There is no Secret Plan that Changes the Presidential Line of Succession

I'm not buying the argument that Ronald Reagan made some dastardly change to the order of Presidential succession. I'm not saying he didn't--it's possible. But amending a document for "speed and clarity" does not equate to amending the document to change the order of Presidential succession.

New Yorker writer Jane Mayer's new book, The Dark Side, opens with a shocker. Apparently sometime in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan issued a "secret executive order" that in the event of the death of the president and the vice president "established a means of re-creating the executive branch." Reagan's order violated the express terms of the Constitution and governing statutes.

Does a similar order exist today? We aren't told. But we do know that Dick Cheney participated in the secret "doomsday" exercises under the Reagan order, and given his central role at present, it is imperative for Congress to find out.

Right away, I can tell you that is that were the case, Republicans who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations would have never allowed that to continue during eight years of the Clinton Presidency. They would have spoken up if that were the case. The insecurity and pride of Newt Gingrich is proof enough that whatever changes were made did not stand between him and Executive power.

I think that's barking up the wrong tree. The Dick Cheney of the 1980s was a vastly different public figure than the one so caricatured today. This is a man who, as of the mid 1990s, was still sane as far as whether we should have deposed Saddam Hussein when he indicated that overthrowing Saddam's regime wasn't worth American lives. His importance during the Reagan administration is overblown--he was a frequent critic of the Reagan administration. (They weren't conservative enough for him, and that's why he was more of a threat to school lunches than subverting the ascension of the Speaker of the House to the Presidency.)

Without knowing what Reagan did, it's not easy to judge the severity of the changes. From a strictly by-the-book interpretation of our laws, you could produce list after list of examples where the law wasn't followed to the letter by each and every administration and where nothing was done about it.

Any "doomsday" planning in that era would have centered around nuclear holocaust--not terrorism. Terrorists in the 1980s hijacked planes and gathered in small cells to kidnap people. They did not bring down nation-states and threaten to wipe out elected governments.

I wouldn't spend much time worrying about the Presidential line of succession. It's already pretty quirky as it is--and we need to clarify the standing of cabinet secretaries and make it a practice to confirm at least one or two BEFORE the inauguration of the President (and ensure they are NOT at the inaugural itself) in order to ensure proper succession.

"President Michael Armacost" is a phrase with a familiar ring to it in the nation's capital, for Armacost served ably as Brookings' fifth president from 1995-2002. But Armacost might have become president not of Brookings, but of the United States. Had that happened, he would have needed all the leadership skills he had honed at the highest levels of U.S. foreign service—and perhaps more. For an Armacost presidency would have come about because of a catastrophic terrorist attack, combined with potentially disabling quirks in the U.S. presidential succession system.

The story begins on January 20, 1989, at the inauguration of the 41st president, George H. W. Bush. At noon on that day, President Ronald Reagan's term expired, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist administered the oath of office to Bush. What if, during that ceremony, terrorists had flown a plane into the West front of the Capitol, where the inauguration ceremony was taking place, or set off a powerful bomb? The result would have been chaos. Any attack against U.S. political leadership is a threat to national security, but the inauguration is the most vulnerable time for the government, when the mechanisms for providing an orderly transfer of power to a presidential successor threaten to break down.

President Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle were, of course, present at the ceremony. Next in line of succession were Speaker of the House Jim Wright and Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, both of whom attended the inauguration. A devastating terrorist attack would have killed all of them along with many members of Congress and several Supreme Court justices, including the chief justice.

So who would have been president? Next in line after the speaker and the president pro tem are the cabinet officers in the chronological order of the creation of their departments. But which cabinet? Because the attack came on Inauguration Day, George Bush had not yet nominated his cabinet. A several-hour interval always ensues between a new president's taking office at noon and Senate confirmation of the cabinet.

So in the case of a calamitous attack at an inauguration, the new president would have no cabinet, and the presidency would pass to the cabinet members of the previous administration. A presidential term has a beginning and end defined by the Constitution. At noon on January 20, 1989, the terms of President Reagan and Vice President Bush ended. But the terms of cabinet members are not constitutionally limited. Cabinet members stay in office until they resign, die, are impeached and convicted, or are removed by a president. So any of Reagan's cabinet members who had not resigned at noon would have remained in the line of succession. And in 1989, several additional wrinkles would have complicated still further the transfer of power from Reagan to Bush—highlighting yet again the difficulties in our presidential succession system. Three of Reagan's cabinet members—Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, and Education Secretary Lauro Cavazos—stayed on after his term ended, as Bush had asked them to serve in his new administration. Reagan's other cabinet secretaries resigned at noon, leaving their departments in the hands of acting secretaries.

According to the Presidential Succession Act, an acting secretary of a department is in the line of succession as long as he or she has been confirmed by the Senate for some position. On January 20, 1989, at noon, Reagan's secretary of state, George Shultz, had resigned, as had the number-two person in the State Department, John Whitehead. The number-three person at State, the undersecretary for political affairs, who became acting secretary of state, was Michael Armacost. As the secretary of state is first among the cabinet in the line of succession, Armacost would have become president of the United States.

Good stuff. More akin to a Clancy or Le Carre novel, but good stuff nonetheless.

We're a long way from normalcy, aren't we?

Falling For The Same Old Crap Over and Over Again

Long before the Iraq War, the Bush Administration was doing everything wrong with all of the enthusiasm it could muster:

The Iran-related report [issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee] focuses on the series of meetings in Rome held over three days in December 2001. The U.S. was fighting in Afghanistan and working on initial planning for the Iraq war.

Then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley authorized the meetings. Two Pentagon employees, one of whom worked for then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, went to Rome to meet with two Iranians - one a current member of the security service, the second a former member. Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian middleman already dismissed by the CIA as untrustworthy, also attended, as did a representative from an unspecified foreign government's intelligence service. Michael Ledeen, a former Pentagon official and an analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, arranged the meeting and attended.

In one meeting, Ghorbanifar pressed for a change of government in Iran and, on a napkin, outlined a plan to do that, saying he would need $5 million to set it in motion, according to the report.

The report said Hadley failed to fully inform then-CIA Director George Tenet and then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage about the meeting. But Hadley and the Pentagon were within their rights to conduct the meeting, the report said.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Hadley notified all parties concerned appropriately.

But the report said Defense Department officials refused to allow "potentially useful and actionable intelligence" to be shared with intelligence agencies, even in the Defense Intelligence Agency. Then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz briefed the head of the DIA on the Iranian intelligence but would not let him discuss it, the report said.

[UPDATE - 9:48AM - Who can forget Laura Rozen's brilliant piece on what transpired in Rome? I did! And I'm an idiot for not putting this in sooner.]

CIA sources are unconvinced. “They drag these guys out and say they’re from the Revolutionary Guard,” Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA director for Europe, told me. “In fact, they’re actually from some rug store. In any city, it’s an industry.”

Anyone who claims that there is no truth to the charge that the Bush Administration "cooked" the intelligence and failed to heed the warnings of the intelligence community can be refuted with one simple point--the people in charge weren't smart enough to figure out that they were being manipulated by Iran:

Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that Iranian exiles who provided dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran to a small group of Pentagon officials might have "been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service ... to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government," a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday.

Now we know why they want to attack Iran--they're mad that the Iranians made them look like the fools the really are. Nothing is done in the service of the greater good or the interests of the country; everything these people do is a reaction best described as a pants-wetting fit of inconsolable rage personified by red, rosy cheeks, flustered huffing, and prodigious foot stomping. These men are morally bankrupt, emotionally stunted, and traumatically immature grown children with serious issues.

Were we appeasing them before we were against appeasing them? That's rhetorical question number one. Number two is, who is stupid enough to think that anything useful would come out of a back channel to the Iranian government? And rhetorical question three is, when does anyone see real, meaningful accountability and punishment for their horrendous judgement?

When Blue Girl and I were screaming in the wilderness against legions of doubters and deniers, we sure could have used a great deal of this information. What has come out in the last few days would have been enormously useful to us, even though we kind of already knew in the first place.
Who knew it would be THIS bad?

Bush's press secretary, Dana Perino, said the problem was flawed intelligence heading into the war. "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. And we certainly regret that," she said.

According to Rockefeller, the problem was that the Bush administration concealed information that would have undermined the case for war. "We might have avoided this catastrophe," he said.

However, the report found that intelligence substantiated most of the administration's statements about Iraq before the war. But officials often did not mention the level of dissension or uncertainty in the intelligence agencies about the information.

Two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, endorsed the report.

The committee's five other Republicans, however, assailed it as a partisan exercise. They accused Democrats of covering for their own members, including Rockefeller and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who made similar statements about Iraq based on the same intelligence the Bush administration used.

The McClatchy story adds a few more details:

The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator.

Iran, which was a mortal enemy of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq during his reign, has been the primary beneficiary of U.S. policy in Iraq, where Iranian-backed groups now run much of the government and the security forces.

The aborted counterintelligence investigation probed some Pentagon officials' contacts with Iranian exile Manucher Ghorbanifar, whom the CIA had labeled a "fabricator" in 1984. Those contacts were brokered by an American civilian, Michael Ledeen, a former Pentagon and National Security Council consultant and a leading advocate of invading Iraq and overthrowing Iran's Islamic regime.

According to the Senate report, the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity unit concluded in 2003 that Ledeen "was likely unwitting of any counterintelligence issues related to his relationship with Mr. Ghorbanifar."

The counterintelligence unit said, however, that Ledeen's association with Ghorbanifar "was widely known, and therefore it should be presumed other foreign intelligence services, including those of Iran, would know."

Stephen Cambone, then the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, shut down the counterintelligence investigation after only a month, the Senate report said.

Congratulations, Michael Ledeen. You were played like a chump by a figure with no credibility whatsoever. You and the rest of your ilk did the greatest disservice possible to your country--you had a hand in sending thousands of US troops to their death because you were driven by ideology not patriotism. None of the men involved in this debacle can call themselves patriots, ever. They are stripped of that right by the judgement of history.

If someone bumps into Ledeen, ask him. What's it like to be king of the chumps today? With all of that blood on your hands?

Ask all of them that question. Their answers should consist of silence and shame, and nothing more. They are miserable, shameful failures and their public service has been a disgrace of epic proportions.

Senator Byrd Lashes Out, Goes to Hospital

Would someone please tell John McCain that Dick Cheney is rested and ready for a third term as Vice-President? Because we really need more of Cheney, not less of him:

Vice President Dick Cheney apologized Monday for what his spokeswoman called "an inappropriate attempt at humor" that implied that inbreeding is common among West Virginians, a remark that elicited outrage from the state's senior senator.

Asked during a question-and-answer session at the National Press Club about the fact that a search of his family tree found he is a distant relative of Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential front-runner, Cheney said the two politicians were unlikely to hold a family reunion.

He said that the Cheney line on his father's side of the family dates to 1630's, and a Cheney family line on his mother's side dates to the 1650's.

"So, I had Cheneys on both sides of the family — and we don't even live in West Virginia," Cheney cracked. After pausing for laughter from the crowd, Cheney added, "You can say those things when you're not running for re-election."

Afterward, West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd lashed out at Cheney for the "insult to all Americans." In a written statement, Byrd declared that Cheney showed "contempt and astounding ignorance toward his own countrymen" with the comments.

Byrd has now been admitted to the hospital with a high fever--coincidence? Probably not.

Byrd, 90, the longest-serving senator in U.S. history, was taken to a Virginia hospital in the early evening and will stay there overnight after feeling ill throughout the day, spokesman Jesse Jacobs said. Jacobs said Byrd had felt “lethargic and sluggish” throughout the day, but attended the lone Senate vote of the day, at 5:30 p.m. He was one of 14 senators to vote against debating a climate change bill.

Shortly thereafter, Byrd went home and reported the same symptoms to his caregiver. The caregiver discovered that Byrd had a fever and consulted the senator’s physician, who recommended a hospital visit, Jacobs said.

Byrd, who was elected in 1949 and now assumes the powerful Appropriations Committee chairmanship, was hospitalized briefly in February after a fall at his home and again in March for adverse reactions to medication.

--WS

You're Kidding, Right?

It's like we're all on acid...everything is distorted and messed up...nothing makes any sense...and the neocons keep telling everyone how things really aren't:

`Enormous Credibility'
``He's got enormous credibility there, and is able to say to them in words of one syllable that they need to get their act together,'' John Bolton, the former UN ambassador, said.

Cheney plans to travel throughout the country. Among the topics on his agenda are pushing Iraqi leaders to pass an oil law that would help encourage international energy companies to invest in production, said a senior administration official who briefed reporters on the trip.

The U.S. is in the process of pulling five of 20 combat brigades out of Iraq, totaling about 20,000 soldiers. Petraeus has said he wants to take time to assess security after the withdrawal ends in mid-July.

At least 3,978 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq and another 29,395 have been wounded, according to Department of Defense figures.

A majority of the U.S. public, 53 percent, said a victory in Iraq isn't possible, according to a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll conducted March 7-10. Fifty-two percent said most troops should be withdrawn by 2009.

Enormous credibility? Conduct diplomacy with one-syllable words?

Fuck if I can't figure out what's going on. You'd have to be on acid to believe this shit.

Speaking of being on acid:

CNN’s Kyra Phillips speaks to some Iraqi soldiers about the U.S. presidential election and democracy in Iraq. While they spoke enthusiastically about the American soldiers teaching them discipline and how to effectively combat their enemies in Iraq, the soldiers were less effusive in their praise for those managing the war and their plans for bringing about democracy. Phillips tried in vain to locate any McCain supporters among the group.

“Just to be perfectly clear here, I did ask them are you following any of the republican candidates?…Do you want to talk about John McCain? Within that whole group, not one wanted a republican in the US presidential seat. They were all for a democrat. They were all for that type of change because they said they were living a republican war.”

Wow! CNN found a whole bunch of "fake troops" who hate America! Sarcasm intended.

Petraeus Scolded in Person by Cheney?

[VP Cheney arrives in Iraq this morning]

Wow. Not only did McCain, Lieberman and Graham make the trip to set Petraeus straight, but now we see that Shooter made the trip himself to ensure that the 100 year occupation of Iraq comes to fruition without damaging neoconservative interests:

Vice President Cheney made an unannounced visit to Baghdad this morning, just two days before the five-year anniversary of the start of the war, to push Iraqi leaders to do more to resolve the political disputes still driving the conflict.

In his first trip to Iraq since the deployment of additional U.S. forces last summer began to turn the security situation around, Cheney arrived aboard a C-17 military transport about 12:45 a.m. Monday Washington time and headed immediately to a series of meetings with U.S. commanders and Iraqi leaders.

A senior official traveling with Cheney told reporters aboard his plane that the vice president was going to meet with Iraqi leaders to "thank them for the hard work they've done" and urge them to move ahead with "the rest of the hard work necessary to consolidate Iraq's democracy," according to a pool report filed once they arrived in Baghdad. Cheney also will discuss a long-term security agreement intended to outlive the Bush presidency, the official said.

No, he went there to chew out Petraeus for wandering off script. Nothing like a panicked visit by half the damned neocons still serving in government to drive that point home. They've worked hard to pretend that the surge worked and they've gotten themselves a respite from the media attention. They've lulled the general populace into thinking the war is contained and shrinking. Anything that puts Iraq back on the front pages terrifies them. Because it blows any chance McCain has of only losing by four points in the fall. If McCain loses in a landslide, the neocons will be blown out of Washington.

Look, it's clear to anyone with a brain--Petraeus is now going to be a "realist" when it comes to Iraq and he's not going to repeat whatever he's told to repeat. He sees January 20, 2009 as his retirement date if he doesn't abandon the neocons and start to be more independent in his public statements and deeds.

It's that simple. He has to abandon the losers if he wants to move up.

Juan Cole has more details:

Gen. Petraeus isn't specific, but I can give some examples. The Sunni Arab Iraqi Accord Front withdrew from the al-Maliki 'national unity' government last summer. The IAF is a coalition of three parties. Two of them say they are uninterested in coming back into the government. The third, the Iraqi Islamic Party, led by vice president Tariq al-Hashimi, is said to be seriously considering returning. Nothing has happened so far. In other words, it is still the case that al-Maliki's government is less successful at reconciliation with the Sunnis now than it had been last year this time before the surge had made much of an impact.

Sunni Arab provinces such as Diyala, Salahuddin and Mosul are still violent, and even al-Anbar, which has settled down, is not paradise. The Awakening Council model does not seem to have been successful outside al-Anbar and some Baghdad neighborhoods, and there is always the danger that the US is creating a powerful Sunni militia that despises Prime Minister al-Maliki as Iran's cat's paw.

The Kurdish-Arab struggles in the north, the issue of Kirkuk, the terror activities of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK)-- based in Iraq but hitting NATO Turkish troops in eastern Turkey-- and the Turkish incursions into and bombings of Iraqi Kurdistan, signal that the north is a powder keg. The unresolved issue of oil-rich Kirkuk and whether it will accede to the Kurdistan Regional Government is the other shoe in the Iraq crisis, which has not yet dropped but could at any moment. I have been told that Gen. Petraeus deeply disagreed with Bush's decision to share real time intelligence on the PKK with the Turkish government and to allow a major Turkish incursion into and bombing of northern Iraq.

Likewise, the Islamic Virtue Party (Fadhila) withdrew from the al-Maliki government last year. It controls the provincial administration of Basra. Its rival, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, staged a 5000-strong demonstration against the provincial government last week. Having bad relations between the federal center and the province of Basra is not good for Iraq, because Basra is the country's biggest export route, including for petroleum, which generates 90% of government revenues.

So you could understand how Gen. Petraeus, having sacrificed so much to get some sort of social peace in Baghdad that would allow some major steps toward political reconciliation, is frustrated that no such major initiatives have been launched and that Iraqi politics just seems to be stuck.

It is worthwhile mentioning that what Gen. Petraeus said about the lack of political progress is the opposite of what John McCain has been saying. I am not saying that the contradiction is intended to be a political statement. But I am saying that Petraeus has just revealed himself again to be a straight shooter of a sort that has been all too rare in the Iraq misadventure.

Brent Bozell Does His Best Impression of a Crazed Liar

Oh, now this kind of thing makes me laugh out loud:

In the Washington Post today, Brent Bozell, the president of the conservative Media Research Center, argues that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) “may have the Beltway crowd in his corner, but grass-roots conservatives aren’t sold.” Claiming that McCain “is the one who arguably least qualifies as a Reagan conservative,” Bozell suggests ways that the Arizona senator can motivate the conservative movement.

But in making his argument, Bozell falsely claims that it was the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration, that created the current strains on the “military infrastructure“:

This is what conservatives call on him to do:

McCain must present a strategy to defeat the threat of radical Islam. He needs to call on the United States to rebuild its military infrastructure, so devastated by the Clinton administration.

So we're blaming Bill Clinton for the damage done to our military because of the Iraq War, now five years in? Let's do some math--the Iraq War is five years old this month. FIVE YEARS! And the military has been under the current Commander in Chief for Seven Years, two Months (or so). Bill Clinton left office in January 2001 and handed over a military that had 8 of its 10 active duty divisions--and virtually ALL of its Reserve and Guard component--ready to go to war and fully equipped and damned near full strength. He handed over Marine MEUs and Aircraft Carrier battlegroups that were trained and ready to deploy because they had been training and deploying and keeping our interests overseas defended admirably. Hundreds of pilots were experienced, having used Iraq as a live fire training range [while enforcing the No-Fly zones] for years. I served during that time, and that was a time when we were throwing criminals and gang members and anyone who didn't shape up out of the military as quickly as the rules allowed. NOW? Now we're keeping all of the broke dick people in, recruiting the criminals, and letting the gang members run wild in family housing units all over the country.

The only deployments that were taking a toll on the military were the rotations of units like the 10th Mountain Division and the 3rd Infantry Division to Kuwait and the Balkans. (I estimate on that, because, as I recall, we had various brigades moving in and out of the Balkans and we had done Operation Desert Fox with some elements of 3rd ID at Camp Doha.)

We still had all of our troops in Germany, although they were involved in some of the operations in the Balkans as well. We had the entire III Corps, ready to go to war. We had everyone else doing what they're supposed to do--training and preparing for any eventuality and any mission.

Clinton didn't "devastate" the military--the military was already drawn down by the decision--made AFTER the Berlin Wall fell but long BEFORE Clinton took office--to cash in THE PEACE DIVIDEND.

You remember the PEACE DIVIDEND, don't you?

Bush laid out the rationale for the Plan in a speech in Aspen, Colorado, on August 2, 1990. He explained that since the danger of global war had substantially receded, the principal threats to American security would emerge in unexpected quarters. To counter those threats, he said, the United States would increasingly base the size and structure of its forces on the need to respond to “regional contingencies” and maintain a peacetime military presence overseas. Meeting that need would require maintaining the capability to quickly deliver American forces to any “corner of the globe,” and that would mean retaining many major weapons systems then under attack in Congress as overly costly and unnecessary, including the “Star Wars” missile-defense program. Despite those massive outlays, Bush insisted that the proposed restructuring would allow the United States to draw down its active forces by 25 percent in the years ahead, the same figure Powell had projected ten months earlier.

That ten division army that we have right now? That "gutted" military that you claim was all Clinton's fault? That "hollow force" we have right now?

Cheney Proposed Cutting F-16 Aircraft. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, "If you're going to have a smaller air force, you don't need as many F-16s...The F-16D we basically continue to buy and close it out because we're not going to have as big a force structure and we won't need as many F-16s." According to the Boston Globe, Bush's 1991 defense budget "kill[ed] 81 programs for potential savings of $ 11.9 billion...Major weapons killed include[d]....the Air Force's F-16 airplane." [Cheney testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 2/7/91; Boston Globe, 2/5/91]

Cheney Proposed Cuts to B-2 Program. According to the Boston Globe, in 1990, "Defense Secretary Richard Cheney announced a cutback... of nearly 45 percent in the administration's B-2 Stealth bomber program, from 132 airplanes to 75..." [Boston Globe, 4/27/90]

Cheney Proposed Cutting AH-64 Apaches. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Cheney said, "This is just a list of some of the programs that I've recommended termination: the V-22 Osprey, the F-14D, the Army Helicopter Improvement Program, Phoenix missile, F-15E, the Apache helicopter, the M1 tank, et cetera." In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, "The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64...I forced the Army to make choices...So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out." [Cheney testimony, Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, 6/12/90; Cheney Testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 7/13/89, emphasis added]

Cheney Proposed Cutting M-1 Abrams Tanks. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Cheney said, "This is just a list of some of the programs that I've recommended termination: the V-22 Osprey, the F-14D, the Army Helicopter Improvement Program, Phoenix missile, F-15E, the Apache helicopter, the M1 tank, et cetera." The Boston Globe reported on the impact of Cheney's cuts to armored tanks: "The Army's cupboard is left particularly bare. Coming in the wake of last year's killing of the M-1 tank and the Apache helicopter, the death of the M-2 means the Army will soon have virtually no major weapons in production." [Cheney testimony, Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, 6/12/90; Boston Globe, 2/5/91]

Cheney Proposed Cutting B-52 Bombers. In 1990, Cheney proposed cutting 14 B-52 bombers. Cheney also sought the retirement of two Navy battleships, two nuclear cruisers, and eight nuclear-powered attack submarines. In 1991, Cheney scrapped the Navy's A-12 Stealth attack plane, a fighter that was proclaimed to be a key part of the future of navy aviation in advanced stealth technology. [Newsday, 2/5/91; NY Times, 1/8/91; Boston Globe, 4/27/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]

Cheney's Record as Secretary of Defense Includes Cutting Troops and Bases
Cheney Cut Thousands of Active-Duty, Reserve, and Civilian Forces. In January 1990, Cheney banned the hiring of any new civilian personnel in the Defense Department through the end of September, which left more than 65,000 jobs vacant. Under the budget proposed in 1990, the Pentagon would have reduced active military personnel by 38,000; selected reserves would have fallen by 3,000. The budget called for the deactivation of two Army divisions. Long range, the Pentagon planned to reduce its work force by 300,000, including about 200,000 military personnel and 100,000 civilians. In 1991, he called for reduction of 200,000 active and reserve military personnel over two years. In 1992, Cheney called for cutting 500,000 active-duty people, 200,000 reservists, and 200,000 civilians over five years. [Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 2/2/92; Chicago Tribune, 2/20/91; 1990 CQ Almanac, p. 672; Washington Post, 1/13/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]

Active-Duty and Reserve Forces Endured Huge Reductions Under Cheney. The LA Times reported in November 1991 that the number of active-duty military personnel had decreased by over 106,000, or 5 percent of the total forces. The National Guard and Reserves had been cut by nearly 38,000, instead of the 105,000 the Bush Administration sought. [LA Times, 11/2/91]

Cheney Proposed Over 70 Base Closures. In 1990, Cheney proposed the closure of 72 domestic military installations and 12 overseas facilities. On April 12, 1991, Cheney proposed to close 31 major domestic military bases. The plan also called for shutting 12 smaller bases and reducing operations at 28 others. He submitted his list of closures to a commission on base closings on April 15, 1991. In 1992, Cheney proposed 70 overseas military base closures, three of which were in Turkey. [Aerospace Daily, 8/17/92; 1991 CQ Almanac, p. 427; Chicago Tribune, 1/30/90]

So, for the Brent Bozell types out there, shut up when you claim Clinton "gutted" the military. The budget was negotiated with Republican Congressmen more interested in cutting ALL spending wherever possible--negotiations that, at one point, shut down the goddamned government.

The current size of our military could have been changed in a heartbeat in 2001--and your President still can't get the right vehicles and gear to enough troops in Iraq.

The President Throws US Intel Agencies Under the Bus

[updated some of my rambling and my less-than-clear indignation]
Starting off another incredible week of mind-bogglingly frightening developments and insane incidents, here is what amounts to a stunning revelation, one the media seems to have paid absolutely no heed as they stampede themselves through another round of meaningless primary races and celebrity news:

Bothersome Intel on Iran
By Michael Hirsh | NEWSWEEK
Jan 21, 2008 Issue

In public, President Bush has been careful to reassure Israel and other allies that he still sees Iran as a threat, while not disavowing his administration's recent National Intelligence Estimate. That NIE, made public Dec. 3, embarrassed the administration by concluding that Tehran had halted its weapons program in 2003, which seemed to undermine years of bellicose rhetoric from Bush and other senior officials about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

But in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week, the president all but disowned the document, said a senior administration official who accompanied Bush on his six-nation trip to the Mideast.

"He told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views" about Iran's nuclear-weapons program, said the official, who would discuss intelligence matters only on the condition of anonymity.

Yes--the President of the United States has "his own views" and those views are NOT informed by the work of the intelligence services that work for this country. That's "work for this country" and "not specifically to reinforce his policy choices and preferences."

Yeah, yeah--Cheney runs things. Cheney has his fingerprints all over this statement and this leak. We get that.

Why is this not page 1, and on every network, and screaming at you from all sides? How is it that the President of the United States of America can go to a foreign country and tell the leader of that country that the collective judgement and estimate of the massive intelligence community means nothing to him? When is he going to come out and tell the American people that the 43.5 billion dollars spent in 2007 by this country to defend itself might as well have been pissed away down the drain?

What are we paying for? Why bother to even have an intelligence community? He's just going to put on his Carnac hat and make the wrong guesses and not get any laughs, right?



How would you like to be a career intelligence professional, and know that your President went overseas and sat down with some other leader and, in a chummy sort of way, basically said that the work you've done to protect America is a joke and a fraud and that he knows more than you do?

Here are the reasons why this matters--the President hasn't fired the DNI or the head of any of the agencies that matter. He hasn't fired any of the people who aren't telling him what he wants to hear. But he holds the work of those people in obvious low regard. Why else would they "leak" that Bush told Olmert that he has his own ideas about what Iran is doing to develop nuclear weapons? Every one of these people is an appointee of his own choice. He nominated these people. He could fire all of them in one fell swoop. He is, ultimately, responsible for everything they oversee. And what they now know is this--he doesn't care what the people who work for them have to say about a critical issue. He'll just dismiss it and do whatever the hell he wants.

That's NOT a great way to go about things in a Democracy. Just wanted to mention that.

What country is this? Where do we live? What nation is this, again? I simply have no idea anymore.

The incredible hubris of a man who thinks he knows more than the tens of thousands of people who have spent their lives defending this country is astonishing. Isn't there someone close to him that can remind him that he has no viable track record for getting anything right? Someone to speak truth to power? Someone who can show him, at least in theory, "a DVD of what is going on in New Orleans", only tailored to show him why the US intel community downgraded the threat from Iran?

Why didn't someone, decades ago, basically sit down and explain to this man that his inability to get anything right means he doesn't get to dismiss the opinions, findings and research of tens of thousands of people who have a better track record than he does? Not a great track record, but significantly better. At least they have subjected themselves to criticism, review, and reorganization.

Apparently, the man who got it wrong about virtually everything knows more than the people who are there to figure these things out. So why bother funding them next year? We might as well spend the money erecting a monument to the fabulous insight and intellect of a President who will leave office at record low approval ratings, record high number of scandals and disasters yet to be sorted out, and with more hubris than any mad dictator who has ever lived. I mean, really. Does reality figure into any of this anymore?

So this is the way we start the week--with this leaked tidbit that throws our intelligence agencies under a bus. And that's what it really was--a leak. That leak places this country in serious jeopardy.

Can we impeach Cheney now?

So - the administration has known for a year that all sixteen intelligence agencies have determined that Iran halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, but that little bit of inconvenient truth did not deter Cheney from not only advocating for another illegal war, one that would possibly (probably) use nuclear weapons, but he didn't stop there - he also attempted to stifle the report and tried to get the parts they didn't agree with stricken.

Remember how, a couple of months ago, the meme changed? Resident Evil said that the Iranians couldn't be allowed to have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon. In October, aWol gave a dire warning about WW III if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, and the warmongering old prick vowed "serious consequences" if the Iranians didn't (re)abandon their nuclear program. (It's all very cartoonish, in a tragic way. Remember your Looney Tunes? Bugs: "Batten down the hatches!" Buster:"I did! I did batten 'em down!" Bugs: "Well batten 'em down again. We'll teach those hatches!")

Gareth Porter pointed out a month ago that the NIE was being held up. (h/t Kevin Drum)

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear programme, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.

But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the unsatisfactory draft NIE, but without making its key findings public.

Cheney got his knickers in a twist over more than the nuclear part of the NIE. He was also furious that there was no conclusive evidence that the Iranians were meddling in Iraq and arming Shiite militias.

So, congresscritters, especially you, Nancy Pelosi, read the god-damned NIE for yourselves, and then riddle me this:

Is it enough yet? Can we please make with impeaching the warmongering, pathological old prick? We can't risk another year with this psychotic madman at the levers.

Cheney: against sanctions on Iran before he was for them

H/T Think Progress:

Cheney has 'fessed up that as CEO of Halliburton he opposed sanctions against Iran.

What he leaves out is that he evaded the law to do business with the Iranian government.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with rogue nations. In 1995, President Clinton signed an executive order barring U.S. investment in Iran’s energy sector. To evade U.S. law, Halliburton set up an offshore subsidiary that engaged in dealings with Iran.

In 1996, Cheney blasted the Clinton administration for being “sanction-happy as a government.” “The problem is that the good Lord didn’t see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments,” Cheney explained of his desire to do business with Iran.

His rationalization now is that it wasn't his responsibility to uphold U.S. law when he was a CEO.

I know. My head hurts, too.

It's official...

It's undeniable...

Thomas Friedman is batshit insane.

I have long suspected that he lost his freakin' mind somewhere between Beirut and Jerusalem, and yesterdays OpEd in the New York Times is ample evidence that he should be detained in a secure facility where he can't harm himself or others.

The Very Serious Person Friedman actually wrote a column that was published in the Very Serious New York Times in which he attempts to, in all seriousness, build a case for Obama, should he be the Democratic nominee, should tap his long-lost cousin Dick to stay on for another term as Vice.

It would be an effective way of dealing with Iran, you see.

And that brings me back to the Obama-Cheney ticket: When it comes to how best to deal with Iran, each has half a policy — but if you actually put them together, they’d add up to an ideal U.S. strategy for Iran. Dare I say, they complete each other.

I know - I rubbed my eyes, took another swig of coffee, blinked hard and reread it. I was quite disturbed to realize that I had not been hallucinating.

Dick and the Drums of War

Golly - who ya gonna trust? A five deferment draft-dodger with a war-porn addiction? Or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

The Veep went to The Washington Institute yesterday to beat the drum for war with Iran.

The ideological struggle that's playing out in the Middle East today -- the struggle against radical extremists -- is going to concern America certainly for the remainder of our administration, and well into the future. On September 11th, 2001, we suffered a heavy blow, right here at home, at the hands of extremists who plotted the attacks from an outpost thousands of miles from our shores. Since that terrible morning, Americans have properly called this a war. For their part, the terrorists agree. The difference is they began calling it a war a good many years prior to 9/11. And they've been waging that war with clear objectives, aggressive tactics, and a strategy they want to carry out at any cost. [Iran had even less to do with the attacks of September 11 than Iraq! That was primarily a Saudi operation, and we all bloody well know it!]

They've stated their objectives. The terrorists want to end all American and Western influence in the Middle East. Their goal in that region is to seize control of a country so they have a base from which they can launch attacks and wage war against governments that do not meet their demands. Ultimately they seek to establish a totalitarian empire through the Middle East, and outward from there. They want to arm themselves with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons; they want to destroy Israel; they intimidate all Western countries; and to cause mass death here in the United States. [Okay. I have no doubt that a few thousand dedicated extremists can subdue all 300 million of the most obstreperous and heavily armed people on the face of the earth. No trouble at all. Hell, 160 thousand are subduing 25 million and it's a cakewalk! Yep terrorists will just roll right over us, we'll all don Burkas and grow beards and submit to sharia. And I will need medical attention because monkeys will be flying out of my butt...What the fuck, "leaders"? Terrorists win when people get terrified! So why is the Vice Resident whipping up fear and helping the terrorists win? Myself, I will laugh at them and their silly superstitions even as the scimitar separates my head from my torso. I am not going to let the fuckers terrify me, and I have no regard for anyone so silly.]

The tactics, of course, are familiar to all the world: suicide attacks, car bombs, beheadings, messages of violence and hatred on the Internet, and the hijackings of 9/11. And the strategy is clear, as well: Through acts of stealth and murder and spectacular violence, they intend to frighten us and to break our will; to hit us again and again until we run away. It's not easy for a civilized society to comprehend evil like that of Osama bin Laden or Zawahiri. It shocks us to hear such men exhorting other people's sons to "join a caravan" of so-called martyrs, proclaiming that heaven favors the merciless and murder is the path to paradise. [He is just talkin' like it's one big war and Iran and Iraq are the same thing. Interchangeable really. That's why he was talking about Iran and he kept referencing al Qaeda. Duh.]

The Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record. And now, of course, we have the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. The Security Council has twice imposed sanctions on Iran and called on the regime to cease enriching uranium. Yet the regime continues to do so, and continues to practice delay and deception in an obvious attempt to buy time. [Gain hegemonic power? What the fuck? When did Iran start running around willy-nilly and invading the neighbors? They haven't invaded anyone since the 1800's and they are not an Arab nation. They dominant ethnic group is Persian, and Shia. They are surrounded by Arabs, who are majority Sunni, and non-arab Sunnis on pretty much all sides. the merest utterance of the phrase "hegemonic power" with regard to Iran brands the speaker a blithering fucking dipshit.]

Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian President, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region -- including direct involvement in the killing of Americans -- our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions. (Applause.) [I have heard assertions that they are directly killing Americans - who should not be in proximity anyway - but the people asserting are not providing evidence and have a track record of lying to the point it's pathological. And declarations from Ahmadineajad are laughable. He is the Mullahs response to that Axis of Evil crap, and when the clowns in charge are gone, so is he. Nobody with any sentience of the region assigns him any relevance, save as comic relief. ]

The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.) [Way to ramp up the old rhetoric! That is just about a fucking declaration of war! And the Deserter-in-Chief said last week they should be denied the knowledge to make a nuke. Somehow, I think Vladimir Putin will weigh in before too long...Way to go, you warmongering fuckheads. Way to lose the cold war after the fact. Morons.]

The irresponsible conduct of the ruling elite in Tehran is a tragedy for all Iranians. The regime has passed up numerous opportunities to be a positive force in the Middle East. For more than a generation, it had only isolated a great nation, suppressed a great people, and subjected them to economic hardship that gets worse every year. The citizens of Iran deserve none of this. They are the proud heirs of a culture of learning, humanity and beauty that reaches back many centuries. Iranian civilization has produced shining achievements, from the Persian Book of Kings, to the poetry of Rumi and Khayyam, to celebrated achievements in astronomy and mathematics, to art and music admired on every continent. The Iran of today -- a nation of 70 million, a majority of them under the age of 30 -- is a place of unlimited potential. And the Iranian people have every right to be free from oppression, from economic deprivation, and tyranny in their own country. [Oh for fuck's sake. This is about three degrees from "We'll be greeted as liberators!" Would someone impeach these war criminals already??? Then indict, imprison, prosecute, convict...following the sentencing guidelines to the end...If that is the end of a rope, so be it.]

***************

Admiral Mullen, however, is not playing along with the hattrick-of-wars scenario.

The new chairman, [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Adm. Mike Mullen, expressed deep concerns that the long counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have so consumed the military that the Army and Marine Corps may be unprepared for a high-intensity war against a major adversary.

He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops.

With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region “has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.” The military option, he said, should be a last resort.

Iran is not a strategic threat to the United States. They have an economy the size of a small European country and the defense spending of a large state's national guard. They are not going to defeat the most powerful Air Force and the largest blue water Navy in the world. We have enough firepower to kill everybody on the planet many times over. Thems the facts.

But here are some more. They could shut down the Straight of Hormuz and they might even manage to sink a tanker or two. What they would be able to do is drive the price of oil to $200 a barrel. That would be a windfall to Putin.

There are voices in Iran who want democracy and openness. But they will not welcome an American attack to bring 'em Democracy! Who the fuck would? I want change here, too, but I don't want this president hanged by a foreign power who invades my country! If that were to come to pass, I would want it to be because Americans got off their fat asses and got pissed off!

Meantime, I know how to facilitate Democracy for the price of a strafing run. Build internet infrastructure and flood the place with cheap laptops. Superstition dies, and Democracy flows from information access, not from the barrel of a gun, and certainly not from bombs dropped from on high.

Dick Cheney needs a muzzle, a sturdy chain...and a tranquilizer dart

[Crossposted from WTWC, and linked at Informed Comment by Juan Cole & The Des Moines Register.]

Remember how a couple of weeks ago, the story was that the Bush administration does not trust any future administration to 'deal with' Iran? Maybe you have forgotten, because the M$M – good little cocktail-weenie-wagging lackeys that they are - promptly moved along as if there was nothing to see there.

They certainly haven’t bothered to report on the hostilities we have been engaging in with Iran "below the CNN line" practically since the first days of the invasion, so what do we expect? But rest assured, Saddam had barely been toppled when the first American commandos were sent across the border into Iran, snooping for nukes.

On two borders, the US has combat troops, and in addition the U.S. encourages terrorism inside Iran. The U.S. materially supports Jundallah, and offshoot of al Qaeda, to commit terrorist acts inside Iran, staged from Pakistan. The Kurdish areas of Iraq are a nest of terrorists. They don’t just attack Turks. The Kurdish areas have been a staging ground for Kurdish paramilitaries to train; then they cross the border into the Kurdish areas of Iran and ambush Republican Guard troops. In addition, Iran has accused the United States of shooting down two of their military aircraft that were in Iranian airspace.

And now we have Dick Cheney, lunging for the end of the chain, snarling, foaming at the mouth and demanding more war.

Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said.

The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq."

Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that "the vice president is right where the president is" on Iran policy.

Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran.

"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq," he said.

He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government.

"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."

The Bush administration has launched what appears to be a coordinated campaign to pin more of Iraq's security troubles on Iran.

Those who are frothing at the mouth, all hot and bothered to get their war on with Iran need to sit down and listen up.

I am going to explain a few things in simple enough terms for even a conservative to understand, like why Iran would never fall like Iraq did. Put that notion down before it blows up and hurts someone, and consider some facts:

• Iranians have a strong national identity that is founded in common history; unlike Iraq, which was cobbled together from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, and occupied by Britain from 1917 to 1958. Iraq has existed for 90 years, and been occupied by “liberators” for 45 of them.
• Iran is four times the size of Iraq, with terrain that ranges from placid coastline to rugged mountains.
• The average male Iranian is just under 25 years of age.
• Iran has as many males between 15-64 as Iraq has total population
• Iran will not fall simply because a figurehead might be deposed. Iran will not fall so long as one Mullah remains alive anywhere in the country.
• Iran has a relatively modern military that has not been decimated by two decades of war and sanctions.
• Iran has the ability to shut down the passage of oil tankers, and send the price of oil to triple-digit per barrel prices.

In Iran, the Islamic Revolution was a means to an end, with the Ayatollah filling the role of ‘charismatic leader’ that is required of any revolutionary movement. It was the perfect combination of opportunity, true-believers, and opportunists, all coming together to overthrow a feckless thug, installed by a CIA coup that deposed the democratically elected Iranian Nationalist Mohammed Mossadegh, because he nationalized the oil industry, and pissed off the Brits. They wanted their oil company back, and that wag that didn't know his place gone. John Foster Dulles was all to happy to lend a hand.

In post revolutionary Iran, the Mullahs decreed the age of majority to be 15. Iranians can enter into contracts, marry, join the military and enjoy universal suffrage at 15 years of age. This has been an interesting social experiment, - control through empowerment. That data, just now coming in will be interesting to analyze once available.

When the average citizen is younger than the revolution, the revolution is over. Maybe not officially, but de facto. Birth rates are down from a post-revolution high of over 5 per woman to just under 2. The pig is passing through the snake, but it will be a discernible bulge for the foreseeable future. The average Iranian is around 25, in a population of over 65 million, while the Islamic revolution was 28 years ago come November.

The United States needs to realize that when dealing with Iranians, we are not dealing with a purely Islamic culture. Persian culture predates Islam by at least 1500 years, and the Persian people have not been invaded, conquered and occupied in modern times. Hell, not since the Arabs Islamized them seven hundred years ago.

We need to be engaging in diplomacy, even if it takes six months to decide ‘what will be the design and color of the peace table?’ We should also be engaging the country economically. They have a monolithic, one-dimensional energy economy. The Mullahs control the population by controlling the economy. Economic engagement would be far more effective than military engagement. (And no, I don’t mean by wrecking it – I mean by encouraging prosperity.)

Iran would present a military challenge in the best of times. With an overstretched and worn out military, the mere notion is madness on an epic scale. If we engage in diplomacy and economic diversification, the Mullahs fade from power in another decade. Start a shooting war, cement their power for 50-100 more years.

[*Note: The population of Iran has been corrected. Thanks to astute commenter Ben Cronin at WTWC for pointing out my quite inexcusable error.]

I think Dick Cheney must be referring to some other “Surge™”

Last week on CNN, Dick Cheney was adamant that “The Surge ™” was working – if you will.

He is optimistic that the report to Congress by Petraeus and Crocker next month will be positive. (We’re winning!!!) "The reports I'm hearing from people whose views I respect indicate that the Petraeus plan is in fact producing results," insisted Cheney, employing the same shift-the-blame meme that has been peddled furiously of late. Of course this is not Petraeus’s plan. The “Surge™” was actually dreamed up by some fatassed armchair generals at the AEI, and everyone who has been paying attention knows it. (Emphasis on paying attention…given the state of awareness we currently realize, the mendacious pricks will likely get away with everything to date, and more into the future.)

It is going so swimmingly that the very next day, the appeal for help attempting to unscrew the pooch was made to the United Nations.

Two days after Mr. Cheney and his Midas delusions were singing paeans to Iraq, and freedom, and independence delivered at the barrel of a gun; Secretary of Defense Robert Gates continued dialing back expectations and admitting that the political process that the Surge™ was supposed to enable had not moved forward, and now the parliament is off on holiday until September.

Not only had stalemate and squabbling set in before the recess, but the Sunni al-Tawafuq bloc withdrew from the government of Nouri Kemal al-Maliki. They vacated five of the six ministry posts held by them in Maliki’s cabinet.

Secretary Gates admitted the lack of political progress. "In some ways we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation," Mr Gates said. (Speak for yourself, Bob. This is exactly what *We* said was going to happen.)

Adding insult to injury, the electric grid is so decrepit that it can’t keep the water pumping, and it is 120º in Iraq this time of year. Some areas have been without water for a week.

Much hay has been made of the reduced American body count for the bloodiest July yet – violence adhered to the established pattern. It abated in July, but it has already ticked back upward the first week of August.

And if all that wasn’t enough…approximately half of all light weapons supplied by American forces - 190,000 AK-47’s and handguns – have gone missing. That is a lot of firepower unaccounted for. The BBC reports on the World Service that a new GAO report reveals the weapons are certainly being used against coalition and Iraqi forces. And guess who was in charge when those weapons went missing?

Yep.

Dave Petraeus.

In October of last year, it was revealed in a GAO report that 1 in 25, or 14,000 weapons had gone missing, and there was great hue and cry about it.

I wonder what lesson they took from last falls weapons scandal? If I were a betting woman, I would wager that the lesson they seized on has nothing to do with securing the weapons caches. Instead, I would wager that the lesson they learned was to keep the lost weapons out of the media, which is preternaturally willing to comply with this craven administration.

I’m getting a little bit steamed at my Congressman

Every week, I call my Congressman and express my support for him to sign on to H.R. 333, and every week he sends me the same non-answer form-letter reply:

Thank you for contacting me regarding House Resolution 333, a bill calling for the impeachment of the Vice President. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, H.Res. 333 is a resolution that calls for impeachment of the Vice President for high crimes and misdemeanors. The measure sets forth articles of impeachment charging that the Vice President has purposely: manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq in a manner damaging to U.S. national security interests; has openly threatened aggression against Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the U.S. proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining U.S. national security.

Article II Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The power to impeach the President rests with the House of Representatives. While I certainly have very clear and deep policy and philosophical differences with the Vice President and the Administration, I believe that the Congress must focus its efforts on addressing the challenges facing us abroad and here at home. In there remain eighteen months of this Administration, my colleagues and I will be working to address the Iraq War, the War on Terrorism, and issues such as the lack of affordable healthcare, an under-funded educational system and the rise in mortgage foreclosures, to name a few.

H.Res. 333 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further consideration. History will impeach this Administration. It will be incumbent upon this new 110^th Congress to move forward in an effective manner so as to provide real solutions to the real problems confronting our nation. You can rest assured that I am closely monitoring the Executive Branch and will keep your concerns in mind as we learn more details about the Administration's activities that may have exceeded its statutory or Constitutional authority.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I may be of further assistance. Also, I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/cleaver, where you can sign up for my electronic newsletter and receive updates on my latest activities as your Representative.

Sincerely

Emanuel Cleaver, II

Member of Congress

Congressman, I know perfectly well what H.R. 333 entails.

What I want is a damned ANSWER. Either stand up and sign on or EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU WILL NOT!!!

I chose you, I am watching, and I am not blindly partisan. So make with an answer already, and stop insulting me with the same freakin’ form letter, over and over and over.

Durbin to Cheney: “Go F#%K Yourself”

On Tuesday, Senator Dick Durbin stripped the funding for the operations of the Vice Presidents office and staff from an appropriations bill for the coming fiscal year. Until the vice resident complies with the parts of an executive order that covers the handling of classified information.

The issue at hand involves a requirement that offices of the executive branch provide information to the Information Security Oversight Office at The National Archives, an oversight office on data that is classified or declassified within those offices.

Cheney has absurdly asserted that he is not a part of the executive branch, and therefore exempt from an order he complied with for at least two years, then suddenly stopped.

Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said Cheney's office was flouting requirements that it comply with the reporting requirements on classified information.

"Neither Mr. Cheney or his staff is above the law or the Constitution," Durbin said. "For the vice president to believe that he has no responsibility to meet this requirement of the law is a dereliction of duty."

Frankly, there is only one reason I can think of for this unprecedented action on behalf of the vice resident – something got away from him, or from one of his lackeys. Something big. Something that could have a devastating effect on national security. Something they don’t want anyone to know.

There is simply not other explanation for the patently absurd notion that the vice-executive is exempt from rules covering the executive branch.

Durbin’s decision to strip the vice presidents office out of the executive office budget was part of an appropriations bill that funds the White House, the Treasury Department, and several smaller agencies.

I am heartened to see that the Democrats in Congress are starting to stand up to these fools. I can’t be sure just yet – but I think what we are seeing is a “rope-a-dope” strategy on behalf of the Dems – and the loyalists might have punched themselves out, and now the pummeling is about to start.

For the sake of the nation I love, I hope so.

Taking Stock: a day later

I spent 24 hours enraged. That is my MO. Then I pull myself together and I get downright calculating and methodical. That was the part that scared my kids the worst when they were growing up and ran afoul of the Rule of Mom, which was the equivalent of the rule of law in our household. (Military Moms tend to run a tight ship, no matter what branch of service they are married to. I was no exception. You spend too much time alone with the kids farther into the career and you can’t lose control of your charges.)

So – I have had 24 hours to assess the situation. There is still some there there, if you know what I mean.

Did aWol commit an impeachable offense when he commuted the treasonous Libby’s jail term? No processes were observed, no recommendations considered, no briefs were filed and no procedures were followed. So...perhaps. (Note: It is the opinion of this blogger that the entire Bush Presidency has been an impeachable offense.)

The way this played out, it smacks of a cover-up. It looks like the resident was scared shitless that Scooter might spill when he found himself looking into that cell.

Remember, from the very outset, Libby’s attorneys played it like he was a fall guy, a patsy, a chump taking the rap for others – specifically the vice president. Fitz repeatedly and sharply stated that the details that surrounded the case cast doubt and suspicion over Dick Cheney.

Take the fact that the defense claimed he was a fall guy, add the shadow over vice, and it is a short step to come to the conclusion that Libby was made Cheney’s bitch.

It is within the scope of powers afforded the office of the President to commute sentences, of course. However, it is not within the scope of those powers for him to commute a sentence in an effort to derail a criminal investigation. If the sentence was commuted for the purpose of covering up criminal activity, be those activities ongoing or previous, that in and of itself is a crime that merits the impeachment of this feckless president.

What underlies the decision by the resident to offer this commutation, without a single day served, must be investigated thoroughly.

Both Judiciary Committees and Representative Waxman’s Oversight Committee must open investigations and get to the bottom of this. Including calling Patrick Fitzgerald to testify.

This is not over. Not by a long shot. Unless, that is, those we chose turn into whiny-assed little bitches and fold like a bunch of cheap suits.

Has Cheney met his match?

Could very well be.

Get your refreshments before the fight starts – it’s gonna be better than anything the Sweet Science has had to offer since Frazier-Ali. It’s Emanuel-Cheney, and this time the “go fuck yourself” will likely be directed at rather than issued from Big Time.

For six years, Cheney bent the 109^th, 108^th and 107^th congresses over the lectern and had his way with them. When Cheney officially severed ties with reality and declared that he is not a member of the executive branch last week, the Democratic congress responded. Specifically, Rahm Emanuel responded. Hoo boy - did he ever respond! Don't call this Democrat spineless, thank you very much.

When Cheney went off the rails last week, Emanuel got that look in his eye my dog used to get when she saw a rabbit in the garden.

First he issued the chart, which was promptly posted by Josh Marshall, yours truly and every left-of-center blogger in between:

Then he commenced with flayin’ the fat man, and shows no signs of letting up. Remember, this is a guy who once mailed a pollster a dead fish, and who is a pro at Chicago-style kick-‘em-in-the-nuts and leave ‘em writhing on the floor bloodsport politics.

Cheney only thinks he knows how to be a motherfucker. Rahm Emanuel knows the fine art of sliding a shiv between the ribs of an opponent with a smile.

On Wednesday, he is introducing an amendment to strike the funding for the vice-presidents operating budget from the executive branch appropriations bill.

Emanuel's proposed amendment would withhold the $4.4 million for Cheney's office until the vice president admits he's in the executive branch or the Government Accountability Office determines which branch Cheney serves in.

The goal is not to cut off the money, but to force a recognition that Cheney is in the executive branch and subject to the order on secrecy.

``The vice president has a choice to make,'' Emanuel said. ``If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive-branch funding, he cannot ignore executive branch rules.''

The showdown is coming tomorrow. Will Cheney snap and lose it? Rahm is a verbal streetfighter – will he push Big Time's buttons to the point of meltdown? An authoritarian control freak is pretty easy to get a disproportionate response from. He is already pissed off over having his authority challenged in the first damned place.

Emanuel knows his enemy, and frankly, I await the goading with bated breath. (C’mon Dick – I'm rootin' for ya - don’t disappoint – take the bait – you know you want to – open that fetid maw and let fly!!!) After all what does he have to lose? A couple of points off his Agnew-esque approval rating?

I have been waiting for a political fistfight since Webb didn’t deck aWol at tht reception last winter. I have long hoped that former boxer Harry Reid would just sucker-punch Mitch McConnell live on C-Span – and that is still a favorite fantasy – but I will settle for a rhetorical set-to between Emanuel and Cheney, at least for now. When it comes down to a bare-knuckled political brawl, always take the street-smart Jew from Chicago who knows from hurling invective most colorfully over the pudgy prick with the heart condition.

Does this mean we can forget about that “Unitary Executive” nonsense they’ve been peddling?

From the “you can’t have it both ways” chronicles, we have this dandy little paradox – the president claims the right to do as he damn well pleases because he is a "Unitary Executive" in a time of war…and then yesterday, he turns around and claims he is not a member of the Executive Branch?

Good thing surrealism is my cup of fur. Otherwise I might set my locks alight.

I just can’t square how an executive order, signed by the executive, covering all the executive agencies somehow doesn’t apply to the executive and vice-executive. WTF???

We are talking about vital National Security information, and frankly, these weasels have a lousy record of protecting and safeguarding that information (Scooter “Treason” Libby, anyone?) In fact, they have a track record of cherry-picking intelligence and they used their phony intel to start an illegal war that has displaced 4 million Iraqi’s, hastened or directly caused the death of up to a million more, indebted the American treasury to the Chines to the tune of 4 trillion dollars, killed over 3500 American GI’s and wounded ~30,000 more.

That these feckless fools would even try to peddle this bullshit reasoning makes me livid. Who the fuck do they even think they are?

This is not a monarchy. We as a nation eschewed that notion in 1776. And our founding fathers lie spinning in their graves.

From the LA Times:

"We don't dispute that the ISOO has a different opinion. But let's be very clear: This executive order was issued by the president, and he knows what his intentions were," Fratto said. "He is in compliance with his executive order." (Bloggers aside: Where is the signing statement that clarifies the resident’s intent?)

Fratto conceded that the lengthy directive, technically an amendment to an existing executive order, did not specifically exempt the president's or vice president's offices. Instead, it refers to "agencies" as being subject to the requirements, which Fratto said did not include the two executive offices. "It does take a little bit of inference," Fratto said.

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project, disputed the White House explanation of the executive order.

He noted that the order defines "agency" as any executive agency, military department and "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information" — which, he said, includes Bush's and Cheney's offices.

Frankly, I don’t trust these ideologues, morons and warmongers with information even with oversight. And the experts on national security are as non-plussed as I am about the White House assertion that the executive branch is exempt from executive oversight that has to be inferred from an executive order.

[These claims of exemption] fit what they saw as a pattern in the administration of avoiding accountability, even on matters of national security.

"If the president and the vice president don't take their own rules seriously, who else should?" said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute at George Washington University in Washington that lobbies for open government.

"If they get a blank check, it's a recipe for disaster. I can't think of a quicker way to break down the credibility of the entire security-classification system."

Blanton noted that the White House had acknowledged that a substantial number of in-house e-mails had disappeared in recent years, at a time when investigators wanted to review them for possible evidence of inappropriate leaks of classified information.

"If there are all these great safeguards in place, then where are the e-mails?" Blanton asked.

These offenses are deadly serious folks. They undermine the Social Contract, practically to the point of nullification.

Bush and Cheney are two men with a handful of craven minions doing their bidding. We are a nation of 300 million, and we are represented by 535 Senators and Representatives, whose job it is to protect our interests and the Social Contract.

If they take this latest exhibit of mendacity lying down – we need 535 new Representatives and Senators.