginning of Bush's lame duck presidency.
On top of that, the battle over Sandra Day O'Connor's seat is only just beginning -- and will dominate the news for the weeks ahead.
And yet on top of that drama, we have a major terrorist attack in London -- another tremendous tragedy. That too will take attention and time and calls for the White House to send a constructive, bridge-building personality to the U.N. to strengthen the league of those who stand against this type of violence and want to build an "ideology of hope," to use President Bush's words.
The White House's intense obsession with winning all battles at nearly any cost -- which so offends moderates in both parties -- will undo its larger goals, and Bolton is the most obvious battle for Bush to concede if he hopes to maintain support from moderates and not whip those Democrats who smell blood into a tenacious, obstructionist fury.
Are we talking about the same group of people? Headed by Joes Lieberman and Biden?
What you haven't learned about Bu$hCo is their realization there's no going back.
There have been serious crimes committed by this administration, and as long as Bolton remains a committed soldier, they will continue to push him through. As a matter of Principle, if unscrupulous scoundrels can be said to have principles beyond hoisting the Jolly Roger. They realize they have to have Total Victory or many of them will end up in jail. That, and the Blank Check for Endless War has to keep coming in to keep up the bar tab.
Similarly, there's a lot of joy among us about the revelation of the Rove-Cooper link in the Plame affair.
But look at what's being said here:
In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger... "
In this communication Rove is simply advising caution about something Cooper and apparently many people in Washington already knew: of the Wilson-Plame marriage, Plame was the real Company cowboy, Wilson was simply the official front.
Note the communique itself works as dis information to insist the non existent weapons were there and that Plame-Wilson were acting on their own.
Even though Wilson had State Department orders to check it out, Rove is insisting Plame overran her course and acted outside of orders from Tenet.
Tenet, enjoying his Medal of Freedom and doubtless Company fringe benefits will doubtless testify in support of Rove, because these days the Group owns the Company.
Perhaps the Bush administration is trying to send a signal to Mr. Bolton that he should withdraw his name.
TWN believes that time has come. There are better candidates to send to the United Nations, and Mr. Bolton can only harm American interests by going to the U.N. by way of recess appointment. This would send a tremendously negative message to the rest of the world.
Many Republicans in the Senate would be seriously disturbed as well because this really would harm the standing of America in a valuable international institution.
There are now so many complicating factors building that the White House can ill afford to allow this nomination-ulcer to keep bleeding.
The White House must deal with Karl Rove's complicity in the Valerie Plame outing. This issue could easily backfire on President Bush who -- at the time -- demanded to know who the villain among his staff was who would compromise American national security by this petty and vindictive exposure of Plame's CIA identity.
The administration also has three weeks to push through a mountain -- a real huge pile -- of important appropriations bills and other legislation that it hopes to get through before the August recess, which will probably mark the definitive beginning of Bush's lame duck presidency.
On top of that, the battle over Sandra Day O'Connor's seat is only just beginning -- and will dominate the news for the weeks ahead.
And yet on top of that drama, we have a major terrorist attack in London -- another tremendous tragedy. That too will take attention and time and calls for the White House to send a constructive, bridge-building personality to the U.N. to strengthen the league of those who stand against this type of violence and want to build an "ideology of hope," to use President Bush's words.
The White House's intense obsession with winning all battles at nearly any cost -- which so offends moderates in both parties -- will undo its larger goals, and Bolton is the most obvious battle for Bush to concede if he hopes to maintain support from moderates and not whip those Democrats who smell blood into a tenacious, obstructionist fury.
Are we talking about the same group of people? Headed by Joes Lieberman and Biden?
What you haven't learned about Bu$hCo is their realization there's no going back.
There have been serious crimes committed by this administration, and as long as Bolton remains a committed soldier, they will continue to push him through. As a matter of Principle, if unscrupulous scoundrels can be said to have principles beyond hoisting the Jolly Roger. They realize they have to have Total Victory or many of them will end up in jail. That, and the Blank Check for Endless War has to keep coming in to keep up the bar tab.
Similarly, there's a lot of joy among us about the revelation of the Rove-Cooper link in the Plame affair.
But look at what's being said here:
In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger... "
In this communication Rove is simply advising caution about something Cooper and apparently many people in Washington already knew: of the Wilson-Plame marriage, Plame was the real Company cowboy, Wilson was simply the official front.
Note the communique itself works as dis information to insist the non existent weapons were there and that Plame-Wilson were acting on their own.
Even though Wilson had State Department orders to check it out, Rove is insisting Plame overran her course and acted outside of orders from Tenet.
Tenet, enjoying his Medal of Freedom and doubtless Company fringe benefits will doubtless testify in support of Rove, because these days the Group owns the Company.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Bombing the Subway in Order to Save It
Thanks to granny, a link from the Nov. 5 2002 Asia Times:
"Run away from the light": Such might be the motto of a new, covert policy that the Bush administration is considering implementing. According to recent news reports, it would be the largest expansion into the world of black ops and covert action since the end of the Vietnam War in the 1970s.
And that's saying quite a lot, considering that since Vietnam the Pentagon has not exactly been dormant in this area.
As well-known military analyst William Arkin pointed out in an October 27 column in the Los Angeles Times, the development of the Pentagon's covert counter-terror capability has its roots in the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. The army created a highly compartmentalized organization that could collect clandestine intelligence independent of the rest of the US intelligence community, and follow through with covert military action. Today, it operates under the code name Grey Fox. In Afghanistan it operated alongside the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) paramilitary Special Activities Division and the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command...
I think Ollie North headed that, right?
... Yet the Pentagon wants more. Its Defense Science Board (DSB) conducted a 2002 "Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism". Excerpts from that study, dated August 16, were leaked and obtained by the Federation of American Scientists, which posted them on their website. The report was produced by a 10-member panel of military experts that included Vice Admiral William O Studeman, former director of the National Security Agency...
... Although the study is filled with lots of the usual buzzwords and phrases that Pentagon planners love, such as "robust connectivity, agile ground forces, adaptive joint command and control and discriminant use of force", one thing that does stand out is its call for "preemption/proaction/interdiction/disruption/quick-response capabilities".
This is consistent with the administration’s new National Security Strategy, which called for preemption; indeed, since the DSB study preceded the release of the strategy, it is possible that the strategy was written to incorporate some of its aspects.
The study urges the Pentagon to "take the terrorist threat as seriously as it takes the likelihood and consequences of major theater war", urging officials to launch secret missions and intelligence operations to penetrate and disrupt terrorist cells abroad. Some of those operations should be aimed at signaling to countries that harbor terrorists that "their sovereignty will be at risk".
...It recommends the creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence and cover and deception. For example, the Pentagon and CIA would work together to increase human intelligence (HUMINT) forward/operational presence and to deploy new clandestine technical capabilities.
To bolster government HUMINT capabilities, the task force advances the idea of an intelligence "surge/unsurge" capability - a "robust, global cadre of retirees, reservists and others who are trained and qualified to serve on short notice, including expatriates". This group could be pressed into service during times of crisis.
P2OG would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction, meaning it would prod terrorist cells into action, thus exposing them to "quick-response" attacks by US forces. The means by which it would do this is the far greater use of special operations forces.
Responsibility and accountability for the P2OG would be vested in a "Special Operations Executive" in the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC would plan operations but not oversee their execution in order to avoid comparisons to past abuses, such as the Iran-Contra operations run out of the NSC by Oliver North during the Reagan administration. Under the board's proposal, NSC plans would be executed by the Pentagon or the CIA.
Costs would include developing new means to enable "deep penetration of adversaries" ($1.7 billion annually); exercises and gaming ($100 million annually); development of technical capabilities and the hiring of 500 new staff ($800 million annually); establishment of centers of excellence to handle increased workload ($500 million annually); and expansion of the Joint Forces net assessment activity ($100 million annually). The total cost is envisaged as $3.3 billion.
The DSB study also provides tantalizing glimpses of new capabilities already in the works, referring to new high-tech sensors in development that would enable the United States more closely to track the movements of vehicles or even individuals by satellite. Some of these capabilities are already advanced, such as high-altitude airships, thermobaric weapons and improved urban assault capabilities. Other new projects are being executed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
If the DSB proposal is adopted, it would only reinforce recent Pentagon activity. The Washington Post reported last month that the Pentagon was preparing to consolidate control of most of the global war on terrorism under the US Special Operations Command...
Just sayin', but does a terrorist strike on a London line between two predominantly Arab neighborhoods represented by George Galloway precipitate action or result from precipitation among terrorist cells?
Does it keep Dear Leader from answering difficult questions at the G-8 summit?
Like maybe questions regarding climate change the NOAA has lost the funds to warn us about anymore?
Like whether the record number of tropical storms this early in the season or the Level 4 hurricane bearing down on the Gulf at this moment are related to fossil fuel generated climate change?
One thing's for sure: after the attack, nobody's griping about the weather anymore.
"Run away from the light": Such might be the motto of a new, covert policy that the Bush administration is considering implementing. According to recent news reports, it would be the largest expansion into the world of black ops and covert action since the end of the Vietnam War in the 1970s.
And that's saying quite a lot, considering that since Vietnam the Pentagon has not exactly been dormant in this area.
As well-known military analyst William Arkin pointed out in an October 27 column in the Los Angeles Times, the development of the Pentagon's covert counter-terror capability has its roots in the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. The army created a highly compartmentalized organization that could collect clandestine intelligence independent of the rest of the US intelligence community, and follow through with covert military action. Today, it operates under the code name Grey Fox. In Afghanistan it operated alongside the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) paramilitary Special Activities Division and the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command...
I think Ollie North headed that, right?
... Yet the Pentagon wants more. Its Defense Science Board (DSB) conducted a 2002 "Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism". Excerpts from that study, dated August 16, were leaked and obtained by the Federation of American Scientists, which posted them on their website. The report was produced by a 10-member panel of military experts that included Vice Admiral William O Studeman, former director of the National Security Agency...
... Although the study is filled with lots of the usual buzzwords and phrases that Pentagon planners love, such as "robust connectivity, agile ground forces, adaptive joint command and control and discriminant use of force", one thing that does stand out is its call for "preemption/proaction/interdiction/disruption/quick-response capabilities".
This is consistent with the administration’s new National Security Strategy, which called for preemption; indeed, since the DSB study preceded the release of the strategy, it is possible that the strategy was written to incorporate some of its aspects.
The study urges the Pentagon to "take the terrorist threat as seriously as it takes the likelihood and consequences of major theater war", urging officials to launch secret missions and intelligence operations to penetrate and disrupt terrorist cells abroad. Some of those operations should be aimed at signaling to countries that harbor terrorists that "their sovereignty will be at risk".
...It recommends the creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence and cover and deception. For example, the Pentagon and CIA would work together to increase human intelligence (HUMINT) forward/operational presence and to deploy new clandestine technical capabilities.
To bolster government HUMINT capabilities, the task force advances the idea of an intelligence "surge/unsurge" capability - a "robust, global cadre of retirees, reservists and others who are trained and qualified to serve on short notice, including expatriates". This group could be pressed into service during times of crisis.
P2OG would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction, meaning it would prod terrorist cells into action, thus exposing them to "quick-response" attacks by US forces. The means by which it would do this is the far greater use of special operations forces.
Responsibility and accountability for the P2OG would be vested in a "Special Operations Executive" in the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC would plan operations but not oversee their execution in order to avoid comparisons to past abuses, such as the Iran-Contra operations run out of the NSC by Oliver North during the Reagan administration. Under the board's proposal, NSC plans would be executed by the Pentagon or the CIA.
Costs would include developing new means to enable "deep penetration of adversaries" ($1.7 billion annually); exercises and gaming ($100 million annually); development of technical capabilities and the hiring of 500 new staff ($800 million annually); establishment of centers of excellence to handle increased workload ($500 million annually); and expansion of the Joint Forces net assessment activity ($100 million annually). The total cost is envisaged as $3.3 billion.
The DSB study also provides tantalizing glimpses of new capabilities already in the works, referring to new high-tech sensors in development that would enable the United States more closely to track the movements of vehicles or even individuals by satellite. Some of these capabilities are already advanced, such as high-altitude airships, thermobaric weapons and improved urban assault capabilities. Other new projects are being executed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
If the DSB proposal is adopted, it would only reinforce recent Pentagon activity. The Washington Post reported last month that the Pentagon was preparing to consolidate control of most of the global war on terrorism under the US Special Operations Command...
Just sayin', but does a terrorist strike on a London line between two predominantly Arab neighborhoods represented by George Galloway precipitate action or result from precipitation among terrorist cells?
Does it keep Dear Leader from answering difficult questions at the G-8 summit?
Like maybe questions regarding climate change the NOAA has lost the funds to warn us about anymore?
Like whether the record number of tropical storms this early in the season or the Level 4 hurricane bearing down on the Gulf at this moment are related to fossil fuel generated climate change?
One thing's for sure: after the attack, nobody's griping about the weather anymore.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Bu$hie's Kanny Knew Know Such Agency Head
Amidst the unexpected inevitable retirement of O'Connor, the Great Patrotic Festival of Bursting Bombs in Air last weekend, the mayhem of the Olympic Choice, and the general panic over the bombs bursting on the ground for real in London today, most of what passes for media has neglected to report that Bu$hCo has nominated a new Director for the National Security Agency.
The agency has been without a director since mid-April, when Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden left to become the first deputy director of national intelligence. That is the longest vacancy for the top post in the spy agency's history, said Matthew Aid, who is writing a history of NSA.
Alexander, a newcomer to the agency, was selected with the approval of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte, and despite apparent reservations of Alexander's predecessor...
One of the programs, known as Ground Breaker, is an internal effort to upgrade NSA's computer systems, to improve communications with each other and other government agencies. A second initiative, Trail Blazer, is geared toward modernizing NSA's eavesdropping methods, so they can better track newer communication methods such as cell phones and e-mail...
Earlier, as head of intelligence for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., Alexander oversaw the flow of intelligence from Iraq and Afghanistan...
... a 1974 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, he holds four master's degrees, including master of science degrees in electronic warfare and national security strategy from the Naval Post Graduate School and the National War College, respectively. He also earned a master's degree in business administration at Boston University.
I guess we're all entitled to a mistake or three. Some of us seem more entitled than others. Being a long time team player doubtless helps.
What exactly is the NSA?
According to the Wikipedia,
The National Security Agency / Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) is a United States government agency responsible for both the collection and analysis of message communications, and for the security of government communications against similar agencies elsewhere. It is a part of the Department of Defense. Its eavesdropping brief includes radio broadcasting, both from organizations and individuals, the Internet, and other intercepted forms of communication, especially confidential communications. Its secure communications brief includes military, diplomatic, and all other sensitive, confidential or secret government communications. Despite having been described as the world's largest single employer of Ph.D. mathematicians, the owner of the single largest group of supercomputers, and having a budget much larger than that of the CIA, it has had a remarkably low profile until recent years. For a long time its existence was not even admitted by the US government. It has even been referred to as "No Such Agency." ...
NSA/CSS, in combination with the equivalent agencies in the United Kingdom (Government Communications Headquarters), Canada (Communications Security Establishment), Australia (Defence Signals Directorate), and New Zealand (Government Communications Security Bureau), and otherwise known as the UKUSA group, is believed to be responsible for, among other things, the operation of the ECHELON system. Its capabilities are suspected to include the ability to monitor a large proportion of the world's transmitted civilian telephone, fax and data traffic...
In the past, there have been alleged instances of improper violations of USSID 18 that occurred in violation of the NSA's strict charter prohibiting such acts. In addition, ECHELON is considered with indignation by citizens of countries outside the UKUSA alliance, with widespread suspicion that the United States government uses it for motives other than its national security, including political and industrial espionage. The chartered purpose of the NSA/CSS is solely to acquire significant foreign intelligence information pertaining to National Security or ongoing military intelligence operations...
So Dear Leader nominated one Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander to head what has to be the only legitimate competitor for Bill Gates in the world.
Alexander is serving as the Army’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence/G-2, the service’s top intelligence official...
Alexander became the Army’s top intelligence official in 2003 after serving as commanding general of the service’s Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). He graduated from West Point and holds three master’s degrees in physics, business administration and systems technology.
If confirmed as NSA’s director and chief of its Central Security Service, Alexander will oversee the ultra-secretive intelligence agency whose traditional mission has been making and breaking codes and eavesdropping on foreign governments’ communications. In addition, he will direct NSA's growing activities involving computer network defense and attack under the U.S. Strategic Command.
Aside from his academic and INSCOM credentials, Alexander was apparently the boss of the boss of the boys and girls at Abu Ghirab.
Despite having all those newfangled toys his posse does seem to use downright midieval methods for information gathering. Maybe that's what made him appeal so much to Negroponte and Rumsfeld. He doubtless has a strong feeling for tradition.
And what I said about MSN competing with the NSA? Don't worry your head about it.
The agency has been without a director since mid-April, when Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden left to become the first deputy director of national intelligence. That is the longest vacancy for the top post in the spy agency's history, said Matthew Aid, who is writing a history of NSA.
Alexander, a newcomer to the agency, was selected with the approval of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte, and despite apparent reservations of Alexander's predecessor...
One of the programs, known as Ground Breaker, is an internal effort to upgrade NSA's computer systems, to improve communications with each other and other government agencies. A second initiative, Trail Blazer, is geared toward modernizing NSA's eavesdropping methods, so they can better track newer communication methods such as cell phones and e-mail...
Earlier, as head of intelligence for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., Alexander oversaw the flow of intelligence from Iraq and Afghanistan...
... a 1974 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, he holds four master's degrees, including master of science degrees in electronic warfare and national security strategy from the Naval Post Graduate School and the National War College, respectively. He also earned a master's degree in business administration at Boston University.
I guess we're all entitled to a mistake or three. Some of us seem more entitled than others. Being a long time team player doubtless helps.
What exactly is the NSA?
According to the Wikipedia,
The National Security Agency / Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) is a United States government agency responsible for both the collection and analysis of message communications, and for the security of government communications against similar agencies elsewhere. It is a part of the Department of Defense. Its eavesdropping brief includes radio broadcasting, both from organizations and individuals, the Internet, and other intercepted forms of communication, especially confidential communications. Its secure communications brief includes military, diplomatic, and all other sensitive, confidential or secret government communications. Despite having been described as the world's largest single employer of Ph.D. mathematicians, the owner of the single largest group of supercomputers, and having a budget much larger than that of the CIA, it has had a remarkably low profile until recent years. For a long time its existence was not even admitted by the US government. It has even been referred to as "No Such Agency." ...
NSA/CSS, in combination with the equivalent agencies in the United Kingdom (Government Communications Headquarters), Canada (Communications Security Establishment), Australia (Defence Signals Directorate), and New Zealand (Government Communications Security Bureau), and otherwise known as the UKUSA group, is believed to be responsible for, among other things, the operation of the ECHELON system. Its capabilities are suspected to include the ability to monitor a large proportion of the world's transmitted civilian telephone, fax and data traffic...
In the past, there have been alleged instances of improper violations of USSID 18 that occurred in violation of the NSA's strict charter prohibiting such acts. In addition, ECHELON is considered with indignation by citizens of countries outside the UKUSA alliance, with widespread suspicion that the United States government uses it for motives other than its national security, including political and industrial espionage. The chartered purpose of the NSA/CSS is solely to acquire significant foreign intelligence information pertaining to National Security or ongoing military intelligence operations...
So Dear Leader nominated one Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander to head what has to be the only legitimate competitor for Bill Gates in the world.
Alexander is serving as the Army’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence/G-2, the service’s top intelligence official...
Alexander became the Army’s top intelligence official in 2003 after serving as commanding general of the service’s Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). He graduated from West Point and holds three master’s degrees in physics, business administration and systems technology.
If confirmed as NSA’s director and chief of its Central Security Service, Alexander will oversee the ultra-secretive intelligence agency whose traditional mission has been making and breaking codes and eavesdropping on foreign governments’ communications. In addition, he will direct NSA's growing activities involving computer network defense and attack under the U.S. Strategic Command.
Aside from his academic and INSCOM credentials, Alexander was apparently the boss of the boss of the boys and girls at Abu Ghirab.
Despite having all those newfangled toys his posse does seem to use downright midieval methods for information gathering. Maybe that's what made him appeal so much to Negroponte and Rumsfeld. He doubtless has a strong feeling for tradition.
And what I said about MSN competing with the NSA? Don't worry your head about it.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Information Hegemony
Lambert at Corrente has some good recent posts on the disinformation strategery of Bu$hCo.
The Farmer remembers some details about the secret wars and "perception management" during the Reagan years.
One of the worst things Bu$hCo has done is to bring all discussion of facts to a "he said- she said" level, while playing Calvinball with the data. From evolution to the environment, from mercury to Mars, nothing is sacred to Bu$hCo except the needs of the moment.
Billmon among others have noted how Orwellian these tendencies are.
The best you can say about the situation is that it seems to be a recurrent dilemma.
While this has been a problem in the past, the scale of the current situation can only be called Texan.
When the State owns the information sources, it's bad enough in the old Soviet way. When the Company owns both the State and the Media, it's Morning in America, and the Boss is always right. Until, of course, the Management changes.
The Farmer remembers some details about the secret wars and "perception management" during the Reagan years.
One of the worst things Bu$hCo has done is to bring all discussion of facts to a "he said- she said" level, while playing Calvinball with the data. From evolution to the environment, from mercury to Mars, nothing is sacred to Bu$hCo except the needs of the moment.
Billmon among others have noted how Orwellian these tendencies are.
The best you can say about the situation is that it seems to be a recurrent dilemma.
While this has been a problem in the past, the scale of the current situation can only be called Texan.
When the State owns the information sources, it's bad enough in the old Soviet way. When the Company owns both the State and the Media, it's Morning in America, and the Boss is always right. Until, of course, the Management changes.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Because the Faster It Goes Around, the Faster It Comes Around
In his June 28 speech, President Bush asserted that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as part of "a global war against terror" that the United States is waging. In reality, as anticipated, the invasion increased the threat of terror, perhaps significantly.
Half-truths, misinformation and hidden agendas have characterised official pronouncements about US war motives in Iraq from the very beginning. The recent revelations about the rush to war in Iraq stand out all the more starkly amid the chaos that ravages the country and threatens the region and indeed the world.
In 2002 the US and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the "single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush received congressional authorisation to resort to force.
The answer to the "single question" was given shortly after the invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted new pretexts and justifications for going to war.
...The Downing Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along with other newly available confidential documents, have deepened the record of deceit.
The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002, in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, made the now-notorious assertion that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war in Iraq.
The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."
British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo, has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles. The "spikes of activity" apparently included a coalition air campaign meant to provoke Iraq into some act that could be portrayed as what the memo calls a "casus belli."
Warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002 — 10 tons that month, according to British government figures. A special "spike" started in late August (for a September total of 54.6 tons).
"In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq," Smith wrote.
The willingness of top planners to risk increase of terrorism does not of course indicate that they welcome such outcomes. Rather, they are simply not a high priority in comparison with other objectives, such as controlling the world's major energy resources.
Because controlling the world's energy resources brings oh-so-much more money into the Company than developing energy alternatives that everyone can use.
Thanks to rorsach for the link.
Half-truths, misinformation and hidden agendas have characterised official pronouncements about US war motives in Iraq from the very beginning. The recent revelations about the rush to war in Iraq stand out all the more starkly amid the chaos that ravages the country and threatens the region and indeed the world.
In 2002 the US and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the "single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush received congressional authorisation to resort to force.
The answer to the "single question" was given shortly after the invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted new pretexts and justifications for going to war.
...The Downing Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along with other newly available confidential documents, have deepened the record of deceit.
The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002, in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, made the now-notorious assertion that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war in Iraq.
The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."
British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo, has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles. The "spikes of activity" apparently included a coalition air campaign meant to provoke Iraq into some act that could be portrayed as what the memo calls a "casus belli."
Warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002 — 10 tons that month, according to British government figures. A special "spike" started in late August (for a September total of 54.6 tons).
"In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq," Smith wrote.
The willingness of top planners to risk increase of terrorism does not of course indicate that they welcome such outcomes. Rather, they are simply not a high priority in comparison with other objectives, such as controlling the world's major energy resources.
Because controlling the world's energy resources brings oh-so-much more money into the Company than developing energy alternatives that everyone can use.
Thanks to rorsach for the link.
Strategery for a Change in the Weather
A few months ago this little ballon floated out of the Pentagram Pentagon.
...weather forecasters are giving us the biggest "Uncertain" in history. They say that there might, just might, be a catastrophic climate change in the next few decades. Global warming might suddenly trigger a massive global cooling.
They've heard this forecast in the Pentagon, too. So they are drawing up contingencies plans for the worst case scenario: a long era of deep freeze, raging storms, and massive drought that leaves billions of people struggling for the necessities of life.
This is no secret. Fortune magazine just published a summary of the report. What you can read there may seem perfectly sensible or perfectly insane. It all depends on your basic assumptions.
The Pentagon planners assume that the future cannot be any different from the past. "History shows that whenever humans have faced a choice between starving or raiding, they raid." So we must assume that, after the great climate change, "an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies... Warfare may again come to define human life." Or so they hope in the secret councils of thePentagram Pentagon. In the past, the report notes, wars killed about 25% of each side's adult males. This time, though, a dozen or more nations might have nuclear weapons, and "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable."
But is anything in human life "inevitable"? Couldn't we decide to do it different this time? Why not start planning for global cooperation rather than competition? Apparently, this possibility is off the Pentagon's radar screen. In the past, scarcity usually made nations compete, not cooperate. Safest to bet that the future will be just like the past. Is that crazy? Or is it just common sense?
Of course, what looks crazy in one place can look like common sense somewhere else. If you are in a weak little country, hunkering down to weather the global storm might seem crazy. But this is the greatest military power in world history talking.
The Pentagon report does say we should "explore ways to offset abrupt cooling." But that is only a minor theme. Mostly it urges us to take care of Number One and keep the U.S. Number One, through an era of death and suffering beyond our wildest imaginings.
"The U.S. is better positioned to cope than most nations," the report says reassuringly. The U.S. has more "wealth, technology, and abundant resources" (not to mention military hardware). "That has a downside, though: It magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America."
Finger-pointing is the least of it, in the Pentagon's vision of a catastrophic future: "Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources." U.S. borders are "strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands -- waves of boat people pose especially grim problems." ...
This morning, of course, there was a little press release.
As usual, it's mixed here not quite the way Pravda might like.
..."what we need for conventional victory is different from what we need for fighting insurgents, and fighting insurgents has relatively little connection to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. We can't afford it all."
Guess what Bu$hCo wants to drop. And it isn't fighting the insurgents who happen to have a more legitimate claim to their country's oil and future than Halliburton.
The Pentagon's most senior planners are challenging the longstanding strategy that requires the armed forces to be prepared to fight two major wars at a time. Instead, they are weighing whether to shape the military to mount one conventional campaign while devoting more resources to defending American territory and antiterrorism efforts...
What's this American territory stuff?
...An official designation of a counterterrorism role and a shift to a strategy that focuses on domestic defense would have a huge impact on the size and composition of the military.
In a nutshell, strategies that order the military to be prepared for two wars would argue for more high-technology weapons, in particular warplanes. An emphasis on one war and counterterrorism duties would require lighter, more agile forces - perhaps fewer troops, but more Special Operations units - and a range of other needs, such as intelligence, language and communications specialists.
Civilian and military officials are trying to decide to what degree to acknowledge that operations like the continuing presence in Iraq - not a full-blown conventional war, but a prolonged commitment - may be such a burden that it would not be possible to also fight two full-scale campaigns elsewhere...
After years of saying American forces were sufficient for a two-war strategy, "we've come to the realization that we're not," said another Defense Department official involved in the deliberations, who was granted anonymity because he could not otherwise discuss the talks, which are classified. "It's coming to grips with reality."
Senior leaders are trying to develop strategies that will do a better job of addressing the requirements of antiterrorism and domestic defense, while acknowledging that future American wars will most likely be irregular - against urban guerrillas and insurgents - rather than conventional...
So, you just wonder exactly where besides Iraq are we going to be fighting urban guerillas?
Do you ever get the feeling the plans of thePentagram Pentagon are so arcane that the Planners really don't know what they are?
But that some how Big Time Dick is going to get a cut?
...weather forecasters are giving us the biggest "Uncertain" in history. They say that there might, just might, be a catastrophic climate change in the next few decades. Global warming might suddenly trigger a massive global cooling.
They've heard this forecast in the Pentagon, too. So they are drawing up contingencies plans for the worst case scenario: a long era of deep freeze, raging storms, and massive drought that leaves billions of people struggling for the necessities of life.
This is no secret. Fortune magazine just published a summary of the report. What you can read there may seem perfectly sensible or perfectly insane. It all depends on your basic assumptions.
The Pentagon planners assume that the future cannot be any different from the past. "History shows that whenever humans have faced a choice between starving or raiding, they raid." So we must assume that, after the great climate change, "an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies... Warfare may again come to define human life." Or so they hope in the secret councils of the
But is anything in human life "inevitable"? Couldn't we decide to do it different this time? Why not start planning for global cooperation rather than competition? Apparently, this possibility is off the Pentagon's radar screen. In the past, scarcity usually made nations compete, not cooperate. Safest to bet that the future will be just like the past. Is that crazy? Or is it just common sense?
Of course, what looks crazy in one place can look like common sense somewhere else. If you are in a weak little country, hunkering down to weather the global storm might seem crazy. But this is the greatest military power in world history talking.
The Pentagon report does say we should "explore ways to offset abrupt cooling." But that is only a minor theme. Mostly it urges us to take care of Number One and keep the U.S. Number One, through an era of death and suffering beyond our wildest imaginings.
"The U.S. is better positioned to cope than most nations," the report says reassuringly. The U.S. has more "wealth, technology, and abundant resources" (not to mention military hardware). "That has a downside, though: It magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America."
Finger-pointing is the least of it, in the Pentagon's vision of a catastrophic future: "Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources." U.S. borders are "strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands -- waves of boat people pose especially grim problems." ...
This morning, of course, there was a little press release.
As usual, it's mixed here not quite the way Pravda might like.
..."what we need for conventional victory is different from what we need for fighting insurgents, and fighting insurgents has relatively little connection to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. We can't afford it all."
Guess what Bu$hCo wants to drop. And it isn't fighting the insurgents who happen to have a more legitimate claim to their country's oil and future than Halliburton.
The Pentagon's most senior planners are challenging the longstanding strategy that requires the armed forces to be prepared to fight two major wars at a time. Instead, they are weighing whether to shape the military to mount one conventional campaign while devoting more resources to defending American territory and antiterrorism efforts...
What's this American territory stuff?
...An official designation of a counterterrorism role and a shift to a strategy that focuses on domestic defense would have a huge impact on the size and composition of the military.
In a nutshell, strategies that order the military to be prepared for two wars would argue for more high-technology weapons, in particular warplanes. An emphasis on one war and counterterrorism duties would require lighter, more agile forces - perhaps fewer troops, but more Special Operations units - and a range of other needs, such as intelligence, language and communications specialists.
Civilian and military officials are trying to decide to what degree to acknowledge that operations like the continuing presence in Iraq - not a full-blown conventional war, but a prolonged commitment - may be such a burden that it would not be possible to also fight two full-scale campaigns elsewhere...
After years of saying American forces were sufficient for a two-war strategy, "we've come to the realization that we're not," said another Defense Department official involved in the deliberations, who was granted anonymity because he could not otherwise discuss the talks, which are classified. "It's coming to grips with reality."
Senior leaders are trying to develop strategies that will do a better job of addressing the requirements of antiterrorism and domestic defense, while acknowledging that future American wars will most likely be irregular - against urban guerrillas and insurgents - rather than conventional...
So, you just wonder exactly where besides Iraq are we going to be fighting urban guerillas?
Do you ever get the feeling the plans of the
But that some how Big Time Dick is going to get a cut?
Monday, July 04, 2005
On Independence Day
Not Dominion, but Liberty
... America was founded in opposition to empire. The Declaration of Independence was a manifesto against colonialism. And the founding generations abhorred imperialism.
Their opposition to empire was not merely rooted in their own bitter experience. It was, as well, rooted in a faith that American freedoms and democracy would suffer if the nation embarked upon a career of empire.
So, while Bush suggests that other lands must be occupied to preserve liberty at home, the patriots of our time will do well to recall words spoken on another July 4...
"... Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
"She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
"She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
"She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
"She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
"She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
"[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."
Thanks to Truthout for the link.
... America was founded in opposition to empire. The Declaration of Independence was a manifesto against colonialism. And the founding generations abhorred imperialism.
Their opposition to empire was not merely rooted in their own bitter experience. It was, as well, rooted in a faith that American freedoms and democracy would suffer if the nation embarked upon a career of empire.
So, while Bush suggests that other lands must be occupied to preserve liberty at home, the patriots of our time will do well to recall words spoken on another July 4...
"... Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
"She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
"She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
"She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
"She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
"She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
"[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."
Thanks to Truthout for the link.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Killer Klown Klassification
Increase in the Number of Documents Classified by the Government
Driven in part by fears of terrorism, government secrecy has reached a historic high by several measures, with federal departments classifying documents at the rate of 125 a minute as they create new categories of semi-secrets bearing vague labels like "sensitive security information."
A record 15.6 million documents were classified last year, nearly double the number in 2001, according to the federal Information Security Oversight Office. Meanwhile, the declassification process, which made millions of historical documents available annually in the 1990's, has slowed to a relative crawl, from a high of 204 million pages in 1997 to just 28 million pages last year.
The increasing secrecy - and its rising cost to taxpayers, estimated by the office at $7.2 billion last year - is drawing protests from a growing array of politicians and activists, including Republican members of Congress, leaders of the independent commission that studied the Sept. 11 attacks and even the top federal official who oversees classification...
Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said the failure to prevent the 2001 attacks was rooted not in leaks of sensitive information but in the barriers to sharing information between agencies and with the public.
"You'd just be amazed at the kind of information that's classified - everyday information, things we all know from the newspaper," Mr. Kean said. "We're better off with openness. The best ally we have in protecting ourselves against terrorism is an informed public."
With just about every Top Secret Star Wars Death Ray Cylon device easily found on the DARPA website and every Top Secret lab in the country depending on Chinese nationals to do their most sophisticated work, the Top Secret designation really only hides the details from Americans. Every other government in the world already knows what America has. The Saudis bankroll and own big chunks of the Defense industry, so Osama knows too.
But the ultra cool Alien Tripod Laser weapons Darth Rumsfeld wants aren't the reason for the increase in Classified material.
The increase is due in large part to the dire needs of the Vice President, a Presidential Advisor, and others to cover their tracks.
The motivations get murkier the more you look at them.
But once again, how can you classify what you've been bragging about the whole time?
Driven in part by fears of terrorism, government secrecy has reached a historic high by several measures, with federal departments classifying documents at the rate of 125 a minute as they create new categories of semi-secrets bearing vague labels like "sensitive security information."
A record 15.6 million documents were classified last year, nearly double the number in 2001, according to the federal Information Security Oversight Office. Meanwhile, the declassification process, which made millions of historical documents available annually in the 1990's, has slowed to a relative crawl, from a high of 204 million pages in 1997 to just 28 million pages last year.
The increasing secrecy - and its rising cost to taxpayers, estimated by the office at $7.2 billion last year - is drawing protests from a growing array of politicians and activists, including Republican members of Congress, leaders of the independent commission that studied the Sept. 11 attacks and even the top federal official who oversees classification...
Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said the failure to prevent the 2001 attacks was rooted not in leaks of sensitive information but in the barriers to sharing information between agencies and with the public.
"You'd just be amazed at the kind of information that's classified - everyday information, things we all know from the newspaper," Mr. Kean said. "We're better off with openness. The best ally we have in protecting ourselves against terrorism is an informed public."
With just about every Top Secret Star Wars Death Ray Cylon device easily found on the DARPA website and every Top Secret lab in the country depending on Chinese nationals to do their most sophisticated work, the Top Secret designation really only hides the details from Americans. Every other government in the world already knows what America has. The Saudis bankroll and own big chunks of the Defense industry, so Osama knows too.
But the ultra cool Alien Tripod Laser weapons Darth Rumsfeld wants aren't the reason for the increase in Classified material.
The increase is due in large part to the dire needs of the Vice President, a Presidential Advisor, and others to cover their tracks.
The motivations get murkier the more you look at them.
But once again, how can you classify what you've been bragging about the whole time?
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Use the "King of Pain" Setting
For years, the Air Force and the Pentagon's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate have been working on the Active Denial System, or ADS. It's a real-life ray gun which shoots 95 GHz millimeter waves. They penetrate a 64th of inch beneath the skin, where nerve receptors are concentrated. And when the waves hit, they produce an "intense heating sensation [which] stops only if the individual moves out of the beam’s path or the beam is turned off," a Sandia press release explains. "The sensation caused by the system has been described by test subjects as feeling like touching a hot frying pan."
It's a pretty damn persuasive way to get people to clear out of the way. And unlike, say, an M-16 fired into a mob, the beam's only lasting effects seem to be bad memories. No wonder folks are calling ADS "the Holy Grail of crowd control."
Raytheon has built a Humvee-mounted model, which is currently being tested before a likely trip to Iraq. The Air Force is developing an airborne version of the pain ray.
And those are doubtless the lowest settings.
This would be why a laser would be a lousy weapon, particularly in night situations with a high degree of smoke or fog, where a coherent visible light path would be both dissipated and tracable.
It's hard to use a weapon that gives away your position.
On the other hand, microwaves are invisible.
Of course, thePentagram Pentagon will doubtless Classify this for National Security purposes at the same time they brag about it along with the Raytheon sales reps, who are doubtless also getting a good price for the technology from the Chinese, the Russians, the British, the French, and the Germans.
The Japanese doubtless have a smaller more efficient model they built ten years ago for their Godzilla flicks.
The North Koreans already bought theirs from the Pakistanis who obtained the plans from bin Laden and bin Talal.
It's a pretty damn persuasive way to get people to clear out of the way. And unlike, say, an M-16 fired into a mob, the beam's only lasting effects seem to be bad memories. No wonder folks are calling ADS "the Holy Grail of crowd control."
Raytheon has built a Humvee-mounted model, which is currently being tested before a likely trip to Iraq. The Air Force is developing an airborne version of the pain ray.
And those are doubtless the lowest settings.
This would be why a laser would be a lousy weapon, particularly in night situations with a high degree of smoke or fog, where a coherent visible light path would be both dissipated and tracable.
It's hard to use a weapon that gives away your position.
On the other hand, microwaves are invisible.
Of course, the
The Japanese doubtless have a smaller more efficient model they built ten years ago for their Godzilla flicks.
The North Koreans already bought theirs from the Pakistanis who obtained the plans from bin Laden and bin Talal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
