Frothing at the mouth …

… that would be the Chief Justice, John Roberts, having fallen 5 to 10 feet and bonking his head after having suffered a seizure, replicating one he had in ‘93 — according to experts, two anomalous seizures, cause unidentified, leads to a probable diagnosis of epilepsy. The Dub, satisfied by the slightest happy-faced display, spoke to Roberts this morning and said he’s fine. Skeptics are looking at Roberts testimony in his vetting that his health was “excellent,” and wondering what other ‘little somethings’ he left out. The Justice’s have a way of avoiding giving personal information, and no law demands they do — Rehnquist, you’ll remember, was addicted to painkillers and even diagnosed delusional while on the bench, and no one knew it until his FBI records were unsealed after his death.

… that would be the Democratic Congress, who, having given the White House ’til noon today to clarify Fredo’s twisted and self-implicating testimony and having heard nothing, are standing by with a resolution to investigate him for impeachment. It would require a majority vote in the House and 2/3rds in the Senate. Such a process is dicey — the Pubs have no love for Fredo, but some are still in their “circle the wagons” mentality, just a tad short of the panic that will set in as ‘08 looms nearer. However such a turn would work out, actually introducing the resolution would break the wall of lethargy that stands between the lawmakers and the procedure itself– it would be good to get impeachment on the table … and fire a warning shot across the bow of the Bushie camp.

… that would be the Republican candidates, as they stare down the possibility of being asked questions [as were the Dems in the Youtube debate] by the Great Unwashed. Evidently nothing about this project appeals to them, with only three of them [Ron Paul, John McCain and Tommy Thompson] willing to attend. “Prince of Darkness,” Bob Novak pretty well spells out the conservative concerns, below — let the Blue pander to “the people,” the Red find their contemporaries at the Club, the Links, the Board Room. Bush’s attempt to marry “compassion” and “conservatism” is, as is everything he touches, a dismal failure — the religious model that prompted the compassion is now just about narrow-minded vitriol, and the moderation favored by conservatives is Gone with the Wind, as the Bushies raid and plunder the national coffers with the same deliberate fanaticism that Sherman showed when he marched his troops to the sea. The people … and their opinion … is the LAST thing the Republicans want to know about, today.

… and — that would be journalists and serious readers of the Wall Street Journal, now that there’s been a green light in the family battle that was withholding the publication from Murdoch. FOX Newsie’s and girly-ooglers [Murdoch is famous for putting skin on page 3] will be happiest about this — the rest of us have every reason to grab a Kleenex to dab up the froth as we contemplate News Corp Uber Alles. WSJ will soon be the nations swankiest “rag,” and the majority of Dow Jones stock will be Rupert’s. Only thing missing at this point is signatures on the contracts. Gone pedestrian … I think this means Paris Hilton wins.

Below, a very short collection of interesting, thoughtful snips on these topics — open the links, of course, for the MSM.

And DO take time for the last piece — a furtherance of the conversation about Dubby’s personal demons via Dr. Frank, who wrote Bush on the Couch, and speculations about his next moves … of concern to us all. Sadly, it appears spot on — and the cure is apparent … that which [hopefully] awaits Mr. Gonzales, for the sake of us all.

Jude

John Roberts and The Lightning Stroke
Phoenix Woman, FireDogLake
Mon Jul 30, 2007

By this time, I’m sure everyone knows by now that John Roberts is in the hospital for what was originally just stated to be a simple fall but is now reported to be a seizure similar to one he suffered in 1993. He’s in the hospital for overnight observation; they think he’s going to be OK, but.

But.

Up near my parents’ home in the boonies, there was, until last Saturday, a 20-room mansion. It had seven bedrooms, eight bathrooms, and a grand piano, as well as several precious works of art. It burned to the ground this weekend, and nobody knows why just yet, but it doesn’t look like arson. There was a boom like a lightning stroke as the propane tank blew up. It was a sizable tank, so the boom could be heard all the way into town.

Things that seem so stable can, for good or ill, turn to dust at the blink of an eye or a stroke of lightning. John Roberts, who was picked by Bush in part because of his relative youth and health, was supposed to ensure archconservative dominance of the Supreme Court for decades to come. Things and situations we think of as unchanging and permanent can be irreversibly altered faster than we can describe the process.

Something for us all to contemplate. ++

ADMINISTRATION — BUSH ISN’T ‘BIG ON YOUTUBE DEBATES’
Progress Report
7/25/07

Monday’s CNN Democratic presidential debate allowed ordinary citizens around the country to be heard. By uploading a 30-second video to YouTube, “voters could directly question a presidential candidate during the debate.” Thirty-nine videos were chosen from the 2,989 submitted. CNN will hold a similar debate for the Republican candidates on Sept. 17. Carol Darr of George Washington University said that for the first time, “the filter that mainstream establishment media plays in presidential races — ‘we ask the questions, we are the exalted panel’ — that was broken down.” Yesterday morning in a press briefing aboard Air Force One, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Tony Snow whether the President’s remarks later in the day about terrorism would address some of the criticisms from the Democratic presidential debate. When Snow said they wouldn’t, the reporter asked, “Did he watch the debate?” Snow responded, “I don’t think so. I don’t think he’s big on YouTube debates.” It’s not surprising that President Bush would dislike open, democratic debates.

The Bush administration has banned Democrats from events in order to fabricate a sympathetic, supportive audience. During the 2004 campaign, “attendees to Bush rallies were turned away for wearing pro-John Kerry T-shirts and stickers.” They also were often encouraged to take pledges of support for the President and answer questions about their loyalty to Bush in order to attend. Perhaps Bush isn’t “big on YouTube debates” because they aren’t conducive to “catapulting the propaganda.” ++

RADICAL RIGHT — NOVAK CALLS YOUTUBE DEBATE ‘REALLY DISGUSTING’
Progress Report
7/31/07

The criticism over the people-powered YouTube Democratic presidential debate has been pouring in from the right wing. First, the White House announced President Bush wasn’t really big on the debates. Then, leading conservative candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani begged out of the Republican forum. Now, right-wing columnist Robert Novak is adding his gripes. Appearing on Bloomberg Television this weekend, Novak said of the YouTube debate, “I thought it was really disgusting. … The reporters were terrible but this was ludicrous.” Novak argued, “You know when we did away with the monarchy and went through democracy, there was a lot of fear that this sort of thing would happen. It took 200 years but we got there.” In contrast, Carol Darr at George Washington University said that for the first time, “the filter that mainstream establishment media plays in presidential races — ‘we ask the questions, we are the exalted panel’ — that was broken down.”

Something about power in the hands of the masses appears to trouble Novak deeply.

Recently, he suggested heaven would be a “place where there are no blogs.” He previously explained that bloggers “bloviate. They give their opinions. They don’t try to find things out.” ++

Dangers of a Cornered George Bush
Coleen Rowley, HuffPo
July 30, 2007

Discussion and collaboration recently ensued between some of us Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) and psychiatrist Dr. Justin Franks, author of Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President (ReganBooks). The following paper (first published on Consortium News) applies Dr. Frank’s considerable psychological expertise (see his bio here on Huffington) to three of the more likely scenarios that President Bush could find himself confronting in the near future:

Recent events have put a great deal more pressure on President George W. Bush, who has shown little regard for the constitutional system bequeathed to us by the Founders. Having bragged about being commander in chief of the “first war of the 21st century,” one he began under false pretenses, success in Iraq is now a pipedream. The “new” strategy of surging troops in Baghdad has simply wasted more lives and bought some time for the president. His strategy boils down to keeping as many of our soldiers engaged as possible, in order to stave off definitive defeat in Iraq before January 2009.

Bush is commander in chief, but Congress must approve funding for the war, and its patience is running out. The war — and the polls — are going so badly that it is no longer a sure thing that the administration will be able to fund continuance of the war. There is an outside chance Congress will succeed in forcing a pullout starting in the next several months. What would the president likely do in reaction to that slap in the face? What would he do if the Resistance succeeded in mounting a large attack on U.S. facilities in the Green Zone or elsewhere in Iraq? How would he react if Israel mounted a preemptive attack on the nuclear-related facilities in Iran and wider war ensued?

Applied Psychoanalysis

The answers to such questions depend on a host of factors for which intelligence analysts use a variety of tools. One such tool involves applying the principles of psychoanalysis to acquire insights into the minds of key leaders, with an eye to facilitating predictions as to how they might react in certain circumstances. For U.S. intelligence, this common-law marriage of psychoanalysis and intelligence work dates back to the early 1940s, when CIA’s forerunner, the Office of Strategic Services commissioned two studies of Adolf Hitler. We call such assessments “at-a-distance leader personality assessments.” Many were quite useful.

VIPS found the 2004 book Bush on the Couch, by Washington psychiatrist Justin Frank, MD, a very helpful assessment in this genre. We now have two more years of experience of observing Bush closely. As we watched the pressure build on President Bush, looked toward the additional challenges we expect him to face over the next 18 months, and pondered his tendency to disregard the law and the Constitution, we felt very much in need of professional help in trying to estimate what kinds of decisions he is likely to make.

Dr. Frank, it turned out, had been thinking along the same lines, when we asked to meet with him just three weeks ago. What follows is a collaborative Frank-VIPS effort, with the psychological insights volunteered by Dr. Frank, who shares the imperative we feel to draw on all disciplines to assess what courses of action President George W. Bush is likely to decide upon in reacting to reverse after reverse in the coming months.

Parental discretion advised. The outlook is not only somber but potentially violent — and includes all manner of threats born of George W. Bush’s mental state (as well as the unusual relationship he has with his vice president). Things are going to hell in a hand basket for this administration, and Bush/Cheney have shown a willingness to act in extra-Constitutional ways, as they see fit. While Bush and his advisers make a fetish of it, he is nonetheless commander in chief of the armed forces and the question becomes how he might feel justified in using them and is there still any restraining force — any checks on the increasing power of the executive in our three-branch government.

We have a president whose psychological makeup inclines him to do as he pleases. Because Congress has been cowed, and the judiciary stacked with loyalists, he has gotten away with it — so far. But the polls show growing discontent among the people, especially over the war in Iraq. Congress, too, is starting to challenge the executive, as it should — but slowly, slower than it should. The way things are moving, there is infinite opportunity to diddle and dodge — in effect conducting business pretty much as usual over the next 18 months.

Could Start Another War…

Meanwhile, the president may well feel free to start another war, with little reference to the Congress or the UN, against Iran. The commander of CENTO forces, Admiral William Fallon is quoted as having said we “will not go to war with Iran on my watch.” Tough words; but should the president order an attack on Iran, chances are Fallon and others will do what they are accustomed to doing, salute smartly and carry out orders, UNLESS they show more regard for the U.S. Constitution than the president does. There is an orderly remedy written into the Constitution aimed at preventing a president from usurping the power of the people and acting like a king; the process, of course, is impeachment.

The usual focus on impeachment is on abuses of the past, and a compelling case can surely be made. We believe an equally compelling incentive can be seen in looking toward the next 18 months. In this paper, we are primarily concerned about what future misadventures are likely if this administration is not somehow held to account; that is, if Bush and Cheney are not removed from office.

Unless Checked

If the constitutional process of impeachment is under way when President Bush orders our military to begin a war against Iran, there is a good chance that, rather than salute like automatons and start World War III, our senior military would find a way to prevent more carnage until such time as the representatives of the people in the House have spoken. This administration’s capacity for mischief would not end until conviction in the Senate. But initiating the impeachment process appears to be the only way to launch a shot across the bow of this particular ship of state. For it is captained by a president with a psychological makeup likely to lead to new misadventures likely to end in a ship wreck unless the Constitution is brought alongside and a new pilot boarded.

We are grateful that Dr. Frank agreed to collaborate with us and to issue under VIPS auspices the psychological assessment that follows. Discussion of the three scenarios after his profiling of President Bush was very much a collaborative exercise aimed at applying Frank’s insights to contingencies our president may have to address before he leaves office. Our conclusions are, of necessity, speculative — and, sorry, scary.

The Assessment of Dr. Frank:

If a patient came into my consulting room missing an arm, the first question I would ask is, “What happened to your arm?” The same would be true for a patient who has no guilt, no conscience. I would want to know what happened to it.

No Conscience

George W. Bush is without conscience, and it would require a lengthy series of clinical sessions to find out what happened to it. By identifying himself as all good and on the side of right, he has been able to vanquish any guilt, any sense of doing wrong.

In Bush on the Couch I gave examples illustrating that remarkable lack of conscience. From his youthful days blowing up frogs with firecrackers to his unapologetic public endorsement of torture, there has been no change. Observers are gradually becoming aware of this fundamental deficit. For example, after watching the president’s press conference on July 12, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wrote, “He doesn’t seem to be suffering, which is jarring. Presidents in great enterprises that are going badly suffer: Lincoln, LBJ with his head in his hands. Why doesn’t Mr. Bush?”

No Shame

George W. Bush seems also to be without shame. He expresses no regret or embarrassment about his failure to help Katrina victims, or to tell the truth. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear, whether it be “stay the course” or “I’ve never been about ’stay the course.’” He does whatever he wants.

He lies — not just to us, but to himself as well. What makes lying so easy for Bush is his contempt — for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him. That he could say so baldly that he’d never been about “stay the course” is bone chilling. So his words mean nothing. That is very important for people to understand.

Fear of Humiliation

Despite having no shame, Bush has a profound fear of failure and humiliation. He defends himself from this by any means at his disposal — most frequently with indifference or contempt. He will flinch only if directly confronted about being a failure or a liar.

Otherwise world events are enough removed from him that he can spin them into his intact defense system.

This deep fear helps to explain his relentlessly escalating attacks on others, his bullying, and his use of nicknames to put people down. There is fear of being found out not to be as big in every way as his father. What a burden to have to face his many inadequacies — now held up to the light of day — whether it is his difficulty in speaking, thinking, reading, managing anxiety, or making good decisions. He will not change, because for him change means humiliating collapse. He is very fearful of public exposure of his many inadequacies.

Contempt for Truth?

Contempt itself is a defense, a form of self-protection, which helps Bush appear at ease and relaxed — at least to big fans like New York Times columnist David Brooks. The president’s contempt defense protects his belief system, a system he clings to as if his beliefs were well-researched facts. His pathology is a patchwork of false beliefs and incomplete information woven into what he asserts is the whole truth. What gets lost in this process is growth — the George W. Bush of 2007 is exactly the same as the one of 2001.

Helen Thomas has said that of all the presidents she has covered over the years, Bush is the least changed by his job, by his experience. This is why there is no possibility of dialogue or reasoning with him.

Sadistic

His certitude that he is right gives him carte blanche for destructive behavior. He has always had a sadistic streak: from blowing up frogs, to shooting his siblings with a b-b-gun, to branding fraternity pledges with white-hot coat hangers. His comfort with cruelty is one reason he can be so jocular with reporters when talking about American casualties in Iraq. Instead of seeing a president in anguish, we watch him publicly joking about the absence of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, in the vain search for which so many young Americans died.

Break It!

Bush likes to break things, needs to break things. And this is most shockingly seen in how he is systematically destroying our armed forces. In the early days of the Iraq invasion he refused to approve the large number of troop the generals said were needed in order to try to invade and pacify Iraq and acquiesced in the firing of any general who disagreed. He turned a blind eye to giving the troops proper equipment and cut funding for needed health care. Health care and other social programs have one thing in common: they are paid for by public funds. It may well be that, unconsciously, the government represents his neglectful parents, and those helped by the government represent the siblings he resents. If George W. Bush wanted to destroy his own family, he could scarcely have done better. Thanks to him, no Bush is likely to be elected to high office for generations to come.

Where Does This Leave Us?

It leaves us with a regressed president who needs to protect himself more than ever from diminishment, humiliation, and collapse. He is so busy trying to manage his own anxiety that he has little capacity left to attend to national and world problems. And so, we are left with a president who cannot actually govern, because he is incapable of reasoned thought in coping with events outside his control, like those in the Middle East. This makes it a monumental challenge–as urgent as it is difficult–not only to get him to stop the carnage in the Middle East, but also to prevent him from undertaking a new, perhaps even more disastrous adventure–like going to war with Iran, in order to embellish the image he so proudly created for himself after 9/11 as the commander in chief of “the first war of the 21st century.” Iran would make number three–all the compelling reasons against it notwithstanding.
* * *

Contingencies

We will now attempt to put flesh on the discussion by positing and examining scenarios that would force Bush to react, and applying the observations above and other data to forecast what form that reaction might take.

Outlined below are three illustrative contingencies, each of which would pose a neuralgic threat to George W. Bush’s shaky self-esteem, his over-determined efforts to stave off humiliation, and his unending need for self-protection. These are not seat-of-the-pants scenarios. Each of them is possible–arguably, even probable. The importance of coming up with educated guesses regarding Bush’s response BEFORE they occur is, we hope, clear.

Scenario A: Destructive Attack on the Green Zone

The U.S. military is out in front of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other policymakers in Washington in seeing the hand of Iran’s government behind “the enemy” in Iraq. On July 26, the operational commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, blamed the recent “significant improvement” in the accuracy of mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone on “training conducted inside Iran.” Odierno also repeated that roadside bombs are being smuggled into Iraq from Iran. Last week, Gen. David Petraeus warned that insurgents intend to “pull off a variety of sensational attacks and grab the headlines to create a ‘mini-Tet.’” (Tet refers to the surprise country-wide offensive mounted by the Vietnamese Communists in early 1968, which indicated to most Americans that the war was lost.)

Attacks on the Green Zone have doubled in recent months. Despite this, the senior military appear to be in denial with respect to the vulnerability of the Green Zone — oblivious even to the reality that mortar rounds and rocket fire have little respect for walled enclaves.

Anyone with a mortar and access to maps and images on Google can calibrate fire to devastating effect — with or without training in Iran. It is just a matter of time before mortar round or rocket takes out part of the spanking new $600-million U.S. embassy together with people working there or nearby. And/or, the insurgents could conceivably mount a multi-point assault on the zone and gain control of a couple of buildings and take hostages — perhaps including senior diplomats and military officers.

Given what we think we know of George Bush, if there were an embarrassing attack on U.S. installations in the Green Zone or some other major U.S. facility, he would immediately order a retaliatory series of air strikes, and let the bombs and missiles fall where they may.

The reaction would come from deep within and would warn, in effect: This is what you get if you try to make me look bad.

Scenario B: Israeli Attack on Nuclear Targets in Iran

This would be madness and would elicit counterattacks from an Iran with many viable options for significant retaliation. Nevertheless, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D, Conn) and his namesake Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs, are openly calling for such strikes, which would have to be on much more massive a scale than Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

For that attack in 1981, Cheney, a great fan of preemptive strikes, congratulated the Israelis, even though the U.S. joined other UN Security Council members in unanimously condemning the Israeli attack. Five years ago, on Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney became the first U.S. official publicly to refer approvingly to the bombing of Osirak. And in an interview two and a half years ago, on Inauguration Day 2005, Cheney referred nonchalantly to the possibility that “the Israelis might well decide to act first [to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities] and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.”

One thing Cheney says is indisputably — if myopically — true: Bush has been Israel’s best friend. In his speeches, he has fostered the false impression that the U.S. is treaty-bound to defend Israel, should it come under attack–as would be likely, were Israel to attack Iran. With the U.S. Congress firmly in the Israeli camp, Cheney might see little disincentive to giving a green-light wink to Israel and then let the president “worry about cleaning up.”
Reporting from Seymour Hersh’s administration sources serve to strengthen the impression shining through Bush’s speeches that he is eager to strike Iran. But how to justify it?

Curiously, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear capability, a study scheduled for completion early this year, has been sent back several times–probably because its predictions are not as alarmist as the warnings that Cheney and the Israelis are whispering into the president’s ear. Senior U.S. military officers have warned against the folly of attacking Iran, but Cheney has shown himself, time and time again, able to overrule the military.

But What if Impeachment Begins?

Is there nothing to rein in Bush and Cheney? It seems likely that only if impeachment proceedings were under way would senior officers like CENTCOM commander, Admiral William Fallon, be likely to parry an unlawful order to start yet another war without the approval of Congress and the UN. With impeachment under way, such senior officers might be reminded that all officers and national security officials swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States — NOT to protect and defend the president.

It was a highly revealing moment when on July 11, former White House political director Sara Taylor solemnly reminded the Senate Judiciary Committee, that as a commissioned officer, “I took an oath and I take that oath to the president very seriously.” Committee chair Patrick Leahy had to remind Taylor: “We understand your personal loyalty to President Bush. I appreciate you correcting that your oath was not to the president, but to the Constitution.”

The most senior officers, military included, can get their loyalties mixed up. And this is of transcendent importance in a context described by Seymour Hersh: “These guys are scary as hell … you can’t use the word ‘delusional,’ for it’s actually a medical term. Wacky. That’s a fair word.”

One does not need psychoanalytic training to see that Bush and Cheney do not care about facts, treaties (or the lack thereof), or other legal niceties, unless it suits their purpose. This gives an even more ominous ring to what Hersh is hearing from his sources.

If Israel attacks Iran, President Bush is likely to spring to Israel’s defense, regardless of whether he was inside or outside the loop before the attack; and the world will see a dangerously widened war in the Middle East. Psychologically, Bush would almost certainly need to join the attack, mainly to sustain his illusion of safety and masculinity. And Cheney, knowing that, would be pushing him hard on U.S. energy and other perceived strategic interests.

Scenario C: Congress Cuts War Funding This Fall

Let’s assume that Congress finally grows weary of the increasingly obvious bait-and-switch, the “we-need-more-time” tactic, and cuts off all funding except for that needed to bring the troops home. The talk now is about getting a “meaningful” progress report in November, because September is said to be too soon. The Iraqi parliament is behaving much like its American counterpart by taking August off. But our soldiers do not get a month-long hiatus from constant danger.

It is clear even to the press that the surge has simply brought more American deaths and an upsurge of insurgent attacks. What is less clear is why Bush remains so positive. It is probably not just an act, but an idée fixe he needs to hold onto tightly. Since doubt is dangerous, we see a compensatory smile fixe on the face of the president and other senior officials, dismissing any trace of uncertainty or doubt.

If Congress cut off funding for war in Iraq, Bush might well cast about for a casus belli to “justify” an attack on Iran. Would the senior military again go along with orders for an unprovoked, unconstitutional war on a country posing no threat to the U.S.? Hard to say. In this context, an ongoing impeachment process could provide welcome evidence that influential members of Congress, like many senior military officers, see through Bush’s need to strike out elsewhere. Military commanders might think twice before saluting smartly and executing an illegal order.

In such circumstances, Dick “it-won’t stop-us” Cheney, could be expected to try to pull out all the stops. But if he, too, were in danger of being impeached, uniformed military officers could conceivably block administration plans. There is only a remote chance that Defense Secretary Gates would be a tempering voice in all this. Far more likely, he would smell in any restrictive legislation traces of the Boland amendment, which he assisted in circumventing during the Iran-Contra misadventure.

Petraeus ex Machina

With “David” or “General Petraeus” punctuating the president’s every other sentence at recent press conferences, the script for September seems clear. This is one four-star general with exquisite PR and political acumen — pedigree and discipline the president can count on. And with his nine rows of ribbons, he calls to mind the U.S. commander in Saigon, Gen. William Westmoreland at a similar juncture in Vietnam (after the Tet offensive when popular support dropped off rapidly). It is virtually certain that Petraeus will press hard for more time and more troops. Potemkin-style improvements will be used by Bush to justify continuing the “new” surge strategy, with the calculation that enough Democrats might be overcome by the fear of being charged with “losing Iraq.”

In the past Bush seems to have bought Cheney’s “analysis” that increased enemy attacks were signs of desperation. Hard as it is to believe that Bush has not learned from that repeated experience, it is at the same time possible to “misunderestimate” one’s capacity for wooden-headedness, particularly with respect to someone with the psychological makeup of our president. He is extraordinarily adept at finding only rose-colored glasses to help him see.

With Cheney egging him on from the wings of the “unitary executive,” but Congress no longer bowing to that novel interpretation of the Constitution, Bush will be sorely tempted to lash out in some violent way, if further funding for the war is denied. To do that effectively, he will need senior generals and admirals as co-conspirators. It will be up to them to choose between career and Constitution. All too often, in such circumstances, the tendency has been to choose career. Impeachment hearings, though, could encourage senior officers like Admiral Fallon to pause long enough to remember that their oath is to defend the Constitution, and that they are not required to follow orders to start another war in order to stave off political and personal disaster for the president and vice president.

Justin Frank, M.D.

With:
David MacMichael
Tom Maertens
Ray McGovern
Coleen Rowley

Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment July 31st, 2007

Program X and the Power-gobblers

Real power, goes the axiom, always leaves a little something on the table. Real power has a certain largess, style, openness, availability … the kind of balance that America has tried for in years past [but not in the last thirty or so.] So what does that make the Bushies? Power-hogs, thugs and tyrants, me’thinks … the result of nobody throwing the e-brake in recent memory, too busy forming and reforming their Religious belief and Values surveys and poking into territory not appropriate to American governance. From Dubby’s delusional empiricism to Uncle Dick’s darkly-inspired disdain to the opportunism and misplaced loyalties of Alberto Gonzales, we continue to face an infestation worthy of “tenting” the entire country to rid ourselves of dangerous pests, gnawing away at the pillars that hold our Constitution in place.

Somebody call Terminex before they gobble up the last of it!

Below, the Dubby wants more power [gobble, gnaw, gobble] … Mukraker connects the dots between the scandals — Nine Gate, Fredo Perjury, Subpoena Stonewall and Spygate … and the newest wrinkle in international travel, including extensive profiles of fliers that will include religious beliefs, sexual orientation and political opinions.

Of note: big thunderstorms on the way here in the Patch, it’s dark and threatening out there — so I’m sneaking through a weather window with this post. Maybe I’ll get back to you today — or maybe I’ll be dancing nekkid in the downpour!

Jude

Bush Wants Terrorism Law Updated
Washington Post

WASHINGTON — President Bush wants Congress to modernize a law that governs how intelligence agencies monitor the communications of suspected terrorists.

“This law is badly out of date,” Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, provides a legal foundation that allows information about terrorists’ communications to be collected without violating civil liberties.

Democrats want to ensure that any changes do not give the executive branch unfettered surveillance powers.

Bush noted that terrorists now use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate, recruit operatives and plan attacks; such tools were not available when FISA passed nearly 30 years ago. He also cited a recently released intelligence estimate that concluded al-Qaida is using its growing strength in the Middle East to plot attacks on U.S. soil.

“Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country,” Bush said. “Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country.”

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Bush was trying to exploit the threat from al-Qaida to push the bill. Feingold said the measure was an “egregious power grab that includes broad new powers that have nothing to do with bringing FISA up to date.”

The 1978 law set up a court that meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the National Security Agency and other agencies for warrants to wiretap or search the homes of people in the United States in terrorist or espionage cases.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to spy on calls between people in the U.S. and suspected terrorists abroad without FISA court warrants. The administration said it needed to act more quickly than the court could. It also said the president had inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.

After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush put it under FISA court supervision this year.

The national intelligence director, in a letter Wednesday to the House intelligence committee, stressed the need to be able to collect intelligence about foreign terrorists overseas. Mike McConnell said intelligence agencies should be able to do that without requirements imposed by an “out of date” law.

“Simply put, in a significant number of cases, we are in the unfortunate position of having to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located overseas,” he wrote the committee chairman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.
Reyes said Saturday that the committee is intently focused on the issue.

“If changes to the law are required, we are prepared to do so,” Reyes said. “We are actively working with the administration on any emergency requirements they may have. However, we want to avoid repeating the mistakes made by rushing the Patriot Act into law.”

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, contends the White House is asking for more power to conduct warrantless domestic and international surveillance.

“The administration claims the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must be ‘modernized.’ Actually, it needs to be followed,” she said. “The reality is, their proposal would gut FISA.”

The ACLU said the legislation backed by the administration would give immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability for the telecommunication companies that participate in the NSA program. The ACLU urged lawmakers to find out the full extent of current intelligence gathering under FISA before making changes.

“The only thing more outrageous than the administration’s call for even more unfettered power is a Congress that would consider giving it to them,” Frederickson said.
The House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, said Democrats are delaying necessary changes.

“Rather than learning the lessons of September 11 - that we need to break down the bureaucratic impediments to intelligence collection and analysis - Democrats have stonewalled Republican attempts to modernize FISA and close the terrorist loophole,” he said Saturday. ++

Analysis: Gonzales Testimony Part of Broader Effort to Conceal Surveillance Program
Spencer Ackerman and Paul Kiel, TPM Muckraker
July 26, 2007

Alberto Gonzales’ testimony that there was “no serious disagreement” within the Bush Administration about the NSA warrantless surveillance program has left senators sputtering and fulminating about the attorney general’s apparent prevarications. But a closer examination of Gonzales’ testimony and other public statements from the Administration suggest that there may be a method to the madness.

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that Gonzales’s careful, repeated phrasing to the Senate that he will only discuss the program that “the president described” was deliberate, part of a concerted administration-wide strategy to conceal from the public the very broad scope of that initial program. When, for the first time, Program X (as we’ll call it, for convenience’s sake) became known to senior Justice Department officials who were not its original architects, those officials — James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, principally — balked at its continuation. They did not back down until the program had undergone as-yet-unspecified but apparently significant revisions. But when President Bush announced what he would call the “Terrorist Surveillance Program’ in December 2005, he left the clear impression that the program had always functioned the same way since its 2001 inception.

The administration’s consistent refusal to discuss any aspect of the program — current or former — aside from what President Bush disclosed in December 2005 appears to be intended, specifically, to gloss over Comey and Goldsmith’s objections. If that’s the case, it could mean that the public has been presented with an inaccurate picture of the origins and scope of Program X. The Bush administration is currently contesting a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documentation establishing Program X’s history — in essence, trying to ensure that the public never learns more about the program and the internal deliberations over it than what President Bush chooses to reveal.

Alberto Gonzales, on this theory, has found himself enmeshed in the administration’s attempt to distinguish the less-troublesome Terrorism Surveillance Program from Program X. And it may mean he perjured himself in doing so. Today, Senate Democrats responded to Gonzales’s dubious testimony on Tuesday by calling for a perjury investigation. At issue is whether Gonzales’ assertions that there was “no serious disagreement” within the government about the TSP was so misleading as to amount to perjury, or whether his distinction between TSP and Program X was merely a careful parsing — perhaps misleading but not, to use Sen. Arlen Specter’s word, actionable.

In December 2005, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau broke the story of the Terrorist Surveillance Program for the New York Times. Risen’s resulting book, State of War, described a surveillance effort where the National Security Agency “monitor(s) and eavesdrop(s) on large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages, and other Internet traffic inside the United States to search for potential evidence of terrorist activity, without search warrants or any new laws that would permit such domestic intelligence collection.” Previously, the NSA only eavesdropped on foreign communications. Although the scope of that effort remains unclear, Risen estimated that NSA eavesdrops on “as many as five hundred people in the United States at any given time and it has potentially has access to the phone calls and e-mails of millions more.”

The New York Times’ publication of those explosive charges prompted President Bush to disclose, on December 19, 2005, what he would later call the Terrorist Surveillance Program:

–”I authorized the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. This program is carefully reviewed approximately every 45 days to ensure it is being used properly. … “(T)he legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.

–… “I want to make clear to the people listening that this program is limited in nature to those that are known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates. That’s important. So it’s a program that’s limited, and you brought up something that I want to stress, and that is, is that these calls are not intercepted within the country. They are from outside the country to in the country, or vice versa. So in other words, this is not a — if you’re calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that.”

What President Bush described was far more constrained than the surveillance Risen reported.

Immediately thereafter, whenever administration officials discussed the surveillance program, they would decline to use names for it in most cases (even the “Terrorist Surveillance Program”) and instead refer back to what President Bush disclosed. A letter one month later from Gonzales to then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), referred only to “the NSA activities described by the president.” Stumbling for a shorthand, a Justice Department fact sheet issued January 27, 2006 said that “throughout this document, the ‘terrorist surveillance program’ and ‘the NSA program’ refer to the activities described by the president.’”

Most significantly, when Gonzales first testified to the Senate on February 6, 2006, about the NSA’s domestic surveillance, he at first used the term “terrorist surveillance program” — the new choice for describing what Bush disclosed. But when Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) asked Gonzales about press accounts reporting that Comey and Goldsmith objected to the “terrorist surveillance program,” Gonzales abandoned the construction. He said he was “only testifying about what the president has confirmed.” And when it came to that, he said, “I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you’re identifying had concerns about this program.” The disagreement, Gonzales said, was about “other matters regarding operations.”

In a move that may prove crucial, the administration convinced then-committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) not to swear in Gonzales for that hearing.

The different phases of the program’s implementation did not become clear until Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May of this year. Comey did not identify the program, only calling it “a particular classified program.” We won’t rehash his story in full here. But during his brief reign as acting attorney general, Comey refused to reauthorize Program X in March of 2004 (here’s an explanation as to why it took two years for this to happen). Comey’s refusal was based on the concerns of Jack Goldsmith, the head of the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, but the precise nature of Goldsmith’s concern isn’t publicly known. Goldsmith declined to comment for this story.

It all came to a head on March 10, 2004, with the deadline for reauthorizing Program X looming. That afternoon, the White House called a meeting with the so-called “Gang of Eight” — those congressional leaders briefed about Program X — and Gonzales and Andrew Card made their infamous visit to Ashcroft’s hospital bed that night. The President initially opted to continue the program despite Ashcroft’s refusal to overrule Comey. But the next day, March 11, when faced with the possible resignation of the top echelon of Department of Justice leadership, the President personally told Comey to recommend what changes needed to be made to Program X in order for the Department of Justice to sign off on its legality.

As Comey told the committee, the Department took “two or three weeks” to “get the analysis done and make the changes that need to be made.” Comey (or Ashcroft; Comey couldn’t remember) subsequently signed off on the revised program. Given the depths of Comey’s objections and the amount of time needed to overcome them, what must have emerged was a substantially different program.

Another significant revision to Program X occurred around the same time as Comey’s objections, according to Risen’s book. The Administration had been briefing the chief judge of the FISA court about the program, but in the spring of 2004, a new FISA chief, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, came onto the bench. She raised concerns about NSA-collected intelligence being used, ultimately, for terrorism prosecutions, which could result in suspected terrorists walking free if the evidence that formed the basis for their prosecutions had been collected illegally. Risen reported that “top administration officials suggested that they abandoned some of the most aggressive techniques used in the NSA surveillance operation after the judge complained.”

The sparse record suggests that substantial changes were made to Program X after March of 2004. Precisely what they were, we don’t know. The initial reports, which drew no distinction between the program before and after that crucial month, described a program that surveilled the communications of Americans, including some purely domestic communications, without the issuance of warrants by a court. Prior to 9/11, such surveillance had to be approved by a FISA judge so as not to violate the 4th Amendment.

Perhaps the Administration’s position is that those elements of Program X that were jettisoned in March of 2004 were so substantial that what remained — the program that Bush announced in December of 2005 — was a new and entirely different program. Again, we don’t know. But several members of Congress feel misled, though principally those objections are confined to Democrats, who have an obvious political interest in bringing down Gonzales. Both Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman, members of the Gang of Eight, have stated that there has only ever been one surveillance program.

Unfortunately for Gonzales, not even he has been able to keep the distinction between the Terrorist Surveillance Program and Program X straight. During a June 5th press conference this year, he said that Comey’s dispute “related to a highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people sometime ago” – precisely the opposite of what he’d testified before. By way of explanation, Gonzales testified Tuesday that his spokesman had subsequently contacted the reporter who’d asked the question, Dan Eggen of The Washington Post, to retract that statement.

Despite that embarrassing admission, Gonzales hewed to the same line this Tuesday he’d taken in the hearing the previous February, saying that Comey’s disagreement was “not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people.” He maintained that line under blistering questioning – including the questions of senators, such as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who also sit on the Senate intelligence committee and have been briefed on the program.

Following Gonzales’ testimony, Democrats’ contention that there was only one warrantless surveillance program was bolstered by the release of a May 2006 letter from John Negroponte, then the director of national intelligence, specifying that the March 10, 2004 meeting was, indeed, a TSP meeting. In response, an anonymous DOJ official told the Washington Post that in his testimony on Tuesday Gonzales “did not say that the TSP was not discussed at the meeting” — underscoring the absurdity of the distinction that the administration is still trying to draw. Similarly, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee today that he and Comey had objections to the “much discussed” NSA program, a reference clear in context to the TSP.

In essence, the issue is this: if Gonzales succeeds in convincing the committee that there really is a material distinction between the program as it existed before and after Comey’s intervention, he won’t just save himself from perjury. He will perhaps have preserved an administration strategy of concealing the scope of Program X from the public and most of Congress — making it appear that the program that Bush disclosed in December 2005, incorporating Comey’s objections, is the same program that existed since October 2001, long before Comey put the brakes on at least some aspects of it. That may be at the heart of the White House’s claim of executive privilege to prevent the Senate Judiciary Committee from seeing documents detailing the genesis of Program X.

We may be about to learn whether a perjury investigation will pierce the obfuscations and begin to explore the extent of Program X — a program the American public was never supposed to know about. ++

US/E.U. plan to database airline passengers’ personal information raises deep privacy concerns
Nick Langewis, Raw Story
Sunday July 29, 2007

While Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff calls it “an essential security measure,” worries arise about a looming privacy threat in the new agreement between the United States and the European Union, effective August 1, 2007, that allows the United States to keep extensive profiles of inbound airline passengers.

In addition to data such as name, address, flight itineraries, and credit card information, the United States will now database more intimate details about passengers as provided by airlines, such as race, political opinions, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation.
Personal data received, even on people not under suspicion, is to be kept on file for fifteen years and only used “when lives are at risk,” such as during a terror investigation.

“We’re going to be able to connect the dots more quickly,” says Russell Knocke of the US Department of Homeland Security, “and we’re going to be able to provide our front line personnel with a powerful tool that really can help to save lives.”

Jim Dempsey of the Center of Democracy and Technology worries about how the information will be used, especially in cases of abuse and false accusations. “This is part of a broader trend of the government building databases on the ordinary, lawful activities of ordinary, law-abiding people,” laments Dempsey.

Passengers will have the right to see the information, and there will be avenues to correct anything that needs to be corrected, “in hopefully just a few months,” says CNN’s Kathleen Koch.

The following video [open link] is from CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, broadcast on July 27. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment July 30th, 2007