Meanwhile, In Iraq...

..The carnage continues. WaPo reports nearly 100 new deaths at the hands of suicide bombers in the second most secure area in Iraq.

But, always the cheerleader, GW Bush continues to make the dubious claim - as 48 more Iraqis are killed in suicide blasts - that "Iraq is making amazing progress from the days of being under the thumb of a brutal dictator."

Sure, it's great that Saddam is on trial, and no longer a threat, but Bush's assertion(s) that "amazing Progress" is being made must certainly be a transparently bogus claim with Iraqis under constant threat of instant death, high unemployment, lack of basic services, and rampant corruption.

Sorry about being two days behind, but I feel it's much more important to be accurate, than to be first.

Pull-out Fall-out

The House voted down a GOP proposal to immediately end the US occupation in Iraq In another late night session, the GOP hoped to put Democratic members of the House on recoed as not being for an immediate withdrawal.

The resolution was offered by Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, who said he intended it to fail. Interesting, no?

Now this, my friends is political grandstanding at its most absolute. The GOP is in real trouble. The Iraq war redux is already a loser in the court of US public opinion, and this attempt to get Dems. to vote for a non-binding resolution is a textbook example of what the White House is so versed in labeling "gotcha ploitics."

I do not know if this got any air-time whatever, but at this juncture, it seems clear that the momentum is against the war, and that the White House has the most difficult task of restoring credibility in the minds of the majority of Americans. A tough sell given ongoing investigations into a number of areas.

Rembember Bush's campaign pledge to restore "restore honor and dignity to the White House." How hollow those words now ring.

Budget Fight Quotes!

Since I can't yet seem to get the numbers - WaPo has a little chart up, but that was pre-passage - I give you fight quotes!

Below is a random, unsorted collection of quotes surrounding yesterday's Big Budget Battle! Beltway Brawl? Without further ado, and shame to me and my family:

"What we're trying to do is save the future generations from mountains upon mountains upon mountains of debt. The deception is saying that we should do nothing." - Rep. Patrick T. McHenry(R-NC)

"This is the cruelest lie of all: That the only way you can help people who have lost everything is by hurting somebody else." - Rep. Gene Taylor(D-MS)

[If the issue was] "in fact [about] cutting deficits, one could argue persuasively that we need to balance the budget. But it's not. It's about cutting spending here, and then cutting taxes." - Rep. Steny Hoyer(D-MD)

"We are having to try to balance the budget on the backs of people who can least afford it," he said. "I think what's happening is a lot of the things the Republicans have been doing are coming back to haunt them, and the nation." - Rep. Elijah E. Cummings(D-MD)

"I call this bill the 'Tax Increase Prevention Act.'" - Sen. Rick Santorum(R-PA)

"After the tax cuts are passed, there won't be a dime to pay for (hurricanes) Katrina or Rita." - Rep. John Spratt(D-SC)

"We made a serious effort to reduce the patterns of spending in this gigantic bill. Then we made the gigantic and controversial step of saying no to projects. The combination of that was too much for them to swallow." - Rep. Jerry Lewis(R-CA)

"It [this bill] betrays our nation's values and its future. "It is neither compassionate, conservative nor wise." - Rep. Steny Hoyer(D-MD)

"There's a message in this, and that's that the people of America are only going to accept so many cuts in healthcare, in Medicaid, in Medicare, in transportation, and other vital areas." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA)

I know that I quoted 6 Dems. and 3 Repubs. The media deemed Dems. had more interesting things to say, and a lot more of them were quoted.

Until I get some numbers, this will have to serve.

Gitmo Alumni Reunion

Former Guantanamo detainees reunite for conference on torture and secret detentions

[snip]...Human Rights Watch has said it has evidence indicating the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had transported suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan to Poland and Romania.

"I think that the European Commission should investigate these abuses," Amnesty International's Secretary-General Irene Kahn said at the opening of a three-day conference on prisoners and the U.S. war on terror.

Earlier this month, the European Commission -- the European Union's executive office -- promised to launch an informal probe, requesting answers from all 25 EU member states and candidate countries Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Turkey. Some members of the European Parliament, however, have asked for a formal investigation...[/snip]

'Informal probe' or 'formal investigation?' Could it be that some behind closed doors some arm twisting was done by some entity to push for the former? I honestly have no idea. But to discount the possibility out of hand isn't very intellectually honest. I suspect that we'll never know the full truth.

Continuing:

[snip]...Moazzam Begg, 37, who was held at Guantanamo for three years, said that prison and other detention facilities were fueling hatred against Britain and the United States.

"If this continues ... I can almost guarantee that violence and terrorism will only proliferate," said Begg, who lives in Birmingham, England.

He said the British government refused to recognize the connection between prisons and terrorist attacks, such as the attacks in which four suspected suicide bombers killed 52 people in London on July 7.

"Part of the denial that (Prime Minister) Tony Blair has taken since the July 7 bombings has to do with Guantanamo. He is not in tune with the political reality of how people feel about this issue," Begg said.

The London conference drew former Guantanamo detainees from Britain, Russia and Afghanistan...[/snip]

(more at link

While I am sure that Mr. Begg was giving his best assessment, there is no established link between the bombings and the detentions of which I am aware.

However, the link between increased Arab protesting and increased animosity towards all torturers is certainly an established one. I should make it clear that the protesting is not limited to US/British allegations of abuse, but abuse throughout the Arab world as well. For instance, the Egyptian protests against abuses by their own prison system coincided with the International day for Victims of Torture 2005.

Damned Budget!

Here's the AP's quick synopsis. Until I get further data, this'll have to suffice. *sigh*

To the article:

[snip]...The broader budget bill would slice almost $50 billion from the deficit by the end of the decade by curbing rapidly growing benefit programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies. Republicans said reining in such programs whose costs spiral upward each year automatically s the first step to restoring fiscal discipline.

"This unchecked spending is growing faster than our economy, faster than inflation, and far beyond our means to sustain it," said Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa...[/snip]

Oh I get it. Screw the poor to fund The War. How compassionately conservative.

[snip]...To win House approval, Hastert ordered modest concessions on plans to limit eligibility for food stamps and require the poorest Medicaid patients to pay more for their care. He ordered killed a provision to deny free school lunches to about 40,000 children whose parents would lose their food stamps.

Those changes and other promises won the votes of lawmakers who had earlier registered opposition to the bill, including James Walsh, R-N.Y., Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., and Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.

The biggest concession came Thursday evening when Walsh won language permitting food stamp recipients making the transition to work to continue to be able to receive non-cash benefits for child care, transportation and housing without losing their nutrition benefits...[/snip]

Bless Hastert's heart. Ya know, the GOP's all about family values.

It's good to see some spine from the moderate Rebubs. Kudos to Walsh, although his 'victory' seems like a pyrrhic one.

There is a lot more regarding the House Bill in the AP article, but I have conflicting reports about a number of things mentioned. Until I can get it sorted out, I prefer to let this entry stand as a beginning point.

I don't want to give out information, and then have it turn out to be ambiguous - or worse. *gulp*

Quickie Budget Update!

I'm trying to process data from three sources on how the numbers actually break down re: the budget that the House of misrepresentatives passed earlier this morning.

I have conflicting data. I don't want to mislead.

I have lots of quotes from Repubs - they seem very pleased

I have lots of quotes from Dems - they're pretty pissed off.

One safe quote via CNN/AP:

The bill, passed 217-215 after a 25-minute-long roll call, makes modest but politically painful cuts across an array of programs for the poor, students and farmers.

GOP fears of political fall-out. Lots of other quotable stuff, but no numbers that don't conflict in some way.

Sorry for this stunted, immature entry. But I'm dealing with an incomplete picture at the moment. ARGhhhhhh!

Two entries, Tidy

Two items from the 'most read' scripts at WaPo. No commentary, just simple reads.

The first is Congressman John Murtha's call for US troop withdrawal from Iraq. For extra credit: pay special attention to the GOP's responses.


Part two stricken from the record. I was entirely wrong. I linked to the wrong article, and in light of recent developments, this portion of the post has been rendered moot. Sorry for any mis-conceptions(hangs head in shame)

With that, I am off to moonlight.

Post-java update: My initial post was correct, but as noted, was thwarted whilst I was away teaching basic comp. skills. Major update today as data becomes available.Relinked for posterity

Digital Fish Wrap

One Wayne Simmons appeared on The O'Reilly Factor(no, must've missed it), and had some wholly unwarranted invective to spew forth about Evil Democrats(© Fox News)

He is on the record as saying: "If the Democrats come into power in the United States and re-employ their vision of defense for this country, we will have 9-1-1s unabated. That's not maybe. We know what took place in the past."

I wonder what past this fine fellow is referring to..It must be the past that the liberal elites quashed to make our history a bit tidier. Maybe? ;)

Media Matters has the transcript, a video to watch(ooh, fun!), and is a great place to get your daily dose of Right-wing agit-prop; typically quickly dispatched by nasty facts.

Simmons is ex-CIA, but he's no non-partisan. Unless partisanship to baseless accusations counts.

NewsHounds has a bit up about another Simmons appearance on - Another Fox program! Hannity and Colmes this time. This is from 8 Oct. 05:

Colmes brought up the recent news that there was a spy in the White House and of course Simmons mentioned that he started there with Al Gore adding that standards were loose in the Clinton White House telling Colmes, "Clinton made it so easy."

Colmes was very annoyed and brought up Rove and the expected indictments. Simmons defended Rove and blurted out the recent right wing myth that David Corn is the leaker and then went after Joe Wilson. Colmes was all over Simmons, " Joe Wilson had the balls to call them on the Niger yellowcake story.." ( never heard Colmes say "balls" on H&C) Then Colmes suggested that they call David Corn about being the leaker and he was really ready to do it. Simmons was forced to back down and the know it all persona that he parades on Fox News was seriously damaged.

The battle continued until Simmons shouted, "You hate that Bush is right!" and Colmes replied, "I hate that he's so wrong!"

I'd have loved to pull the entire exchange, but you get the flavor, and NewsHounds deserves a visit!

Simmons, from my limited exposure to his appearances on Fox, appears to use the non-sequitur as his logical fallacy of choice.

But I'm sure he's really a great guy off camera ;)

Come On, We Don't Torture THAT Much

I first posted a blurb on the Iraqis treating Iraqis badly on 4 Nov.(the link to the KR piece is what you seek)

Since then there have been lots of other stories purporting torture: Iraqi/Iraqi style.

Just moments ago, Iraqi's Interior Minister says that these reports have been exagerrated.

A snippet from the WaPo article:

Iraq's interior minister said Thursday that reports of prisoner mistreatment at a secret detention center in Baghdad have been exaggerated, and he denied that he condoned torture.

Allegations of widespread torture and executions at the underground prison are "untrue and inaccurate," Interior Minister Bayan Jabr told reporters at a news conference.

Disclosures about the detention center, which was seized by U.S. troops last weekend, have stirred anger among Sunni Muslims and drawn condemnation from human rights organizations. But Jabr, a member of the Shiite Muslim majority, denied that his ministry targeted Sunnis, who make up the bulk of Iraq's insurgency, and he said the detainees at the prison included Shiites.

Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari announced Tuesday that U.S. troops had found 173 detainees at the secret prison in the capital's Jadriyah district. He said some of them were malnourished and appeared to have been tortured.

In a strongly worded statement, the U.S. Embassy said Thursday that the abuses found at the prison and sectarian control of such facilities cannot be tolerated.

"We have made clear to the Iraqi government that there must not be militia or sectarian control of Iraqi security forces, facilities or ministries," the embassy said. "We do not tolerate any abuse of detainees in Iraq. . . . The Iraqi government must take measures to ensure this kind of thing does not happen again."

(much more at link)

I have no answers. Just a few questions.

How much torture did take place?

The torture was neither "widespread" nor accurately reported?

Well, that's all well and good, but what metrics does one use to determine these things?

A few simple observations:

I guess it's a good thing that both Sunnis and Shiites were housed in the 'secret detention center'...But unfortunately, both groups were ostensibly tortured during their 'stays.'(unless of course, only Sunnis were tortured, as has been previously reported - it's unclear what the Minister is trying to convey precisely)

Now, as far as the US having the moral authority to tell the Iraqis not to abuse "detainees in Iraq," well, that's something that you, the reader will have to determine if this is to be filed under irony, or hypocrisy.

It's a crazy world.

PATRIOT Act Renewal 'Compromise'

From g at illmethinks comes the salient points.

From all appearances, it looks like what's being compromised is a US citizen's civil rights. So ya know, they weren't really rights...More like privileges. Privileges to be taken without consideration to due process.

See WaPo for more color.

Note: I'll provide a link to the proposed 'compromise' when I can find the text. *sigh*

Does PNACer Rich Lowry support Torture?

I simply do not know.

However, the National Review editor, and PNAC member suggested as much in this Op-ed

He rejects the McCain Amendment - stating that it is: "Pure Political Grandstanding"

While there may be a kernel of truth to this, anything that gives the impression that the US is doing something to inhibit the abuses of our detainees the world over has at least some merit.

Lowry:

A distinction has to be made between wanton abuses like those in Abu Ghraib and tightly controlled interrogations of top-level al-Qaida captives. Yes, prisoners should be treated humanely, and it will be a permanent blot on the administration's record that it didn't better control how prisoners were being treated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there are cases when tough techniques are probably justified. When al-Qaida leader Abu Zubaida, a planner of 9/11, was caught in Pakistan, he had been shot in the groin. Painkillers were administered selectively as an interrogation tactic. He coughed up information that led to the capture of other al-Qaida members. At Guantanamo Bay, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved - then eventually revoked - 16 aggressive techniques for Mohammed al-Qahtani, the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 plot. They involved isolating him, making him stand for long periods and playing on his phobias. They might have helped pressure him into talking.

(much more at link)

Lowry doesn't address the point of whether or not torture works. He offers cases that may or may not stand up to close scrutiny. Lowry uses the qualifiers: "probably" and "might have."

McCain certainly knows.

For a well-balanced article on the effectiveness of torture, see this dispassionate piece by Anne Applebaum. Cited are first hand accounts by military personnel directly involved in harsh interrogation techniques.

Lowry does make a good point that without changes to the Army Field Manual that the amendment is merely an exercise in feel-good legislation. But, can anyone not foresee that this is the most likely outcome of some new legislation? Write the law, and then establish the rules.

I am not so blind as to not see that harsh interrogation tantamount to torture might have some applicability. But to leave the issue unaddressed at this critical juncture in the war on terror is to endanger our own captured troops - and other personnel - by not making any attempt to restore some sense of sanity in the court of world opinion.

Health In, Smoke Out!

Today is the 28th annual Great American Smokeout.

So, if you smoke, try and lay off the butts. If you don't please don't start.

[voiceover]
The preceeding message was a public health announcement paid for with bandwidth provided by Pyra Labs, a wholly owned subsidiary of Google, Inc.
[/voiceover]

When Dicks Attack!

While he's really under the gun over a great many things, our esteemed VP has time to level inflammatory criticism against the White House's Democratic critics over alleged pre-Iraq war intelligence manipultion(s)(well, they must be very personal to Dick, as this was really Dick's war)

This bit is particularly laughable in light of Cheney's current woes:

Vice President Dick Cheney added his voice on Wednesday to the chorus of Republican criticism of Democrats who have accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq, calling it "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein," Cheney said in remarks prepared for a GOP fundraiser.

(see the link)

Don't fret, Dick. If there is anything akin to genuine justice left in this country, your own foibles may trump the 'reprehensible charges' that questioning your almighty authority entails.

Meanwhile, here's a sobering reminder that Dick's efforts may backfire. Remember, there is a growing contingent of GOP Congressmen(Congresspersons?) that are critical of the administration's handling of nearly everything Iraq related. These people have their electoral futures to worry about.

Update on White Phosphorus Use in Fallujah

Via Reuters AlertNet. Go. Read.

Update: Another update via the SJ Mercury News. File this one under, "Why the British cannot use white phosphorus in the manner in which the US did."

Quick snippet:

Use of white phosphorous is not banned but is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons. The protocol prohibits use of the substance as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas.

Blair's spokesman pointed out that Britain is a signatory to the convention. The United States is not.

Britain's Liberal Democrat Party, which opposed the Iraq war, criticized U.S. forces for using the substance as an incendiary weapon.

"A vital part of the effort in Iraq is to win the battle for hearts and minds," said the party's foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell. "The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency."

The last paragraph is the essential point of my two entries on this subject.

Bob WTF? Woodward

Since everyone that has an opinion about Woodward's conduct re: Plame leak investigation, has probably already voiced it, I'll let this WaPo article speak for itself. It's a real talker.

Walter Pincus really puts the smackdown on Woody. Heh.

Okay...Three Woodward statements, and their absurdities exposed.

On Patrick Fitzgerald: "a junkyard-dog prosecutor" who turns over every rock looking for evidence.

And just exactly what is the proper role of a federal prosecutor, Bob?

On Larry King Live: "When the story comes out, I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter."

Exqueeze me? The outing of a national security asset with a long career - NOC in fact..Is regarded as gossip? Chatter?

On NPR: "When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great."

And how can Bob know this? No one can know the full fall-out from the leak. From damaging our intelligence efforts, to how deeply the rabbit hole goes regarding the investigation itself. To call this 'laughable' is to expose yourself for who you are. It's not pretty, Bob.

Bob Woodward is a book promoting White House whore. Okay, I'm done..Wait.

May you and Judy Miller take your perches on the neo-cons shoulders and continue to parrot any scraps they feed you. Now I am done.

I hope your book's a dud, too.

Willy Pete: Rumsfeld's Buddy?

The US military now freely admits to using white phosphorus AKA 'Willy Pete' on Iraq.

From The Guardian:

[snip]...US forces yesterday made their clearest admission yet that white phosphorus was used as a weapon against insurgents in Iraq. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC last night that it had been used as "an incendiary weapon" during the assault last year on Falluja in 2004.
Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable said the substance, which can be used to lay smokescreens but burns down to the bone in contact with skin, was not covered by international conventions on chemical weapons.

But Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford's Department of Peace Studies said the substance would probably fall into the category of chemical weapons if used directly against people...[snip]

Simply lovely. Why do they hate us?

Continuing further down:

[snip]..."White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal," he told the BBC. "We use them primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases. However, it is an incendiary weapon, and may be used against enemy combatants."

Asked if it was used as an offensive weapon during the siege of Falluja, he replied: "Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on, and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position: the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so you can kill them with high explosives."...[/snip]

White phosphorus was used in mortar rounds..Hardly a 'smart weapon.'

It's very likely that Iraqi civilians were killed, maimed, and otherwise traumatized by the mis-use of white phosphorus during the siege of Fallujah.

The now infamous quote via Field Artillery Magazine: "At the end of the fight we thought back on some of the things we were the proudest of. What jumped to the forefront was infantry and tank platoon sergeants ... telling us that the artillery and [white phosphorus] mortars were awesome. At the end of the day, that is what it is all about: our maneuver brethren recognizing why we are called the "King of Battle"'. — Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, and Sergeant William H. Hight in "The Fight for Fallujah."

More background on white phosphorus, and the US not signing Protocol III of the 'Convention on Conventional Weapons' - which "prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians," can be found at wikipedia.

Hey, it's okay..Ya know, 'cause we didn't sign the paper.

It's really a dark time in US history.

Deflating Mr. (housing) Bubble

There is more news on the weakening of the real estate market nationwide. The source is none other than the cheerleaders for capitalism, The Wall Street Journal

Caveat: I don't know whether or not the link will work unless you're a subcriber to CBS Marketwatch..In which case it will. I did sign out of MarketWatch, and was able to view the article.

Getting to the point, the one really strong pillar of the US economy has suffered for a couple of months now. I can't put my fingers on the data, but last month housing prices dropped an unexpectedly large amount - on the order of 5-6% if memory serves. Please do not rely on my memory for information. This article from The Boston Globe outlines what has been happening in most markets.

Getting back to the WSJ article:

[snip]...The pace of U.S. home sales is showing further signs of slowing, amid a widening gap between sellers' asking prices and the amount skittish buyers are prepared to offer, according to an industry survey, real-estate brokerage firms and housing economists.
Rising mortgage rates, higher energy costs, widespread talk about the risk of a "bubble" in housing and a surge in the number of homes on the market are among the factors behind the apparent slowdown. They have combined to make home shoppers more cautious, economists and real-estate brokers say. Buyers are taking their time to look for bargains, while many sellers have put unrealistically high price tags on their homes. That leads to a standoff, causing the number of sales to drop -- a classic ending to a period of unusually rapid house-price increases.

In a survey conducted last week, real-estate consulting firm Real Trends found that the number of home-purchase contracts signed last month dropped 8% from a year earlier at 48 of the nation's large real-estate brokerage firms. Those brokers responded to an email poll sent to 80 brokerage firms...[snip]

Is is a bubble or not? Trouble is, one can only ascertain that there was or was not a bubble after the fall-out - or lack thereof.

A bit more:

"There is a definite change" in supply and demand, says Jacelyn Botti, a senior vice president at Weichert Realtors, a big chain based in Morris Plains, N.J. Along much of the East Coast, she says, inventories of homes available for sale have bloated to a supply sufficient to last five to eight months at current sales rates, compared with three or four months a year ago.

With sales slowing, condominium developers in San Diego are appealing to buyers with an array of incentives, says Robert Griswold, owner of Griswold Real Estate Management. "The market has definitely turned," says Mr. Griswold, noting that fliers offering condo buyers a car were being handed out at a recent Rolling Stones concert. "When you see that kind of advertising and promotion, they are clearly getting desperate."

While many sellers of single-family homes are stubborn in resisting price cuts, some are starting to compromise. Ken Baris, president of Jordan Baris Inc., a real-estate brokerage in West Orange, N.J., says he received an email on Friday from a client suggesting that the firm reduce the price on his five-bedroom home to $829,900 from $849,900. The house has been sitting on the market for 90 days. "It was an unsolicited price adjustment," says Mr. Baris. "I haven't seen that in a very long time."

Until recently, unusually low interest rates and flexible lending standards were helping Americans keep paying more for houses, despite slow growth in personal income. But that's changing. The average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is about 6.5%, the highest level in more than two years, according to HSH Associates in Pompton Plains, N.J. That's up from about 5.2% in June 2003, which was the lowest in more than four decades.

(much more at link)

The immutable laws of supply and demand appear to have reached a critical juncture. Throw in the slow steady raising of interest rates by the Federal Reserve System AKA "The Fed," and there is certainly the possibility of further depression of the housing market in the offing.

If the housing market falters dramatically, there is a distinct possibility that Bush may oversee a recession per term.

Would this be unprecedented? I think that it would be.

Is there an economic historian in the house?

Google provided little help in my search for the answer to this seemingly simple question.

Lies, Lies, and Damned Lies!

WaPo reports that the tin-foil hatters are right again! Yes, you'd have to have been, oh I don't know, in the oval office for the past five years to have not strongly suspected that major oil interests were deeply involved in shaping Cheney's Energy Policy.

Via WaPo:

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.

The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.

(much more at link)

The WaPo article goes on to state that since the oil execs. were not under oath during their tastimony before Congress due to Commerce Chair, Ted Stevens(R-ALASKA Gee, no petro conflict of interest there) decision not to swear them in.

Delightful.

Now, what about allegations that a certain middle-eastern country's our 51st state's oil fields were displayed on maps and charts with names of possible foreign suitors?

That's the round of answers that I want. Cheney won the court battle, but there are others that know the truth. All it takes is one honest person with some chutzpah.

I will not be holding my breath.

Assault on Women's Rights Continues

The decision to offer the 'morning after' pill AKA 'Plan B,' a post-intercourse contraceptive, without a prescription has been scuttled by the FDA.

You can get a gun without a doctor's prescription, but not a medicine that the medical community has 'green-lighted' as safe enough for over-the counter distribution.

CBS Marketwatch has the goods:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The Food and Drug Administration didn't follow its usual review process in deciding to reject over-the-counter sales of a morning-after pill, according to a report released Monday by congressional investigators.

While the agency followed its general procedures for considering Barr Laboratories Inc.'s application to approve its "Plan B" pill for over-the-counter sales, aspects of its review process were "unusual," the Government Accountability Office, which serves as Congress' investigative arm, said in its report.

FDA's scientific advisors in 2003 overwhelmingly urged approval of the OTC application. The agency typically follows the recommendations of its advisory panel. But FDA in May 2004 rejected the application, citing worries about use of the pill by young teens without a doctor's supervision.

Most of the reports concerning the rejection of Barr's application carry the above information in one form or another. Where the business press outdoes the MSM is in the following analysis:

Congressional critics have charged that FDA abandoned scientific principles in rejecting the OTC application, bowing instead to political pressure.

"We are deeply opposed to this subversion of science," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and 17 other lawmakers wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt. The lawmakers, who requested the GAO audit, urged Leavitt to intervene in the reconsideration of the drug's status.

Some conservatives have asserted that Plan B, which helps block conception when taken within 72 hours of having unprotected sex, is akin to abortion. Others have asserted that allowing over-the-counter use would encourage risky sexual behavior among teens.

(more at link)

Another fine example of functional theocracy in action.

Can you imagine the outrage if erectile dysfunction drugs were outlawed? The same old white male farts that oppose 'Plan B' would be pounding the table to get their precious Viagra, Cialis, et al.

Light Escapes From Gitmo Black Hole

It's not real good for true democracy.

Another early AM WaPo piece. This time the Senate has apparently reached a deal allowing Guantanamo detainees some legal rights, but denying them of others.

McCain's torture and abuse amendment looks to be part of the deal struck yesterday. The Graham amendment would eliminate habeas corpus claims but will incorporate a proposal by Senator Levin that would allow appeals, or petition for appeal depending on the sentence(see Jeralyn Merritt's work linked to below)

Here's a bit of what WaPo is reporting:

A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise yesterday that would dramatically alter U.S. policy for treating captured terrorist suspects by granting them a final recourse to the federal courts but stripping them of some key legal rights.

The compromise links legislation written by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), which would deny detainees broad access to federal courts, with a new measure authored by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) that would grant detainees the right to appeal the verdict of a military tribunal to a federal appeals court. The deal will come to a vote today, and the authors say they are confident it will pass.

Graham and Levin indicated they would then demand that House and Senate negotiators link their measure with the effort by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to clearly ban torture and abuse of terrorism suspects being held in U.S. facilities.

"McCain's amendment needs to be part of the overall package, because it deals with standardizing interrogation techniques and will reestablish moral high ground for the United States," Graham said.

Such broad legislation would be Congress's first attempt to assert some control over the detention of suspected terrorists, which the Bush administration has closely guarded as its sole prerogative. By linking a provision to deny prisoners the right to challenge their detention in federal court with language restricting interrogation methods, senators hope to soften the administration's ardent opposition to McCain's anti-torture provision -- or possibly win its support.

(More at link)

For additional reading see: Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt's Excellent post at Huffington. Please follow the link back to Talk Left where she outlines the dangers of removing habeas corpus protections.

*sigh*

On Edit: More on habeas corpus via WaPo

We Used Lions Against Iraqis?

That's what WaPo is reporting this morning:

Two Iraqi men who were arrested in Iraq in 2003 but never charged with crimes say that U.S. troops put them in a cage with lions, pretended to execute them in a firing line and humiliated them during interrogations at multiple detention facilities.

Sherzad Khalid, 35, and Thahe Sabber, 37, say they were brutally beaten over several months at U.S. facilities such as Camp Bucca, Abu Ghraib prison and another detention facility at the Baghdad airport. They said the abuse occurred when they were unable to tell U.S. troops where Saddam Hussein was hiding and did not know about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Both are businessmen who were arrested in a July 17, 2003, raid in Baghdad while Khalid, of Kurdistan, was visiting friends. Both said they were supporters of the U.S. invasion.

The two men are plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top military commanders in Iraq. The suit contends that U.S. policies during the war allowed abuse and torture. Both men say that they were tortured and degraded for months before they were released.

"That was a terrifying period for me," Khalid said through an interpreter yesterday, slowly recounting being shoved into a lion's cage at one of the presidential palaces in Baghdad three times before soldiers lined him up for a mock execution. "I was wondering if it could be real that the American army would act this way."

(more at link)

I would have thought this beyond the scope of what the US would do during interrogations, but given the revelations of the past year and a half, I do not know what to believe. I don't think it is beyond imagination to accede that these types of - we dare not call it torture - interrogation techniques were used on these men. These men who were never charged with criminal activity.

One of the two men, Mr. Sabber, reportedly said this about their treatment: "They just wanted to humiliate us in any shape or form they could. I wish I knew why. I was sure, however, that their actions were not the same as the values and morals of the American people."

Most generous of him. If the story is true, I too want to know why these two men were treated in this manner.

Alito Proud To Be Against Women's Health?

Okay, that was a bit over the top. From ABC News comes this:

[snip]...As part of his application, Alito sent in a document saying his work in the solicitor general's office had included helping "to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly."

"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," he wrote.

That sentence provides one of the first clear-cut statements attributed to Alito about abortion, which will be one of the main topics of his January confirmation hearing as retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement.

Bush picked Alito after White House counsel Harriet Miers withdrew her Supreme Court nomination because of withering criticism by some conservatives.

"This may explain why the right wing expressed such enthusiastic support for Judge Alito after campaigning against Harriet Miers," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., one of several senators who will meet with Alito privately on Tuesday. "When he comes before the Senate, Judge Alito faces a heavy burden of demonstrating that he no longer holds these extremely troubling views and would bring an open mind and a real commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms."

(more at link)

I do have a personal view about the abortion debate. I simply do not believe that a panel of predominantly male justices should have any say in what I feel is a private matter between a woman's doctor, and maybe her family. The reason for the qualification is simple. Oft-times when a woman is raped, it is a family member responsible.

To be sure, the Constitution doesn't say a word about abortion. But if you're going to invoke god as the reason, it is surely no revelation(pardon the pun) that god performs the most abortions in the form of miscarriages, and fertilized eggs(blastocysts) that never become implanted in the uterine wall.

The Constitution also says nothing about a great many things that are part of the fabric of society today.

I'm neither for nor against 'selective' abortion. I do not believe that I, as a man, have any right to deny a woman of her right to privacy.

Unfortunately, in America the laws that are meant to protect the weak from the strong, are all too fluid.

It may be true that, "All Men are Created Equal," but if you happen to have a chromosomal pairing of XY, you have traditionally been able to make the rules for the half of the population that happen to be XX. If this is equality, please show me to the door.

Pat Roberts on Critical Thinking

Or, lack thereof..You decide. WaPo has this bit on Roberts' appearance on the holder of truth, Fox news.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said yesterday that one lesson of the faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq is that senators would take a hard look at intelligence before voting to go to war.

"I think a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action," Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) said on "Fox News Sunday."

Senators "don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore," said Pat Roberts, left, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee. Sen. Carl M. Levin said Iraq became a center of terrorism after its invasion in March 2003.

"We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore," he added. "We get into preemptive oversight and do digging in regards to our hard targets."

He said that agreement has been reached on the Phase 2 review that the intelligence panel is doing to look into whether the Bush administration exaggerated or misused prewar intelligence. The review may not be finished this year, he said.

(more at link)

The obvious question is, "Why did so many of you in Congress(both upper and lower houses) vote for the resolution to give the president the authority to go to war in the first place?"

The facts about pre-war intelligence were disputed at lots of points prior to the invasion. I know that National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has been trotting the assertion that "we all looked at the same intelligence." This is obviously a case of the 'good soldier' doing his soldiering, rather than giving an accurate portrayal of the facts to us, the American public. The White House had lots of additional information. Much of which would have severely weakened it's case for war.

Hell, I'm no weapons expert..I'm a silicon engineer, but when I saw Powell's dog and pony show for the UN Security Council's 'benefit', even I smelled the distinct odor of baking bull.

Slight digression: I find it morbidly humorous that the link to the WH's page on Powell's UN presentation is headlined: "Iraq - Denial and Deception." There was certainly denial and deception tasking place, but little of it seems to have originated in Iraq.

Hopefully, there are truly lessons learned here. Congress was the enabler. It as much their collective faults as it is the administration's. Sure, it would have been a politically unpopular move at the time. In hindsight - and maybe with a little closer examination of the disputed 'facts' - this ugly chapter in US history could have been avoided.

When the White House caught those patriots questioning the threat assessment from Iraq's WMD, they got the full-on smear treatment. From Scott Ritter to Joseph Wilson, telling the truth was a serious liability.

I'll give Roberts credit for not using the tattered, "We were all wrong" line. He knows that some people got it right. Rice and Powell even had it right - but somehow both lost their ways. See below.

Flashback: A video clip, and text of both Bush Sec.s of State(Powell and Rice) in 2001 on air stating unequivocally that Iraq is a neutered state without any real conventional military, and more importantly, no WMD capability.

More Rice, Less Concise

Again via Newsday:

Rice Condemns Iran for Israel Comment

By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer

November 13, 2005, 4:43 PM EST

JERUSALEM -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave her strongest rebuke yet on Sunday to the renewed hardline Islamic leadership of Iran, saying that "no civilized nation" can call for the annihilation of another.

Rice was referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remark last month that Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map." Her remarks drew applause from politicians, diplomats and others gathered for a U.S.-Israeli symposium.

"No civilized nation should have a leader who wishes or hopes or desires or considers it a matter of policy to express that ... some another country should be pushed into the sea," Rice said, speaking slowly and sternly. "It is unacceptable in the international system."

Speaking a day after part of her agenda for political openness in the Middle East ran into heavy weather, Rice also said the Bush administration is under no illusions about the difficulty of spreading democracy in the region.

"We are not naive about the pace, or difficulty, of democratic change," Rice said. "but we know that the longing for democratic change is deep and urgently felt."

(more at link..you know the drill)

Oddly enough, I agree with everything here.

However, like most things from the Bush administration, the goalposts seemed to have mysteriously moved.

Remember back in the old days...Say, oh circa 2003 when the whole middle-east deal was that the US was going to "shock and awe" the regimes of Syria and Iran into(and I can't find the specific quote, hence no quotation marks) toppling like dominoes?

I suspect that no one - save for the neo-cons, and their enablers - expected the 'greet us with roses' bit either. That's not what happens when you invade a sovereign country. It seems we(the US) only understand our own sense of nationalistic pride.

Yes, dear readers, it seems that even members of this administration, when confronted with baseball-bat-to-the-head evidence contrary to their ill-conceived ideas, can change their tune. It is noteworthy in this instance because their change in position wasn't forced by any investigation, or other untidiness.

Feral cat update: I've set the table(actually a paper plate with some kitty food on my back stoop), and hope to have a pic. of the critter later. She/he only comes by at night, or in the early morn.

The World vs. The Bully

Newsday seems to get it.. The piece starts off with Bush's recent nose-dive in the polls and gets interesting right about, oh...Here:

[snip]...In recent weeks, his administration has:

* Seen its proposal for a Western Hemisphere-wide free-trade pact torpedoed during Bush's trip to Latin America. Several other of his trade initiatives are in jeopardy, too.

* Failed to persuade the U.N. nuclear watchdog to refer Iran's suspect nuclear activities to the Security Council for possible penalties.

* Ran into more obstacles in six-country talks over North Korea's nuclear agenda.

* Clashed with major European allies which, for the first time, joined other countries in supporting a move to wrest administrative control over the Internet from the United States.

"Behind the scenes, there's a recognition that the United States is tied down somewhat in Iraq and preoccupied domestically, and that this is a tough time for the Bush administration," said Kurt Campell, who was deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific during the Clinton administration.

"It comes at a time when China's stock is extremely high in Asia as a whole. There's a growing recognition that China has taken enormous advantage of the challenges facing the Bush administration, in Iraq and elsewhere, to consolidate its gains in Asia," said Campell, now with the Center for International and Strategic Studies.

In Europe, Bush's principal Iraq war partner, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is reeling from political woes of his own...[/snip]

Continuing a bit further down:

[snip]...Now, allies might be even more emboldened in opposing positions staked out by the U.S. And antagonistic governments in North Korea, Iran and elsewhere might be less intimidated by Bush's threats, seeing how bogged down the U.S. is in Iraq.

"I think he is less scary to them," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy specialist at the Brookings Institution.

Iran and North Korea probably are less fearful than before that Bush might use pre-emptive military force against them to accomplish Iraq-style changes in rule, and so, too, are their neighbors, O'Hanlon suggested.

"South Korea, for example, might have worried before about a war with North Korea they did not want. And I think they're probably less worried about it now," he said.

The U.S. still wields enormous influence, of course, if only because it remains the sole military superpower and has the largest economy...[/snip]

I guess you have it right there at the end of my brazen copy-and-paste job. Imagine Bush at the helm is the US did not have it's military and economic might? Now that is freakin' scary!

The presidency is broken. We were - as a nation - the last to find out about it.(sorry for the grammatical train-wreck, it sounds more effective that way)

pbs personal post!

I'm hanging up my keyboard for a bit. I am engaging in a small roof repair. The cursing you hear will likely be me.

In other personal news, I appear to have a feral cat on the premises. He/she comes by each night for a free meal. I'm calling the vet in the AM to ask what course of action I should take. Having two cats already, I cannot care for a third.

I'd offer up a photo, but this is one shy little kitty. Cute as hell, though.