To the Boys and Girls at No Such Agency.

Call this an exercise in free-enterprise intelligence analysis and a strong advisory that in tapping our phones, you might just be distracted from far more significant indicators of what's going on domestically.

I am concerned - as everyone else should be - as to what displays like this do for public respect for the rule of law. It's certainly eroding mine, and making me consider applying for a concealed carry permit so that I may ensure my own safety without involving such people. When a person as risk-averse as myself starts seeing a pistol and a lime pit as being potentially a safer response to aggression than a call to 911, it represents a serious erosion of everything that the word "civilization" represents.

While the possibly racist and certainly political nature of this incident is well worth screaming about, such incidents transcend the importance of those two considerations, because there is one factor that is more important than race or politics.

The day "authorities" assume the right to pick and choose which citizens (even David Duke) may attend on any basis other than fire regulations - it's time to set a match to the place and build anew. If you think that's an Unamerican and unpatriotic thing to say, or even think, I refer you to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

Our Revolutionary war and our Civil War both started with what, in my opinion, were far fewer sins of less significance than we have endured under George Bush's misrule. Our self-appointed Masters, our self-styled earls and would-be Counts should thank God and Al Gore that the Internet has for this time proven a more attractive battleground than the fields and valleys that still reek of the blood of Patriot dead. And the forces of reason are winning, the voices supporting the president have steadily diminished until there remain only those that any rational and reasonable administration would be embarrassed to associate with; the Dead-Enders like Coulter, Malkin and O'Rielly - those incapable of uttering a single paragraph without saying something that is either racist, illiterate, breathtakingly stupid or an obvious lie. Often it's all of the above.

Bush is the dog. These are the fleas. Any questions?

But should they be of the cynical opinion that the Internet provides an outlet with no real impact, one they can shut down any time they like - I should advise them that given current technology, the best they could expect to do is choke down the bandwidth - and essentially create a huge, Pearl-Harbor level event to motivate people to switch to more active demonstrations of non-compliance. Amazing how it's progressed from geeky obsession to critical infrastructure in ten years; all, apparently with the implications eluding those who are too self-important to sully themselves by exploring it themselves. Considering it's incredible importance of these here "tubes," it's kind of insulting to have a leadership so technically impaired and intellectually challenged that they cannot grasp the implications.

You can't shut it down. There would be an instantaneous financial panic.

But the fact that SAC was unable to maintain operational security on an attempted clandestine transfer of six nuclear cruise missiles should have been a clue as to the danger it presents to the ambitions of the powerful. The fact that hundreds, if not thousands of former military persons with appropriate knowledge have unhesitatingly shredded every single lame and implausible "explanation" for this incident should be another clue.

And one reason for our seething discontent with our leadership is that they have not bothered to demonstrate any great competence for or even great interest in the the posts of power they hold. Why should we even consider permitting your ambition? Those who lust after the power of kings should be at least capable of wiping their own assess without needing instructions printed on each sheet of toilet paper. And I most especially include politicians of all stripes and sexes noted more for their ambition than their principles. Yes, Ms. Clinton, that does include you.

Right on top of the pile.

It concerns me that your outrage at the transgressions against the American People, our rights and our liberties are so very muted, it seems to me that such powers tempt you unduly. And I give you the credit of being smart enough to be really dangerous.

Yes, we need to talk about health care. But it seems to me that when there's a sitting lame-duck president who is clearly seeking a pretext to nuke a sovereign nation in order to create a "national emergency" that will facilitate whatever increasingly delusional plans exist in his addled brain, it's not the first priority.

I'm going to vote for whoever understands this. And if I don't get the chance to vote, a conspiracy theorist paranoia which seems to have evolved into a very credible suspicion, I will stand up and march alongside anyone with the courage to say "enough!"

I've never taken any precautions regarding having my communications monitored by the government, so I'm sure there is a file somewhere. The only thing I ask is that someone read it, and consider that I - and likely everyone else in same bin I'm in - are saying the same things, have been saying it for some time, and have been expressing increasing frustration and impatience. And as a whole, we have been willing to give endless benefit of the doubt, we have been enormously patient with you, oh, our arrogant masters, and have been rewarded with responses that would make a mildly retarded five-year old feel patronized.

The latest form letter from my Republican Senator, John Ensign, in response to my expressed concerns about illegal detentions, secret trials and erosions of the constitution has convinced me that self-importance and ideology can produce all the same symptoms of congenital retardation. Clearly, he's a 15 watt bulb in a 200 watt socket, barely capable of breathing and holding up his own hair.

As far as I'm concerned, he is the best single argument against the neocon ideology and it's culture of intellectual, social and moral corruption - he appears to genuinely believe and support it's every jot and tittle. Even now. He's THAT stupid.

And apparently, - at least according to his correspondence with me, that is how intelligent he thinks I am.

We all know the intelligence infrastructure is monitoring the Internet, our telephones and indeed all forms of private communications between citizens in defiance of custom, law and constitution. We know this in part because our Dear Leader, he who is propped up by the Assets of Evil, has bragged about it. Publicly. To reassure us that we are safe in his hands from the forces of Terror.

I, for one, am convinced that he would not recognize a real terrorist plot if arrived on his desk wrapped in flayed human skin powdered in anthrax with a video recording of Osama Bin Ladin chanting "this is a terrorist plot."

Dear goddess in heaven, can't you revoke his security clearance or something? But we know you are at least trying to monitor our private communications and our public blog postings. Just in case we are harboring terrorists in Hoboken or Eureka. So, presumably, at least one poor underpaid G4 knows what the rumblings in these here "internets" reveal and has dutifully forwarded it to those who need to know.

How can it be that such critical intelligence can so clearly be dismissed as unimportant; irrelevant to the clear and clearly stupid goals this administration and it's supporters cling to like some unwashed, urine soaked blankie?

Please try again. Use smaller words. Perhaps a big red felt marker would help. Jump up and down if you have to. Supply diagrams.

I'm not hooked into the intelligence community - but with an Internet connection and a three digit IQ, I'm prepared to draw some of my own conclusions, based on access to information and correlative resources Allan Dullies would have cheerfully sacrificed his left testicle to have. I wonder if it's dawned on anyone at CIA, DIA or NSA that millions of people analyzing and sharing publicly available information is a resource that likely trumps anything Carnivore or the NSA eavesdropping can reveal?

There simply are not enough warm bodies with the right security clearances and qualifications for it to shake out any other way. It hasn't helped that gays, liberals, and apparently anyone who speaks Farsi or Arabic is considered a security risk.

You may well be concerned at the resources broadband Internet puts in the hands of rogue and third world states, as well you should be. And I'd be surprised if you were not concerned about the reliability (and motivations) of sources in the EU, Israel and the Middle East.

But you should be even more concerned about what this means in the hands of an increasingly impatient citizenry who are easily able to act on the maxim "Trust, but Verify." I'm sorry, "trust us, we know what we are doing" is no longer a credible response. It's a punchline, as hilarious as President whastisbeard saying "we have no homosexuals in Iran."

So far, and I state this regretfully, that the last seven years have demonstrated either a complete failure on the part of various intelligence agencies to gather useful, actionable and relevant information, the inability to analyze it, or the complete failure to communicate it's implications to people making decisions. What we see expressed in every decision, policy and appointment is a complete ignorance of or a stunningly foolish indifference to consequence.

And I state this without any need to assume "realpoltik" motivations, hidden agendas, or the need to placate the American people with reasons for actions they find palatable.

Even in the most cynical light, taking the word of the "Project for a New American Century" and accepting the idea that it's proper to act with frank and deliberate intent to dominate the world and impose a Pax Americana, this administration's actions have made that vision laughably absurd. We are LESS of a world power now than we were when George Bush took office, with LESS military might, LESS ability to apply economic pressure, LESS influence by any measure - and we are trembling on the brink of irrelevance - of becoming not merely a second-rank power, but a scattered assortment of balkanized, competing states.

Such a consummation is devoutly wished by many - many of them being our supposed allies. Should there be any degree of civil unrest, much less outright civil war, those leading it will find no lack of financial and military support.

And if you can't meaningfully interdict the drug trade - I don't think you are gonna do any better stopping the flow of supplies to any determined insurgency. Our borders make those of Iraq look like the Berlin wall. And we are all painfully aware of how successful we have been in our efforts against determined insurgencies. I think it rather likely that insurgent citizens can do rather better than Iraqis, or even the North Vietnamese Army. After all, while they did have General Giap - an admitted military genius - Bush has fired every military leader that has shown any evidence of understanding the military realities well enough to object to his ambitions - so there will be no "leadership gap."

So the only way for this administration to "win" a civil war is to not declare one. I mention that aloud as it's one obvious possibility, considering all the many and various preparations George has made, against that day.

Why George's manifest and compounded stupidities seem to lead toward some fulfillment of Armageddon matters little. The final battle for world domination is an inherently BAD thing - EVEN IF Jesus comes in glory to save the shell-shocked remnant of the Just. However, I doubt that would occur. The bible is pretty clear that if you think you know the hour and the day, you are wrong. I'm pretty sure He would consider it presumptuous for some world leader to force His hand.

And I think it would be amazing, frankly, if there are many, if any world leaders willing to permit it. If anything, they are tacitly, if not actively conspiring to allow us to destroy ourselves, rather than take more active countermeasures. However, if there are not British, French, Russian and Chinese missiles allocated for every single aircraft carrier and strategic asset - including the Dark Cube With No Address - I would be absolutely flabbergasted.

But have great faith in Bush's ability to fail, even without help. What I do care about is that presumably smarter and saner people continue to permit him to live in the White House, instead of a secure basement suite in Bethesda - along with Dick Cheney, a man with equally obvious and severe mental disqualifications for office.

At some point, you have to decide whether or not you signed on for such a thorough professional cornholing, and consider what price you are paying to continue excusing behaviors you would not tolerate from your toddlers.

Phillip Atkinson of Family Security Matters calls on Bush to be "President for Life."

Digby, : Annotated

• Cliff Schector apparently broke this into the blogsphere after hearing about it on Thom Hartmann's show.
  
  I heard about this on, where else, the Thom Hartmann show. He discussed Democratic Underground's look at Family Security Matters. This bunch of sickos (apologies to Michael Moore) advocates that Bush should be our permanent president and that there should be no more democracy. Democracy is bad. Kings are good.
  
  Who's on their advisory board? Reagan era remnants abound. Here are some names that Hartmann tossed out: Barbara Comstock, Laura Ingraham, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey, and...drum roll...Dick Cheney. Oh, and by the way, it's the same Gaffney who goes on CNN with talk of aggression against Iran. That Frank Gaffney.
  
  - post by graphictruth


• This is part of the article (thanks for preserving it, Digby) that has resulted in the Family Security Foundation scrubbing their site of nearly every trace of Phillip Atkinsion
  
  

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

Much has been made of this, of course. Comments here and there accurately refer to it as "sedition" But as true as that is, it may not matter; not if the sedition is committed by those who are in charge of the nation. And "Family Security Matters" is part and parcel of all that, and as tempting as it is to dismiss this as sheer lunacy - it is the shared lunacy of some very highly placed and well-connected lunitics.

Lisa at Impeachment Project at first had difficulty taking it seriously - just as I did.

At first, I assumed this must be one of those Landover Baptist style parody sites, but if it is, it's a pretty convincing one. They're apparently a front group for the creepy DC think tank, Center for Security Policy, and they've been on Fox News.

...

UPDATE: According to this, Family Security Matters isn't only a front group for the Center for Security Policy/National Security Advisory Council. The CSP/NSAC actually picks up the phone at the FSM's contact number. And please read through the list of people affiliated. There are lots of high ranking members of the Bush administration, not the least of which is Dick Cheney.

True, as far as I'm aware, Dick Cheney did not actually write the article calling for a Bush dictatorship. But Dick Cheney and many other members of this administration are part of the organization that published an article calling for a Bush dictatorship. And that's scary, no matter how you look at it.

I took a closer look at Atkinson, who was listed at the time of the original publication as a Contributing Editor, and who could be found at ourcivilisation.com.

It's instructive to consider his views on the proper raising of children into "good citizens."

^{Unquestioning Obedience Of Authority An Essential Lesson}

Even after the age of seven years of age, when the child can reason, instruction must be continued without explanation, as unquestioning obedience to authority is one of the requirements of a dutiful citizen.

^{Continuation Of Tradition}

The basic values and knowledge that are the foundation of Tradition—those beliefs that are implicit in the customs, manners, language, and laws of the community—must be taught in the same unexplained way; not just to reinforce the notion of the need for unquestioning obedience, but also because these beliefs are an essential part of communal understanding and so must be adopted by all citizens. Observe, these beliefs were created by the genius of communal understanding, which is superior to each citizen's comprehension, so disqualifying any individual from being able to properly judge the reasons behind such beliefs. Hence it is not just the child's duty to adopt these beliefs without question, but it is the parent's duty to impose them without explanation.

Brings some insight into the alleged thinking behind "No Child Left Behind," eh? But this is not the first time Atkinson has suggested a return to Monarchy:

^{Only The Concern Of A King}

If a community is to succeed, its decisions must benefit the long-term interests of the whole group, so those involved in the process must

Always place their private interest second to that of the group.

• Possess sufficient ability to be able to recognise what is in the best interests of the whole group.

Such a combination of qualities is rare, which makes it unlikely to ever be the majority character of any group that takes a vote. Which in turn almost guarantees that the decision made by a vote will not be in the best interests of the community as a whole. There is only one individual who is qualified for the role of group decision maker, and that is the person whose private interests coincide with public interests; the one person who feels the community is their property to be tended and guarded with utmost care. Only a monarch can adopt such an attitude.

^{The Worst Form Of Rule}

Western Civilization has embraced rule by popular choice, unhindered by obedience to a monarch or church, since the French Revolution, which marked the beginning of its decline. The onset of our decay is inevitable because of the completely selfish nature of western, or pure, democracy, which is explained by an English contemporary of the French revolution, Edmund Burke, in his essay "Reflections On The Revolution In France".

But Atkinson - in all his writings - is guilty of the worst sort of ignorance about the nature of our political system. His criticisms of Democracy, while vile, and biased, are not without substance - and the Founders were equally, if more rationally concerned about the problems of even an indirect democracy.

This Is why, when asked what sort of Government we now had, Ben Franklin famously said "A Republic, Madame, if you can keep it."

Many are now wondering aloud what to do if martial law is declared and the Constitution is suspended, as seems to be the desire of Bush supporters. I am afraid that there is no comfortable answer to that question. What must be done - if you wish to support the Constitution and retain your rights - is to take up arms and oppose those who try to impose martial law on some pretext.

And I can assure you, it WILL be a pretext.

But ultimately, whatever faces appear in Washington are irrelevant. It's the people that put them in power and who benefit from them remaining in power that are the true culprits. Those persons must be held accountable, or any civil war will go on endlessly - as they continue to profit.

So follow the money. This is a task within the grasp of any competent investigator, Greg Palast, for instance.

When you get to the end of the line - ensure a just and appropriate outcome by Constitutionally appropriate means, as defined by the Constitution in regards to acts of treason. For that is what a war against the American people and the Constitution surely is.

For "Constitutionally Appropriate Means," refer to the Bill of Rights - the first two Amendments.

A very straightforward way to help speed the plough is to send some money to Greg Palast

tag: 1st Amendment, 2nd amendment, Barbara Comstock, Laura Ingraham, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey, Family Security Matters, Right-Wing Propaganda,

"The Wizard of Is"

Alberto Gonzolez, or at least a spokesperson, has snatched the title of "Wizard of Is" from Bill Clinton's willing hands.

Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations - washingtonpost.com Annotated

The reports also alerted Gonzales in 2005 to problems with the FBI's use of an anti-terrorism tool known as a national security letter (NSL), well before the Justice Department's inspector general brought widespread abuse of the letters in 2004 and 2005 to light in a stinging report this past March.

[D]epartment spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that when Gonzales testified, he was speaking "in the context" of reports by the department's inspector general before this year that found no misconduct or specific civil liberties abuses related to the Patriot Act.

Riiiiiiiight. And Gonzalez cannot be proven to have read any of these documents which must have landed on his desk.

So we are left with the choice as to whether Gonzolez is a legal and managerial incompetent or a partisan perjurer. But then, he's a Bush Appointee, there's no reason why he can't be both.

But some might wonder what motive Gonzolez might have had to conceal the truth from Congress.

Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer for the nonpartisan Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, "I think these documents raise some very serious questions about how much the attorney general knew about the FBI's misuse of surveillance powers and when he knew it." A lawsuit by Hofmann's group seeking internal FBI documents about NSLs prompted the release of the reports.

Caroline Fredrickson, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the new documents raise questions about whether Gonzales misled Congress at a moment when lawmakers were poised to renew the Patriot Act and keenly sought assurances that there were no abuses. "It was extremely important," she said of Gonzales's 2005 testimony. "The attorney general said there are no problems with the Patriot Act, and there was no counterevidence at the time."

I suggest that Congress require a higher standard of proof from Administration officials from this point on. If they cannot establish their veracity, Congress should assume they are lying.

But, We HAVE a War Czar!

Help wanted: War czar with clear vision - Yahoo! News

"The problem is not broad strategy and policy, it's that the bureaucracy is so inefficient and there's been so little follow-up that the machine doesn't work," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said.

Let's be blunt We HAVE a "War Czar" - we refer to him as "Commander in Chief." He HAS a National Security Adviser. There IS a Secretary of Defense, as part of a cabinet - and it is the President's job to keep all these ducks in a row to implement his "broad strategy and policy."

The problem is, he's trying to sell a "broad strategy and policy" that is intended to impress and convince the ignorant and uninformed, ideologues and authoritarians to people within a worldly, well-informed and highly sophisticated microcosm of careerists. You can't fool ANY of these people most of the time, so any "broad strategy and policy" that boils down to "trust me, I know what I'm doing," and which runs counter to the informed common sense and established practice of, say, the State Department, FBI or Treasury is going to be scrutinized and then, if implemented at all, implemented in such a way as to minimize blow back onto those suck with the duty.

This is, of course, assuming they cannot figure out how to bury the directive under a basement filing cabinet. So, when problems like this manifest, even though they manifest in the way Gingrich observes, it's beside the point. Ordinarily you would expect our bureaucrats to operate much more efficiently. What Gingrich needs to ask himself is why there is such an ongoing and obvious "white mutiny."

This is a failure of leadership, manifesting in systemic, passive resistance to the implementation of idiot ideas - probably complicated by internal disagreement as to which ideas are idiotic. This is made even more critical by the resentment created by the Bush Administration's practice of appointing reliable fools to head critical burocracies, people who's only qualification is that they have known George Bush a long time and still trust his judgment.

The fact is that there are very few people who are genuinely qualified to to hold such an office even in the best of times - and none of them are people who are primarily motivated by politics or so blinded by ideology that they cannot tell "a hawk from a handsaw."

So, bet that whoever Bush finds for this office, it will be someone who is either inept, corrupt, vulnerable to pressure or a combination of all the above. It's pretty clear that honor, ethics and honesty are qualities that are stark deficits to a career in Bush-Style politics.

Our Civil Service employees have been very badly served by such appointed masters and as a result those appointees are being "handled," "managed" and "Mushroomed*" with the goal of at least preserving the institutions themselves, even at the expense of current Administration policies. Appointing a "fall guy" will not change this in the slightest, it is a case - in the immortal words of Steven Colbert - of "rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg."

There is nowhere this can be seen more clearly than in the current scandal erupting in the Justice Department, where the battle lines are clearly drawn between the political masters and the professionals they supposedly oversee and direct. This situation is particularly illustrative of the problem, as it's becoming apparent that the goal was to subvert the Justice Department into a political apparatus of reward and punishment. Of course, the first step would have to be a general purge of those who value the law and the constitution above party affiliation and loyalty to the Adminsitration.

Bush's refusal to ask for Gonzolez's immediate resignation is nothing less than a clear declaration of war upon the Civil Service in general; implicit and direct support for the ideal of a completely docile and politicised Civil Service.

We can only speculate at the moment to what degree this agenda has been successful in other agencies, but it's clear that something is rotten at the core of the Department of Homeland Security, and that little has been learned from Katrina. We must prudently assume that what is now evident at the Department of Justice is ongoing in every other branch of federal government, with equally damaging outcomes yet to be widely revealed.

Aside from the loss of critical staff, remaining prosecutors could not possibly ignore the stain that would leave upon the credibility of their offices, or the increased difficulty in gaining convictions against those who's convictions will have political implications.

The Justice Department is filled with people that you don't want to meet in the dark alley of procedural maneuver or upon the dueling grounds of public opinion. When they cannot act directly, they have networks of allies that can speak pointedly, directly and without much fear of political reprisal, such as James B. Comey, the Justice Department's second in command from 2003 until August 2005.

[Comry]... told a House Judiciary subcommittee that although he was the "direct supervisor" of all U.S attorneys, he was never informed about an effort by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his aides to remove a large group of prosecutors that began in early 2005.

That strikes me as being remarkable, and obviously improper. Clearly, Comry himself is honked off enough about it to take great public exception to the Attourny General's efforts to justify these firings.

The testimony from Comey, a highly regarded former prosecutor who is now general counsel for Lockheed Martin, further undermines assertions by Gonzales and his aides that dissatisfaction with the prosecutors' work led to their dismissals. It also underscores the extent to which the firings, which originated in the White House, were handled outside the normal chain of command at Justice.

Comey's appearance followed revelations Wednesday that the Justice Department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility are investigating whether a former Gonzales aide, Monica M. Goodling, illegally considered political affiliation in reviewing candidates for the positions of career assistant prosecutors in the offices of interim or acting U.S. attorneys.

But, aside from defending the fired prosecutors from what he characterized as "smears," he put his thumb directly upon the more critical principle.

Comey said it was "very troubling" to hear allegations that political considerations may have been taken into account in the hiring of assistant U.S. attorneys, or AUSAs.

"I don't know how you would put that genie back in the bottle, if people started to believe we were hiring our AUSAs for political reasons," he said.

This nation cannot function without the essential safeguards represented by a system of justice that is as untainted as humanly possible by bias and politics. Right now, there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases being re-examined by lawyers who are considering the possibility of politically-motivated prosecutorial misconduct.

The more diffuse but even more damaging impact is a cynical public perception that our current government is as corrupt as any South American oligarchy, where the system of "justice" exists for the benefit and convenience of the oligarchy, and that it's various "wars on" are waged solely for the social and financial benefit of those at the top with no actual consideration of the impacts, benefits or deficits endured by ordinary citizens.

This leads to a general contempt for the law and a willingness to ignore, subvert and circumvent it.

In the absence of a large, powerful and ruthless federal secret police presence, the view that the law exists for the convenience of the Administration, an administration that has evident, manifest contempt for the law and Constitution when it inconveniences them, there is but one outcome - the eventual dissolution and extinction of the rule of those who champion such a form of governance. The only question is, will it be the "hard way," or the "easy way."

Whether by ballot or bullet, by impeachment or Constitutional convention, the general direction is clear. An increasingly obvious public revulsion is manifest and evident, there is a demand for the return to ethical and Constitutional governance that is of direct benefit to ordinary citizens, and not just the cronies of whatever faction of the political elite hold sway.

I've been stating with increasing urgency over the last year or so that Civil War is becoming a distinctly possible future outcome, and it becomes more and more possible with every single such revelation of the mindful and deliberate subversion of the public trust.

*Mushroomed: "Kept in the dark and fed bullshit;" the approach to appointed or elective leadership clearly incapable of making reliable judgments based on fact, precedent and tradition. See also "Yes, Prime Minister."

tag: War Czar, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Civil Service, Civil Service Rebellion, impeach the president, Civil War, Domestic Revolt, Justice Department, Fired Prosecutors, James B. Comey

Know Something About Kieth Olbermann?

This Right-Wing tabloid site wants to know.

And, well, obviously they are having a lot - repeat, A LOT of trouble finding any real ammo to use against Olbermann, since the worst thing they can say about him is that his ratings are low (on MSNBC? Imagine that!) and this:

Keith Olbermann's career schizophrenia continues. He's a Sports Guy. He's a News Guy. He's a Sports Guy (again). Oops, back to News. And guess what? Now he's back to Sports, according to Keith's personal PR flack aka TVNewser:

More! "Olbermann Schizophrenia: Is he a Sports Guy or a "News" Anchor?"

Yep, being able to do more than one thing well is a clear sign of inherent, invidious, elitist Liberalism. Judging by the journalistic standards of this blog, so is walking and chewing gum at the same time.

This link was advertised to me via google promising to "Expose Olbermann's lies." As I expected, this was a usage of the term, "lie," that I was previously unfamiliar with. A "lie" in this usage seems to be a truth that makes you want to stick your fingers in your ears and chant "la la la la I can't HEAR you!"

I see this as symptomatic of the sad, impotent and pathetic devolution of the right-wing blogosphere, that this blog gets enough eyeballs to justify a google Adwords account. They don't take just ANYONE, you know.

So, the dead-enders are still out there - but clearly, they are being driven to a subsistence diet of undiluted stupidity as the former stars of the Right are, one by one, falling away toward the center, leaving the core ideologues exposed in their dogged determination to win their Culture War against everyone and every institution that is smart enough to know better.

Hell, if you are smart enough to put three thoughts in a row, you are savvy enough to realize that the Administration can't. And a lot of former Republicans have come to the conclusion that what they stood for, indeed, what they still stand for, was seen as simply a set of talking points by the Administration; a means to get to an end that was nothing good, Republican, conservative or apparently achievable.

There is only so far wanting to believe can take you in the face of an overwhelming flood of fact. Bloggers, to be relevant at all, have to swim in facts and even (gasp) differing perspectives on them. After a while, it's hard to ignore that of the facts that are in, the facts speak against the President, that:

• He has indeed lied in order to wage war against Iraq.
• entered office with the intention of waging war against Iraq.
• used (or even contrived) 9/11 as a pretext for that war (and in that, did nothing to actually find, prosecute and execute those who were actually responsible).
• Illegally wiretapped citizens.
• Suspended Habius Corpus.
• Kidnapped and tortured people without even the pretense of due process.
• Tried to establish a legal basis for torture - despite it being explicitly illegal and ineffective.
  
• Is in Contempt of Congress on multiple counts (signing statements)

And yet, given nearly totalitarian powers even FDR did not wish to have, has managed to completely fail to win a war our armed forces were equipped and trained to win - a war of maneuver in the deserts of the middle east - by putting them into urban combat zones, the sort of warfare that eats armies for lunch.

Understand this very clearly; there was absolutely no reason for anyone to expect that our military forces would be unsuccessful in securing Iraq with good intelligence, solid planning, competent leadership and enough boots on the ground. Even those of us who doubted that it would be as easy as described would not have gone so far as to use the word "difficult."

We asked "why Iraq, and why now." I cannot recall many asking "what if we can't win?"

So, not only did he lie us into war, he fucked up that war. Why? Well, never presume malice when stupidity is a sufficient explanation. But if George Bush's intent were to destroy this nation, cripple our vital alliances, isolate us in terms of world opinion and still lead us open to a far more probable threat of terrorism, in that light, he's been consistently correct in his choices of policy and personnel.

What we are seeing here is the result of a total failure of leadership, even by the standards of a corrupt, corporatist, kleptocratic, nepotist and increasingly fascist-lite ruling elite.

It would be wise to recall that, first, the French Revolution occurred because of and in response to leadership of such quality. And second - the outcome, driven as it was by a situation driven beyond extremes, resulted in some extremely Bad Things.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think that the existence of social stresses that could lead to civil war to be a very significant National Security Issue. So, I think it's time we all took a deep breath, got over ourselves, and made a choice to stop making war on other people. Especially when those people are fellow Americans.

Update: this post was linked on Olbermann Watch and this was the only comment there:

You know what I see as symptomatic of the sad, impotent, and pathetic devolution of the LEFT-wing blogosphere? They can't even spell Olbermann's first name correctly while trying to defend him. Kieth? How hard is it to spell K-E-I-T-H?

If that's the only criticism, I believe we can take every actual point as being unaddressable by those who I am addressing.

Sad, ain't it? That, and the fact that once again I'm accused of being "a liberal."

tag: Miserable failure, Impeach, George W. Bush, 2008, Civil War, Revolution, Global Terrorism, Kieth Olbermann, Keith Olbermann, Spelling Flames

Suddenly Seymour Hersh

In reference to Seymour M. Hersh's New Yorker article, "The Redirection." Tom Engelhardt wonders where the media reaction is to something that looks like Iran-Contra, seems as naive and inept as Iran-Contra and likely to create far more problems than Iran-Contra ever did.

TomDispatch: The Seymour Hersh Mystery


"Iran-Contra alumni in the Bush administration at one time or another included former Reagan National Security Advisor John Poindexter, Otto Reich, John Negroponte (who, Hersh claims, recently left his post as Director of National Intelligence in order to avoid the twenty-first century version of Iran-Contra -- "No way. I'm not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. [National Security Council] running operations off the books, with no [presidential] finding."),"

Negroponte - that old cold warrier and worse - scared of blowback from a repeat of his "glory days?" What the hell does he know that Hersh has NOT found out? And dare we wait to know?

"In this country, it's a no-brainer that the Iranians have no right whatsoever to put their people, overtly or covertly, into neighboring Iraq, a country which, back in the 1980s, invaded Iran and fought a bitter eight-year war with it, resulting in perhaps a million casualties; but it's just normal behavior for the Pentagon to have traveled halfway across the planet to dominate the Iraqi military, garrison Iraq with a string of vast permanent bases, build the largest embassy on the planet in Baghdad's Green Zone, and send special-operations teams (and undoubtedly CIA teams as well) across the Iranian border, or to insert them in Iran to do 'reconnaissance' or even to foment unrest among its minorities. This is the definition of an imperial worldview."

Hersh's story amounts to this - there is a huge, complicated and frankly idiotic "black" operation run out of the Vice President's office with "black" funds (possibly stolen Iraqi oil dollars) to engineer a Sunni-Shia rift, civil war within Iran and God only knows what else. And they apparently think they can ride this whirlwind!

It seems like we here in the US are living on the wrong side of Mordor's gate.

tag: Seymour Hersh, Sunni, Shia, Iran, Iraq, Negroponte, Iran-Contra, National Security Council. Dick Cheney,

The Reasons For Treason

I keep finding more evidence of treason, fairly obvious and widespread, and it keeps getting uglier and uglier. Yesterday, in chasing down the threads of this, I ran into the Sibel Edmunds story, which I'd be completely unaware of, as was evidently The Whole Idea. But Lukery of Wot is it Good 4 has started a blog specific to the case.

Let Sibel Edmonds Speak

Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged person in US history. The government has repeatedly invoked the State Secrets Privilege in her case - not for reasons of 'national security' but to hide ongoing criminal activity. Please call Waxman and Conyers' offices this week and demand public open hearings into Edmonds' case and the State Secrets Privilege. Links to the petition, action items and phone numbers will remain in the post on top.

Elsewhere there:

Thom Hartmann on Air America Radio did an angry ten minute segment on the illegal, FISA-abusing, spying on "high-profile U.S. public officials" as exposed by Sibel and the NSWBC on March 5th.

Hartmann thinks that the Democrats should "raise some hell." I agree.

Download here (MP3)

This post gives both background and current info on the issues.

It has been almost five years now since former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds first contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee to reveal the shocking tale of Turkish bribery of high-level U.S. officials. In that time span, Edmonds has been misled by members of Congress on several occasions: Numerous promises have been made to the whistleblower by the Senate Judiciary Committee that her allegations would be exposed in public hearings. Those promises have rung hollow.

Now, with the Democratic victory in Congressional elections, coupled with revelations that many of the tapes she translated were probably obtained illegally through FISA warrants , the Turkish translator's case has gained new relevance.

...

Unlike the numerous Iraq War investigations that Waxman and other Democrats in Congress are planning, the issues brought up by Sibel Edmonds may tarnish the images not just of the Bush Administration, but also of certain elements of the Clinton Administration. Further complicating matters is that members of both political parties in Congress were also allegedly the recipient of Turkish gratuities: When a country like Turkey decides to engage in illegal espionage and lobbying, it spreads its funds generously. And though Edmonds' case involves the nuclear black market, not even the potential of a nuke reaching American soil is guaranteed to motivate our public servants, especially when they fear some of the muck might splatter on their own Party.

I have long wondered why leading Democrats have behaved as the have done - for instance, Harry Reid's inexplicable failure to support Jack Carter's run in Nevada against John Ensign - a man who is no more than a rubber stamp for the White House and his treasured Focus on the Family allies. The statement by Nancy Pelosi that "Impeachment was of the table" when already there was enough information to make hearings fairly much a formality.

And then there is Lieberman. Oy.

The specter that three or more leading Democrats are compromised either through corruption, blackmail or both is not a shade anyone should be comfortable with, but it certainly does explain a great deal about many things - such as the passage of the Patriot Act and the rubber stamping of the AUMF that seem, in a way, more plausible than what I've always thought to be rather weak excuses.

The thought of blackmail has crossed my mind before, but the "what" of it eluded me. This could be yet another smoking gun, and one more data-point suggesting that my gut feeling that it would be unwise to support Hillary is worth mentioning aloud LONG before I'm really ready. But at this point, I'm not willing to support her until she's cleared of involvement in - whatever it is that we do not yet know, and any lack of enthusiasm on her part in pursuing all these issues should be taken as confirmation that she's unfit for office.

That, of course, applies to all serving members of the House and Senate, of either party.

Now here's stuff from other sources relating to Plamegate.

Why Cheney Lashed Out at Wilson

Vice President Dick Cheney can be forgiven for feeling provoked. The Times, having been led by Cheney and others down a garden path littered with weapons of mass destruction that were not really there, did some retaliation of its own with the snide title it gave Wilson's op-ed: "What I Did Not Find in Africa."

Adding insult to injury, Wilson chose to tell Washington Post reporters, also on July 6, in language that rarely escapes an ambassador's lips, the bogus report regarding Iraq obtaining uranium from Niger "begs the question regarding what else they are lying about."

That threw down the gauntlet, and Cheney had to worry that others who knew about the lies might feel it safe to go to the press and spill the beans. Retaliation had to be swift and as unambiguous as possible.

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). His e-mail is rrmcgovern@aol.com.

But in retaliating swiftly and unambiguously, Cheney blew a real "NOC" operative, an entire deep cover intelligence network and critically damaged our capability to monitor and deal with nuclear proliferation in the middle east and elsewhere, possibly contributing, along with other, equally brainless White House policies, to North Korea developing an offensive nuclear capability.

Nobody in our intelligence community - or any other - was unaware of the consequences of Cheney's act, as this 2003 article clearly shows.

NOC, NOC. Who's There? A Special Kind of Agent

Security agencies all over the world are now quietly running Plame's name through their data banks, immigration records and computer hard drives as the White House leak scandal continues to percolate. Officials with two foreign governments told TIME that their spy catchers are quietly checking on whether Plame had worked on their soil and, if so, what she had done there. Which means if one theme of the Administration leak scandal concerns political vengeance — did the White House reveal Plame's identity in order to punish Wilson for his public criticism of the case for war with Iraq?--another theme is about damage. What has been lost, and who has been compromised because of the leak of one spy's name? And who, if anyone, will pay for that disclosure?

There is no polite euphemism for this. It was, and it remains a conscious act of treason, in furtherance of a treasonous effort to subvert our nation and transform it into the servant of his own ambitions.

As for George Bush, who promised that he'd fire anyone who was responsible for the leak; well, he either knew who was responsible at the time or became aware soon afterward. Either way, that rises to the level of conspiracy to commit treason, or conspiracy after the fact. To say that either is an impeachable offense is the most British of understatements.

UPDATE+Bump More evidence of treason from a completely different perspective.
Wot is it Good 4 has the idea that blowing an intelligence network may have been the actual goal.

This is probably the most significant post related to this issue:

"My question then, given that the egadmin spent 2 months planning the leak of her name, is it more likely that they did it to:
a) discredit Wilson (which failed spectacularly, and could never have succeeded), or b) shine the light on BrewsterJennings (which succeeded spectacularly, and could never have failed)?

[snip]

Surely the maladministration knew the implications, exactly - they'd been thinking obsessing about it for months, and they went out of their way to cover their tracks. Not only did they know that it was illegal to do what they were doing, they surely also knew that BrewsterJennings would be exposed - surely we need to consider that the purpose of the outing was to out BJ, rather than some silly attempt to undermine Joe Wilson. In fact, given the extent to which they devised elaborate cover stories, surely we should at least consider the possibility that the 'get wilson' story is really just another level of cover..."

the rest of the post tries to rescue just about everyone from the apparently universal idiocy that Plame was outed to get at Wilson, and more specifically, that the long-set-in-stone idea that the Plame leak was "Clearly... meant purely and simply for revenge" - as reported in the 'blockbuster' Sep29 front-pager in the WaPo.

The question, of course is "why." But on the other hand, aside from aiding in the process of rounding up all the treasonous bastards - it doesn't matter. Because there are no excuses.

tag: Impeach, treason, Dick Cheney, Plamegate, ethics, foreign policy, Impeach the President, Valerie Plame, Downing Street Memo, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, High Crimes and Misdemeanors

We cannot win a war of attrition in the Middle East. - Hagel

Why are we fighting a war of attrition in the Middle East? Perhaps because the bastards want to grind us down.

Chuck Hagel is getting a lot of press right now for speaking the obvious to the oblivious; in this case Condi Rice who's academic credentials are more than adequate for her to have come to the same conclusion. There are many, MANY reasons why we cannot get to what she would like to what she and the rest of the Bushites would like to call "victory," but this is the most fundamental. To quote Andrew Jackson - also a Commander in Chief in his day - battles (and hence, wars) are won by "who gets thar fustest with the mostest."

We succeeded spectacularly in the first phase of the war because we did that. We proceeded to lose from that point on because we no longer had control of the field of battle - which was NOT, repeat, NOT primarily one that could be controlled with force. In the battle of hearts and minds, we got our asses kicked by violating the primary dictum of both war and peace - KNOW your enemy and why they are fighting. The problem - as Dr. Rice could easily explain, if she were speaking of ANY other situation than one she helped create - is that recognizing the reality and addressing it effectively would have required two things that were politically impossible - an admission of the real strategic goals and rationale for the war, AND reassessing the foundational geo-political principles it was intended to forward - as outlined in "Project for a New American Century's" "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

One of the key assumptions was that it would be easy to topple regimes in areas of critical American interest and that that would liberate an expression of massive popular support for our benevolent oversight into an "American style" democratic nation aligned with us and sharing strong social, diplomatic and economic ties.

It is relatively easy, given our military and economic clout, to topple a regime or cripple a nation. When it's served our interest, we have done both, though I would argue that such examples as Chile and Iran have created long term problems larger than any short-term advantage we may have gained. Our attempts to intervene in domestic affairs of other nations do not always work so well in the short term. Our tendency to pick the interests of the big guy over the little guy has started to backfire more and more, and is increasingly turned against us by leaders such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Propaganda is far more powerful when it's foundation is set firmly in the concrete of personal experience and easily verified truths. It may be possible to "spin" gold from straw - and Tony Snow seems to be able to spin fairy-gold from air - but if you already have some gold and a great deal of straw - one can clothe one's chosen political metaphors quite regally.

That is all the motivation needed to come up with lots more people to shoot at us than we can ever kill. That situation in Baghdad is what Sen. Hagel means when he speaks of "attritional warfare." While an American trooper is easily worth ten Iraqis on any battlefield of our choosing, we have chosen instead to fight on their home turf; in an urban environment. Generously, that cuts our advantage in manpower in half, while at least doubling theirs. And even if it did not, they have not just ten, but ten more, and ten more after that. We do not.

Worse than that, we've created conditions where most would prefer to die fighting than be captured. We are operating in a situation even more hostile than the Warsaw Ghetto, against a variety of well-armed militias, former military and paramilitaries with apparently copious and secure lines of supply. It's a situation that even a French general would never consider entering in the first place, but the President still seems to think we can "win."

We have given our enemies EVERY advantage against us in the war of hearts and minds, we have allowed them to maintain their lines of communication and supply and allowed them to choose the battleground. Meanwhile, we have bombed civilians, killed civilians wholesale at checkpoints, tortured civilians and in the process of a doing all this, completely wrecked the civilian infrastructure - giving lots more people the time and motivation to explore Humvee hunting as a recreational activity. The fact that it's easier to find explosives than a job or an intact classroom with a working toilet has got to be a factor in this.

In the process, we have lost all diplomatic, military and moral credibility, and that is why we have lost this war, and will lose in further adventures in third world babysitting we might have had in mind, because our greatest enemy is, well, us.

And by "us," I do not mean Chuck Hegel, who's simply speaking the truth to someone who hates hearing it as much as George W. Bush. I mean we have handed victory to anyone we choose to oppose militarily or diplomatically on a platter, and this situation will continue until we remember that "we", the American people, are morally and ethically accountable for what is done in our names.

Winning the war on terror begins at home. Stop being terrified, and start prosecuting those who have been jerking our chains for six years. START listening to people - like Hegel, and Gore, and Murtha, who really know what they are talking about. It may feel nicer and more secure to have smoke blown up your ass, but in order to enjoy that warm and friendly sensation, you have to drop your pants - and that makes it real easy to pick your pocket and screw you over.

This "war on terror" has been prosecuted in such a way as to ensure failure from the first. What if that is the goal?

If you pick any single administrative decision point from 9/11 on, you will find the wrong thing being done from any expert perspective, starting with the decision to go in with light forces who were unequipped for an urban battlefield. Even then, had we the sense to withdraw from the urban areas and establish secure nodes, we could have effectively secured and controlled the countryside - and interdicted terrorist and insurgent lines of supply - while allowing Iraqis to secure the urban environment, offering air support and intelligence. Baghdad is vital to Iraq and Iraqis - but it was no part of OUR command and control. Any competent military commander would advise against engaging in urban warfare given ANY viable alternative - and the above is a bog-standard, off the shelf "viable alternative."

I'm wondering aloud here if the administration's strategy is to maximize casualties and termination of service within the civilian forces, particularly among the front line Guards and Reserve officer corps. Because that's the effect.

That's simply one example. Another disastrous example is composed of the unholy policies represented by Gitmo, Abu Gahrab and the spirited defense of torture from the very highest levels of our administration. This broad policy was established from the Oval Office against extensive advice from real world experts that it was counterproductive, that it would not produce usable intelligence and that it would provide enormous motivation to opposition forces, once the truth got out - as it inevitably would.

Or, let us look at the rational responses to 9/11. KNOWING that Osama Bin Ladin was almost certainly involved, would you as a rational individual, not want to ask a few questions of the Bin Ladin family members who happened to be in the United States at the time? I sure would. The FBI sure did. Instead, they were whisked out of US jurisdiction with clearance from the highest levels. That makes me intensely interested in what they might have had to say, particularly the close, even intimate contacts and entanglements the President has with the Bin Ladin family in particular and the Saudi Royals in general.

It's standard operating procedure when examining a crime to preserve the critical evidence, at least until it's examined. Instead - hundreds of tons (representing millions of dollars in salvage value) were dumped at sea without any in-depth structural analysis.

There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of such decisions that make absolutely no sense at all from the perspective of an administration acting to protect our national interests and personal security. They are not consistent with mere incompetence, nor does stupidity does not account for being so consistently wrong and so consistent in the frustration of any effort to do the correct thing in a presumed climate of enhanced terrorist activity. One only has to point to the Administration effort to turn over our ports to a Dubai firm to show a disconnect between the supposed situation and the administration's policy.

Furthermore, whatever you or I might wish to believe, with the possible exception of the titualar head of government, the Whige House is NOT staffed by the ignorant or the unintelligent. Notably, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz et al, these are the very sharpest crayons picked from a box of sharp crayons. In other words, almost nobody there is stupid enough to have allowed these things to come to pass by accident, and when things came to pass due to incompetence, it was because very smart people put incompetant but obediant people in positions of power. Let us do them the courtesy of assuming they knew PRECISELY what they were doing, and that the outcome was fairly much within the range of their expectations, such as the depopulation and diaspora of the former black citizens of New Orleans and the Gulf coast. New Orleans is essentially depopulated and available for development. "Heckuva job, Brownie."

There is a military dictum that should be quoted here: "Once is happenstance, twice coincidence; three times is enemy action."

We have far more than three examples of administration decisions that go completely counter to any reasonable, constitutional action in support of our national interest and national security, from even the most rabidly conservative perspective. I might add that I'm using only well-known, very questionable examples.

The net effect of six years of misrule has been a widespread attack on the middle class, a degradation of individual civil liberties, innumerable subversions and attempts to subvert the constitution, the erosion of the military - and particularly the military capabilities of the individual States. Furthermore, the President has tried to assert personal authority over the various state Guards units, historically the prerogative of the various Governors.

Little of this makes any great sense if aimed at an external threat. It makes a great deal of sense if it's aimed at you and me.

We should start investigating the possibility that a person or persons within the White House are acting as agents of a foreign power or, a concentration of powers who have deep interests in control, power, oil, and lack of oversight by a well-informed, well-armed and vigilant citizenry.

Actually, I suggest we need not wait to wonder too deeply about why, or indeed precisely who. When you are clearly being shot at, you don't argue about the caliber of the weapon or the motives of the shooter. First you duck, then you return fire. Those are the essentials; the rest is for the after-action report, and after-action reports are written by the survivors.

I suggest to all US citizens to re-familiarize themselves with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you feel that your interests and your honor lie with defending it, I hope that you will do as I have done today, and reaffirm my wholehearted commitment to "Uphold and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

[Update - if you haven't read Glenn Greenwald yet, do so right now] He's closely paralleling many of my points - and we failed completely to collude this month.

tag: war on terror, terrorism, Morality, Ethics., Integrety, Betrayal of Trust, Jack Murtha, attritional war, constitutioin, bill of rights, oath of office, uphold and defend the constitution, , Donald Rumsfied, John Ashcroft, impeach the president, impeach george bush, treason