I would think he would've been too ashamed about the statements he made after his recent trip to a Baghad market to do any more war whoring, but I was wrong.
This crap is from his op-ed in the Sunday edition of the WaPo, "The War You're Not Reading About."
McCAIN:
Extremist Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces..
REALITY:
U.S. and Iraqi Troops Fight Shiite Militia
By STEVEN R. HURST
AP
Updated:2007-04-07 20:18:20
BAGHDAD (April 7) - U.S. warplanes blasted a militia team firing rocket-propelled grenades Saturday, the second day of heavy fighting in a major offensive to drive Shiite Mahdi Army militiamen out of Diwaniyah, a farm-belt city south of Baghdad .
The U.S.-Iraqi drive into Diwaniyah -- named "Operation Black Eagle" -- began before dawn Friday.
The Mahdi Army, the focus of the offensive, is run by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who had ordered Baghdad militiamen to lay down their weapons during the security crackdown in the capital.
Many of the Diwaniyah fighters were thought to have left Baghdad and were using the American preoccupation with the capital to cement their hold on parts of the southern city.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
KATHLEEN PARKER SUPPORTS ISLAMOFASCISM
Okay, that's an outrageous title but it does capture some of the truth. Her op-ed in the neo-con WaPo is entitled "Mother Of All Blunders" and it shamelessly uses the capture of the British sailors and marines to advance her conservative agenda. To wit, a woman's place is at home.
She has found "common cause with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" because he "wondered why a once-great power such as Britain sends mothers of toddlers to fight its battles." Parker opposes almost any form of modern equality between the sexes and loathes feminism.
She closes her piece with an unintentional bit of irony: "Positioning women to become pawns of propaganda, meanwhile, is called aiding and abetting the enemy." Parker has done exactly that by endorsing Ahmadinejad's views of women.
She has found "common cause with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" because he "wondered why a once-great power such as Britain sends mothers of toddlers to fight its battles." Parker opposes almost any form of modern equality between the sexes and loathes feminism.
She closes her piece with an unintentional bit of irony: "Positioning women to become pawns of propaganda, meanwhile, is called aiding and abetting the enemy." Parker has done exactly that by endorsing Ahmadinejad's views of women.
ON SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes
Science 3 December 2004:Vol. 306. no. 5702,
p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. ... Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change"
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Naomi Oreskes
Science 3 December 2004:Vol. 306. no. 5702,
p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. ... Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change"
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
$400,000,000 FOR CEO!!!
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year, the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts in U.S. corporate history.
The largest part of Ray Irani's 2006 payout was $270.2 million from the exercise of options awarded from 1997 to 2006, representing more than 7.1 million shares, according to the company's annual proxy statement, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March.
In the proxy, the company said that from December 1990 -- when Irani succeeded Armand Hammer as chief executive -- through 2005, the company's stock rose to about $40 a share from $9 and its total shareholder return was 699 percent.
"When you look at this, this is solid pay for performance," said Richard Kline, an Occidental spokesman. "It serves the best interest of the corporation and the best interest of the shareholder."
Let's look into this "pay for performance" claim. Here's a graph of Occidental Petroleum's stock price (ticker symbol: OXY) from Yahoo:
As the price of crude oil goes up, so does Occidental's profits and the share price. The increase in crude oil prices since 2001 is mostly due to the Iraq War, not anything Mr. Irani did during that time.
The largest part of Ray Irani's 2006 payout was $270.2 million from the exercise of options awarded from 1997 to 2006, representing more than 7.1 million shares, according to the company's annual proxy statement, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March.
In the proxy, the company said that from December 1990 -- when Irani succeeded Armand Hammer as chief executive -- through 2005, the company's stock rose to about $40 a share from $9 and its total shareholder return was 699 percent.
"When you look at this, this is solid pay for performance," said Richard Kline, an Occidental spokesman. "It serves the best interest of the corporation and the best interest of the shareholder."
Let's look into this "pay for performance" claim. Here's a graph of Occidental Petroleum's stock price (ticker symbol: OXY) from Yahoo:
The performance of the stock was essentially flat from the time Irani took over (1990) until about 2002. Now we all know that something important happened in the Middle East early in 2003, so let's take a look at the price of crude oil over the same time period:
As the price of crude oil goes up, so does Occidental's profits and the share price. The increase in crude oil prices since 2001 is mostly due to the Iraq War, not anything Mr. Irani did during that time.
ANOTHER ANN COULTER EVENT
This time it comes from Don Imus and Bernard McGuirk:
Apology doesn't stem calls to oust Imus
By LARRY McSHANE, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Unimpressed by his on-air apology or corporate promises of a tighter leash, angry critics of nationally syndicated radio host Don Imus called Saturday for his dismissal over his racially charged comments about the mostly black Rutgers women's basketball team.
The Rutgers team, which includes eight black women, lost the NCAA women's championship game Tuesday, and Imus was discussing the game with producer Bernard McGuirk.
"That's some rough girls from Rutgers," Imus said. "Man, they got tattoos ..."
"Some hardcore hos," said McGuirk.
"That's some nappy headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that," Imus said.
MSNBC has Imus' apology on its website:
I think it's time for the I-man to have a lengthy vacation.
Apology doesn't stem calls to oust Imus
By LARRY McSHANE, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Unimpressed by his on-air apology or corporate promises of a tighter leash, angry critics of nationally syndicated radio host Don Imus called Saturday for his dismissal over his racially charged comments about the mostly black Rutgers women's basketball team.
The Rutgers team, which includes eight black women, lost the NCAA women's championship game Tuesday, and Imus was discussing the game with producer Bernard McGuirk.
"That's some rough girls from Rutgers," Imus said. "Man, they got tattoos ..."
"Some hardcore hos," said McGuirk.
"That's some nappy headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that," Imus said.
MSNBC has Imus' apology on its website:
From Friday's show:
DON IMUS: "Want to take a moment to apologize for an insensitive and ill-conceived remark we made the other morning regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team.
It was completely inappropriate, and we can understand why people were offended. Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and we are sorry."
I think it's time for the I-man to have a lengthy vacation.
TEAM B
The conservatives have a history of doubting the analyses of the US intelligence community and coming up with their own interpretations. In 1976, George Bush, then head of the CIA, appointed a team of outside experts to review the intelligence on Soviet intentions. Known as Team B, it was headed by Prof. Richard Pipes and Paul Wolfowitz was one of the team's members. Team B offered a more dire analysis of Soviet intentions.
In the mid-90s, the GOP Congress set up a special commission to study the threat of ballistic missiles to the US. The commission was headed by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz was a member. The commission offered a more dire analysis of the threat from ballistic missiles.
In 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz set up his own Team B in the Pentagon to analyze the threat from Iraq. Known to the public as the Office of Special Plans (OSP) and headed by Abram Shulsky, an old friend of Wolfowitz, OSP offered a more dire analysis of the threat from Saddam.
The pattern is unmistakable and unfortunate.
SOURCE: The Rise of the Vulcans, pp. 73-75, hardcover edition.
In the mid-90s, the GOP Congress set up a special commission to study the threat of ballistic missiles to the US. The commission was headed by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz was a member. The commission offered a more dire analysis of the threat from ballistic missiles.
In 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz set up his own Team B in the Pentagon to analyze the threat from Iraq. Known to the public as the Office of Special Plans (OSP) and headed by Abram Shulsky, an old friend of Wolfowitz, OSP offered a more dire analysis of the threat from Saddam.
The pattern is unmistakable and unfortunate.
SOURCE: The Rise of the Vulcans, pp. 73-75, hardcover edition.
MORE WINGNUT INSANITY
(Via Crooks & Liars)
First, we have the NRO's John Derbyshire saying it would be OK if the returned Brits had something very bad happen to them, perhaps even death:
Second, another atrocious column by Ann Coulter:
First, we have the NRO's John Derbyshire saying it would be OK if the returned Brits had something very bad happen to them, perhaps even death:
Once again, it's me and Ralph Peters on the same wavelength, deploring the cowardice of the British sailors and marines kidnapped by Iran. When it happened, I said I hoped the ones who'd shamed their country would be court-martialed on return to Blighty, and given dishonorable discharges after a couple years breaking rocks in the Outer Hebrides (which, believe me—I've been there—have a LOT of rocks). Now, I confess, I wouldn't shed a tear if some worse fate befell them.
Second, another atrocious column by Ann Coulter:
These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever - and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?
This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest.
THE EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING
Here's the PDF version of the IPCC's report:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Some wingnuts claim that it's all due to increased heat from the Sun but the report shows otherwise:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Some wingnuts claim that it's all due to increased heat from the Sun but the report shows otherwise:
The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM-1 and SPM-2).
Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a
radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7}
Friday, April 06, 2007
AOL WINGNUTS ON GLOBAL WARMING
I've written before about how almost all the AM radio gasbags dismiss global warming (here, here, and here) so I expected to see some of this regurgitated by the wingnuts on AOL. I was not disappointed.
AUDITOR0007: These same scientists who now support global warming come from the same cloth as the ones who said global cooling would bring us catastrophe in the 70's.
Atlas5663: The scientist that stand behind the global warming myth are mainstream alright.
Thats how they keep their federal funding.
Loyalwolf1: global warming is total b.s.! study the weather look at temperatures a hundred years ago some highs some lows!
Bluezfan38: Global warming is a fantasy! If, and I said if, it does exist it is because the sun is hotter.
AUDITOR0007: These same scientists who now support global warming come from the same cloth as the ones who said global cooling would bring us catastrophe in the 70's.
Atlas5663: The scientist that stand behind the global warming myth are mainstream alright.
Thats how they keep their federal funding.
Loyalwolf1: global warming is total b.s.! study the weather look at temperatures a hundred years ago some highs some lows!
Bluezfan38: Global warming is a fantasy! If, and I said if, it does exist it is because the sun is hotter.
GLOBAL WARMING HITS HOME
Study predicts dust-bowl Southwest
By Tony Davis and Dan Sorenson
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona Published: 04.06.2007
Dust-bowl conditions of the 1930s could become the norm in the Southwest by the end of this century, or sooner, because global warming will bring drier weather, a new national study said Thursday.
More air pollution in the cities, fewer saguaros in the desert, more tree die-offs in the mountains and, above all, up to 25 percent less water for people and wildlife in Arizona will be likely results of drier weather, various local experts said in reaction to the report.
By about 2050, this region will see a perpetual drought similar to what struck the Great Plains in the 1930s and the West in the 1950s, said the report from scientists from Columbia University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Of 19 models studied, all but one agreed that warming temperatures will make the Southwest drier. That is "an unprecedented level of agreement" among the various computer models, said Julia Cole, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences and geosciences at the University of Arizona.
By Tony Davis and Dan Sorenson
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona Published: 04.06.2007
Dust-bowl conditions of the 1930s could become the norm in the Southwest by the end of this century, or sooner, because global warming will bring drier weather, a new national study said Thursday.
More air pollution in the cities, fewer saguaros in the desert, more tree die-offs in the mountains and, above all, up to 25 percent less water for people and wildlife in Arizona will be likely results of drier weather, various local experts said in reaction to the report.
By about 2050, this region will see a perpetual drought similar to what struck the Great Plains in the 1930s and the West in the 1950s, said the report from scientists from Columbia University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Of 19 models studied, all but one agreed that warming temperatures will make the Southwest drier. That is "an unprecedented level of agreement" among the various computer models, said Julia Cole, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences and geosciences at the University of Arizona.
CHANGES TO DPG OF 1992
New York Times, 23 May 1992
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LENGTH: 1660 words
HEADLINE: PENTAGON DROPS GOAL OF BLOCKING NEW SUPERPOWERS
BYLINE: By PATRICK E. TYLER, Special to The New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, May 23
BODY:
The Pentagon has revised a draft of its post-cold-war strategy, dropping language from an earlier document advocating the perpetuation of a one-superpower world in which the United States would work to prevent the rise of any "competitors" to its primacy in Western Europe and East Asia. The new document, approved by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney on Friday, sharpens the American commitment to collective military action as a "key feature" of United States strategy and looks forward to the decline of military investment as the principal means of balancing power among nations.
With far more diplomatic language than in an earlier draft, the new document forsakes any goal of preventing the emergence of "any potential future global competitor" and stresses the importance of strengthening international organizations like the United Nations for resolving disputes.
Input From Cheney
The elimination of what was a dominant theme in the earlier draft reflects high-level input from both Mr. Cheney and Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, senior Pentagon officials said. The new language represents a significant retrenchment and appears to have discredited the idea, expressed in internal Administration foreign policy discussions, that the United States should focus its energies on containing German and Japanese aspirations for regional leadership.
The nearly final draft has been circulating in the Pentagon since April 16. A copy was provided to The New York Times by an Administration official who believes the debate on post-cold-war strategy should be conducted in public.
Earlier Draft Criticized
The earlier draft, dated Feb. 18, was roundly criticized in the White House and in foreign capitals after its contents were disclosed in The New York Times in March. Prepared under the supervision of the Pentagon's Under Secretary for policy, Paul Wolfowitz, the earlier draft implied that a competing power or alliance of nations, bolstered by surging economic strength in Germany or Japan, could arise from these nations and eventually express their rivalry with America through military competition.
To keep this from happening, the earlier draft proposed that the United States build a new order based on "convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."
The new draft reflects an American foreign policy establishment far less threatened by ascending roles for important allies, even leadership by those allies when their interests are more directly affected. Yet a goal of the new draft is to seek to preserve a leading American role in strategic deterrence and regional alliances that will, by their demonstration of military cooperation, deter hostile and non-democratic powers from seeking to dominate important regions.
On Friday, Germany and France announced the formation of an all-European military corps and invited other nations to join. The new security alliance would work with NATO in crises where NATO'S 16 member nations declared an interest, but would also respond independently in crises where NATO interests were not involved.
The later Pentagon draft substantially softens the earlier document's expressed opposition to emerging security alliances in Europe while also emphasizing the need to preserve a key role for NATO, where American power and influence have been pre-eminent.
Striking Change of Tone
With a striking change of tone, the later draft states, "One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying longstanding alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships."
For the first time in the memory of military officials who have drafted policy, the new draft states that while a strong defense to deter potential foes will continue to be an important concept in American security, a leveling of military investment coupled with greater economic and security cooperation will create a more stable world.
"It is not in our interest or those of the other democracies to return to earlier periods in which multiple military powers balanced one another off in what passed for security structures, while regional, or even global peace hung in the balance," it said.
The new document places greater emphasis on international military cooperation, with a special emphasis on cooperation with Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union, as a means of providing "security at lower costs with lower risks for all."
The document, known as the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-99 fiscal years, has never been made public and parts of it are classified. It is a policy that is an internal planning guide for the Pentagon and prepared every two years. As such, it represents "guidance" from the President and the Secretary of Defense to the four military services on how to prepare their budgets and forces in the future.
Additional Refinements Made
A senior Pentagon official, commenting on the April 16 draft, said that it "more carefully reflects" the thinking of Mr. Cheney, but that additional refinements and editing changes have been made since that version was circulated. He said the major elements remain.
Though Mr. Cheney signed the document Friday, it was not clear whether it would be subject to additional comment or revision after circulating to the White House and State Department.
The new draft continues to make the case for the Bush Administration's concept of a "base force" military of 1.6 million uniformed troops and rejects calls in Congress for a greater peace dividend that could be derived from deeper military cuts. And while it strengthens the Administration's commitment to act in concert with allies and through international bodies like the United Nations, it preserves a commitment "to act independently, as necessary, to protect our critical interests."
A central theme of the later draft, which echoes Mr. Cheney's and General Powell's public testimony, is that a precipitous decline in military spending could "break" the organizational competence of the American military and tempt adversaries like Iraq to seek to dominate critical regions.
Commitment to Israel
The later draft also makes a specific commitment to the security of Israel and to providing Taiwan with modern military equipment. The later version of the planning document, like its predecessor, calls on the four military services to be prepared to fight two major regional wars simultaneously while maintaining sizable military presence in Europe, where the old Soviet-led Warsaw Pact threat has disappeared.
"We must recognize what we are so often told by the leaders of the new democracies -- that continued U.S. presence in Europe is an essential part of the West's overall efforts to maintain stability even in the midst of such dramatic change," it states.
Even with significant adjustments, the later draft is likely to have little impact on the military services. The battle over the document's tone, emphasis and language is more a struggle of ideas about the future of American foreign policy and military strategy.
Potential Threats Reformulated
The later draft, in stating potential threats, retreats to a more narrow formulation, which calls for the United States to prevent "any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests." It adds that such "consolidated, non-democratic control of the resources" in a region "could generate a significant threat to our security."
The February draft had stated that while the United States could not become the world's policeman in the future, "we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations."
The later draft abandons the broad sweep and unilateral tone of the earlier draft and stresses a more narrow point that where possible, the United States will act in concert and cooperation with allies, "but we must maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests."
A specific goal of restraining India's "hegemonic aspirations" in South Asia also was dropped in the later draft in favor of language promoting a reduction of tensions between India and Pakistan.
Some Fine Nuances
In some cases, the nuances of change in the new draft seem to draw distinctions without a difference. For instance, the new document drops the claim of an allied "victory" over the Soviet Union, a claim that former President Mikhail S. Gorbachev had criticized after the earlier document was made public. Instead, the new draft characterizes as a "great success" theoverall discrediting of Communism as an ideology and the collapse of the Soviet empire.
But other changes in emphasis appeared to be driven by a more fundamental recognition that in the post-cold-war era, diplomatic and economic tools will become more effective instruments in international relations while military tools will recede to a lower status.
"Our tools include political and economic measures and others such as security assistance, military-to-military contacts, humanitarian aid and intelligence assistance, as well as security measures to prevent the emergence of a non-democratic aggressor in critical regions," the new draft states.
While the role of the United Nations was left unrecognized in the earlier draft, it is prominently mentioned in the new document, which says, "In this more secure international environment, there will be enhanced opportunities for political, economic, environmental, social and security issues to be resolved through new or revitalized international organizations, including the United Nations, or regional arrangements."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAPHIC: Photos: The Pentagon has revised a draft of its post-cold-war strategy in far more diplomatic language than in an earlier draft. The changes reflect opinions from Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, left (Michael Geissinger for The New York Times), and Gen. Colin L. Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Associated Press) (pg. 14)
Chart: "Superpower Notion Gives Way to 'Collective' Approach"
Key Sections of Pentagon Document on Post-Cold-War Strategy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Draft (Feb. 18, 1992)
1) Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power.
2) The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
3) Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor.
4) While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.
5) We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.
6) In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latest Draft (April 16, 1992)
1) Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source. . .. The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies.
2) One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result.
3) Certain situations like the crisis leading to the Gulf War are likely to engender ad hoc coalitions. We should plan to maximize the value of such coalitions. This may include specialized roles for our forces as well as developing cooperative practices with others.
4) While the United States cannot become the world's policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on internation mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own. Where our allies interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests.
5) The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union.
6) In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel. (pg. 14)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LENGTH: 1660 words
HEADLINE: PENTAGON DROPS GOAL OF BLOCKING NEW SUPERPOWERS
BYLINE: By PATRICK E. TYLER, Special to The New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, May 23
BODY:
The Pentagon has revised a draft of its post-cold-war strategy, dropping language from an earlier document advocating the perpetuation of a one-superpower world in which the United States would work to prevent the rise of any "competitors" to its primacy in Western Europe and East Asia. The new document, approved by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney on Friday, sharpens the American commitment to collective military action as a "key feature" of United States strategy and looks forward to the decline of military investment as the principal means of balancing power among nations.
With far more diplomatic language than in an earlier draft, the new document forsakes any goal of preventing the emergence of "any potential future global competitor" and stresses the importance of strengthening international organizations like the United Nations for resolving disputes.
Input From Cheney
The elimination of what was a dominant theme in the earlier draft reflects high-level input from both Mr. Cheney and Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, senior Pentagon officials said. The new language represents a significant retrenchment and appears to have discredited the idea, expressed in internal Administration foreign policy discussions, that the United States should focus its energies on containing German and Japanese aspirations for regional leadership.
The nearly final draft has been circulating in the Pentagon since April 16. A copy was provided to The New York Times by an Administration official who believes the debate on post-cold-war strategy should be conducted in public.
Earlier Draft Criticized
The earlier draft, dated Feb. 18, was roundly criticized in the White House and in foreign capitals after its contents were disclosed in The New York Times in March. Prepared under the supervision of the Pentagon's Under Secretary for policy, Paul Wolfowitz, the earlier draft implied that a competing power or alliance of nations, bolstered by surging economic strength in Germany or Japan, could arise from these nations and eventually express their rivalry with America through military competition.
To keep this from happening, the earlier draft proposed that the United States build a new order based on "convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."
The new draft reflects an American foreign policy establishment far less threatened by ascending roles for important allies, even leadership by those allies when their interests are more directly affected. Yet a goal of the new draft is to seek to preserve a leading American role in strategic deterrence and regional alliances that will, by their demonstration of military cooperation, deter hostile and non-democratic powers from seeking to dominate important regions.
On Friday, Germany and France announced the formation of an all-European military corps and invited other nations to join. The new security alliance would work with NATO in crises where NATO'S 16 member nations declared an interest, but would also respond independently in crises where NATO interests were not involved.
The later Pentagon draft substantially softens the earlier document's expressed opposition to emerging security alliances in Europe while also emphasizing the need to preserve a key role for NATO, where American power and influence have been pre-eminent.
Striking Change of Tone
With a striking change of tone, the later draft states, "One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying longstanding alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships."
For the first time in the memory of military officials who have drafted policy, the new draft states that while a strong defense to deter potential foes will continue to be an important concept in American security, a leveling of military investment coupled with greater economic and security cooperation will create a more stable world.
"It is not in our interest or those of the other democracies to return to earlier periods in which multiple military powers balanced one another off in what passed for security structures, while regional, or even global peace hung in the balance," it said.
The new document places greater emphasis on international military cooperation, with a special emphasis on cooperation with Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union, as a means of providing "security at lower costs with lower risks for all."
The document, known as the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-99 fiscal years, has never been made public and parts of it are classified. It is a policy that is an internal planning guide for the Pentagon and prepared every two years. As such, it represents "guidance" from the President and the Secretary of Defense to the four military services on how to prepare their budgets and forces in the future.
Additional Refinements Made
A senior Pentagon official, commenting on the April 16 draft, said that it "more carefully reflects" the thinking of Mr. Cheney, but that additional refinements and editing changes have been made since that version was circulated. He said the major elements remain.
Though Mr. Cheney signed the document Friday, it was not clear whether it would be subject to additional comment or revision after circulating to the White House and State Department.
The new draft continues to make the case for the Bush Administration's concept of a "base force" military of 1.6 million uniformed troops and rejects calls in Congress for a greater peace dividend that could be derived from deeper military cuts. And while it strengthens the Administration's commitment to act in concert with allies and through international bodies like the United Nations, it preserves a commitment "to act independently, as necessary, to protect our critical interests."
A central theme of the later draft, which echoes Mr. Cheney's and General Powell's public testimony, is that a precipitous decline in military spending could "break" the organizational competence of the American military and tempt adversaries like Iraq to seek to dominate critical regions.
Commitment to Israel
The later draft also makes a specific commitment to the security of Israel and to providing Taiwan with modern military equipment. The later version of the planning document, like its predecessor, calls on the four military services to be prepared to fight two major regional wars simultaneously while maintaining sizable military presence in Europe, where the old Soviet-led Warsaw Pact threat has disappeared.
"We must recognize what we are so often told by the leaders of the new democracies -- that continued U.S. presence in Europe is an essential part of the West's overall efforts to maintain stability even in the midst of such dramatic change," it states.
Even with significant adjustments, the later draft is likely to have little impact on the military services. The battle over the document's tone, emphasis and language is more a struggle of ideas about the future of American foreign policy and military strategy.
Potential Threats Reformulated
The later draft, in stating potential threats, retreats to a more narrow formulation, which calls for the United States to prevent "any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests." It adds that such "consolidated, non-democratic control of the resources" in a region "could generate a significant threat to our security."
The February draft had stated that while the United States could not become the world's policeman in the future, "we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations."
The later draft abandons the broad sweep and unilateral tone of the earlier draft and stresses a more narrow point that where possible, the United States will act in concert and cooperation with allies, "but we must maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests."
A specific goal of restraining India's "hegemonic aspirations" in South Asia also was dropped in the later draft in favor of language promoting a reduction of tensions between India and Pakistan.
Some Fine Nuances
In some cases, the nuances of change in the new draft seem to draw distinctions without a difference. For instance, the new document drops the claim of an allied "victory" over the Soviet Union, a claim that former President Mikhail S. Gorbachev had criticized after the earlier document was made public. Instead, the new draft characterizes as a "great success" theoverall discrediting of Communism as an ideology and the collapse of the Soviet empire.
But other changes in emphasis appeared to be driven by a more fundamental recognition that in the post-cold-war era, diplomatic and economic tools will become more effective instruments in international relations while military tools will recede to a lower status.
"Our tools include political and economic measures and others such as security assistance, military-to-military contacts, humanitarian aid and intelligence assistance, as well as security measures to prevent the emergence of a non-democratic aggressor in critical regions," the new draft states.
While the role of the United Nations was left unrecognized in the earlier draft, it is prominently mentioned in the new document, which says, "In this more secure international environment, there will be enhanced opportunities for political, economic, environmental, social and security issues to be resolved through new or revitalized international organizations, including the United Nations, or regional arrangements."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAPHIC: Photos: The Pentagon has revised a draft of its post-cold-war strategy in far more diplomatic language than in an earlier draft. The changes reflect opinions from Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, left (Michael Geissinger for The New York Times), and Gen. Colin L. Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Associated Press) (pg. 14)
Chart: "Superpower Notion Gives Way to 'Collective' Approach"
Key Sections of Pentagon Document on Post-Cold-War Strategy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Draft (Feb. 18, 1992)
1) Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power.
2) The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
3) Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor.
4) While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.
5) We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.
6) In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latest Draft (April 16, 1992)
1) Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source. . .. The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies.
2) One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result.
3) Certain situations like the crisis leading to the Gulf War are likely to engender ad hoc coalitions. We should plan to maximize the value of such coalitions. This may include specialized roles for our forces as well as developing cooperative practices with others.
4) While the United States cannot become the world's policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on internation mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own. Where our allies interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests.
5) The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union.
6) In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel. (pg. 14)
DRAFT: THE 1992 DEFENSE PLANNING GUIDANCE
This draft was leaked to the Press in March, 1992 and according to James Mann1, Cheney, Wolofowitz, Libby and Khalilzad all had a hand in creating it.
I re-print here what I found from a NY Times article on Lexis-Nexis:
HEADLINE: Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival'
BYLINE: Special to The New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, March 7
March 8, 1992, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 1; Part 1; Page 14; Column 1; Foreign Desk
LENGTH: 1987 words
BODY:
Following are excerpts from the Pentagon's Feb. 18 draft of the Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999:
This Defense Planning guidance addresses the fundamentally new situation which has been created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression -- the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic "zone of peace."
. . .
DEFENSE STRATEGY OBJECTIVES
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world.
The second objective is to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems. These objectives are especially important in deterring conflicts or threats in regions of security importance to the United States because of their proximity (such as Latin America), or where we have treaty obligations or security commitments to other nations. While the U.S. cannot become the world's "policeman," by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking.
. . .
It is improbable that a global conventional challenge to U.S. and Western security will re-emerge from the Eurasian heartland for many years to come. Even in the highly unlikely event that some future leadership in the former Soviet Union adopted strategic aims of recovering the lost empire or otherwise threatened global interests, the loss of Warsaw Pact allies and the subsequent and continuing dissolution of military capability would make any hope of success require several years or more of strategic and doctrinal re-orientation and force regeneration and redeployment, which in turn could only happen after a lengthy political realignment and re-orientation to authoritarian and aggressive political and economic control. Furthermore, any such political upheaval in or among the states of the former U.S.S.R. would be much more likely to issue in internal or localized hostilities, rather than a concerted strategic effort to marshal capabilities for external expansionism -- the ability to project power beyond their borders.
There are other potential nations or coalitions that could, in the further future, develop strategic aims and a defense posture of region-wide or global domination. Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor. But because we no longer face either a global threat or a hostile, non-democratic power dominating a region critical to our interests, we have the opportunity to meet threats at lower levels and lower costs -- as long as we are prepared to reconstitute additional forces should the need to counter a global threat re-emerge. . . .
REGIONAL THREATS AND RISK
With the demise of a global military threat to U.S. interests, regional military threats, including possible conflicts arising in and from the territory of the former Soviet Union, will be of primary concern to the U.S. in the future. These threats are likely to arise in regions critical to the security of the U.S. and its allies, including Europe, East Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and the territory of the former Soviet Union. We also have important interests at stake in Latin America, Oceania, and Sub-Saharan Africa. In both cases, the U.S. will be concerned with preventing the domination of key regions by a hostile power. . . .
Former Soviet Union
The former Soviet state achieved global reach and power by consolidating control over the resources in the territory of the former U.S.S.R. The best means of assuring that no hostile power is able to consolidate control over the resources within the former Soviet Union is to support its successor states (especially Russia and Ukraine) in their efforts to become peaceful democracies with market-based economies. A democratic partnership with Russia and the other republics would be the best possible outcome for the United States. At the same time, we must also hedge against the possibility that democracy will fail, with the potential that an authoritarian regime bent on regenerating aggressive military power could emerge in Russia, or that similiar regimes in other successor republics could lead to spreading conflict within the former U.S.S.R. or Eastern Europe.
. . .
For the immediate future, key U.S. concerns will be the ability of Russia and the other republics to demilitarize their societies, convert their military industries to civilian production, eliminate or, in the case of Russia, radically reduce their nuclear weapons inventory, maintain firm command and control over nuclear weapons, and prevent leakage of advanced military technology and expertise to other countries.
. . .
Western Europe
NATO continues to provide the indispensable foundation for a stable security environment in Europe. Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs. While the United States supports the goal of European integration, we must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO, particularly the alliance's integrated command structure.
. . .
East-Central Europe
The end of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the Soviet Union have gone a long way toward increasing stability and reducing the military threat to Europe. The ascendancy of democratic reformers in the Russian republic, should this process continue, is likely to create a more benign polcy toward Eastern Europe. However, the U.S. must keep in mind the long history of conflict between the states of Eastern Europe, as well as the potential for conflict between the states of Eastern Europe and those of the former Soviet Union. . . .
The most promising avenues for anchoring the east-central Europeans into the West and for stabilizing their democratic institutions is their participation in Western political and economic organizations. East-central European membership in the (European Community) at the earliest opportunity, and expanded NATO liaison. . . .
The U.S. could also consider extending to the east-central European states security commitments analogous to those we have extended to Persian Gulf states.
. . .
Should there be a re-emergence of a threat from the Soviet Union's successor state, we should plan to defend against such a threat in Eastern Europe, should there be an alliance decision to do so.
East Asia and Pacific
. . . Defense of Korea will likely remain one of the most demanding major regional contingencies. . . . Asia is home to the world's greatest concentration of traditional Communist states, with fundamental values, governance, and policies decidedly at variance with our own and those of our friends and allies.
To buttress the vital political and economic relationships we have along the Pacific rim, we must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area. This will enable the U.S. to continue to contribute to regional security and stability by acting as a balancing force and prevent emergence of a vacuum or a regional hegemon.
. . .
Middle East and Southwest Asia
In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a strong role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.
. . .
We will seek to prevent the further development of a nuclear arms race on the Indian subcontinent. In this regard, we should work to have both countries, India and Pakistan, adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place their nuclear energy facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. We should discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations over the other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean. With regard to Pakistan, a constructive U.S.-Pakistani military relationship will be an important element in our strategy to promote stable security conditions in Southwest Asia and Central Asia. We should therefore endeavor to rebuild our military relationship given acceptable resolution of our nuclear concerns.
. . .
Latin America
Cuba's growing domestic crisis holds out the prospect for positive change, but over the near term, Cuba's tenuous internal situation is likely to generate new challenges to U.S. policy. Consequently, our programs must provide capabilities to meet a variety of Cuban contingencies which could include an attempted repetition of the Mariel boatlift, a military provocation against the U.S. or an American ally, or political instability and internal conflict in Cuba.
LOAD-DATE: March 8, 1992
1James Mann, The Rise of the Vulcans, p. 209, hardover edition.
I re-print here what I found from a NY Times article on Lexis-Nexis:
HEADLINE: Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival'
BYLINE: Special to The New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, March 7
March 8, 1992, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 1; Part 1; Page 14; Column 1; Foreign Desk
LENGTH: 1987 words
BODY:
Following are excerpts from the Pentagon's Feb. 18 draft of the Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999:
This Defense Planning guidance addresses the fundamentally new situation which has been created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression -- the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic "zone of peace."
. . .
DEFENSE STRATEGY OBJECTIVES
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world.
The second objective is to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems. These objectives are especially important in deterring conflicts or threats in regions of security importance to the United States because of their proximity (such as Latin America), or where we have treaty obligations or security commitments to other nations. While the U.S. cannot become the world's "policeman," by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking.
. . .
It is improbable that a global conventional challenge to U.S. and Western security will re-emerge from the Eurasian heartland for many years to come. Even in the highly unlikely event that some future leadership in the former Soviet Union adopted strategic aims of recovering the lost empire or otherwise threatened global interests, the loss of Warsaw Pact allies and the subsequent and continuing dissolution of military capability would make any hope of success require several years or more of strategic and doctrinal re-orientation and force regeneration and redeployment, which in turn could only happen after a lengthy political realignment and re-orientation to authoritarian and aggressive political and economic control. Furthermore, any such political upheaval in or among the states of the former U.S.S.R. would be much more likely to issue in internal or localized hostilities, rather than a concerted strategic effort to marshal capabilities for external expansionism -- the ability to project power beyond their borders.
There are other potential nations or coalitions that could, in the further future, develop strategic aims and a defense posture of region-wide or global domination. Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor. But because we no longer face either a global threat or a hostile, non-democratic power dominating a region critical to our interests, we have the opportunity to meet threats at lower levels and lower costs -- as long as we are prepared to reconstitute additional forces should the need to counter a global threat re-emerge. . . .
REGIONAL THREATS AND RISK
With the demise of a global military threat to U.S. interests, regional military threats, including possible conflicts arising in and from the territory of the former Soviet Union, will be of primary concern to the U.S. in the future. These threats are likely to arise in regions critical to the security of the U.S. and its allies, including Europe, East Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and the territory of the former Soviet Union. We also have important interests at stake in Latin America, Oceania, and Sub-Saharan Africa. In both cases, the U.S. will be concerned with preventing the domination of key regions by a hostile power. . . .
Former Soviet Union
The former Soviet state achieved global reach and power by consolidating control over the resources in the territory of the former U.S.S.R. The best means of assuring that no hostile power is able to consolidate control over the resources within the former Soviet Union is to support its successor states (especially Russia and Ukraine) in their efforts to become peaceful democracies with market-based economies. A democratic partnership with Russia and the other republics would be the best possible outcome for the United States. At the same time, we must also hedge against the possibility that democracy will fail, with the potential that an authoritarian regime bent on regenerating aggressive military power could emerge in Russia, or that similiar regimes in other successor republics could lead to spreading conflict within the former U.S.S.R. or Eastern Europe.
. . .
For the immediate future, key U.S. concerns will be the ability of Russia and the other republics to demilitarize their societies, convert their military industries to civilian production, eliminate or, in the case of Russia, radically reduce their nuclear weapons inventory, maintain firm command and control over nuclear weapons, and prevent leakage of advanced military technology and expertise to other countries.
. . .
Western Europe
NATO continues to provide the indispensable foundation for a stable security environment in Europe. Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs. While the United States supports the goal of European integration, we must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO, particularly the alliance's integrated command structure.
. . .
East-Central Europe
The end of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the Soviet Union have gone a long way toward increasing stability and reducing the military threat to Europe. The ascendancy of democratic reformers in the Russian republic, should this process continue, is likely to create a more benign polcy toward Eastern Europe. However, the U.S. must keep in mind the long history of conflict between the states of Eastern Europe, as well as the potential for conflict between the states of Eastern Europe and those of the former Soviet Union. . . .
The most promising avenues for anchoring the east-central Europeans into the West and for stabilizing their democratic institutions is their participation in Western political and economic organizations. East-central European membership in the (European Community) at the earliest opportunity, and expanded NATO liaison. . . .
The U.S. could also consider extending to the east-central European states security commitments analogous to those we have extended to Persian Gulf states.
. . .
Should there be a re-emergence of a threat from the Soviet Union's successor state, we should plan to defend against such a threat in Eastern Europe, should there be an alliance decision to do so.
East Asia and Pacific
. . . Defense of Korea will likely remain one of the most demanding major regional contingencies. . . . Asia is home to the world's greatest concentration of traditional Communist states, with fundamental values, governance, and policies decidedly at variance with our own and those of our friends and allies.
To buttress the vital political and economic relationships we have along the Pacific rim, we must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area. This will enable the U.S. to continue to contribute to regional security and stability by acting as a balancing force and prevent emergence of a vacuum or a regional hegemon.
. . .
Middle East and Southwest Asia
In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a strong role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.
. . .
We will seek to prevent the further development of a nuclear arms race on the Indian subcontinent. In this regard, we should work to have both countries, India and Pakistan, adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place their nuclear energy facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. We should discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations over the other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean. With regard to Pakistan, a constructive U.S.-Pakistani military relationship will be an important element in our strategy to promote stable security conditions in Southwest Asia and Central Asia. We should therefore endeavor to rebuild our military relationship given acceptable resolution of our nuclear concerns.
. . .
Latin America
Cuba's growing domestic crisis holds out the prospect for positive change, but over the near term, Cuba's tenuous internal situation is likely to generate new challenges to U.S. policy. Consequently, our programs must provide capabilities to meet a variety of Cuban contingencies which could include an attempted repetition of the Mariel boatlift, a military provocation against the U.S. or an American ally, or political instability and internal conflict in Cuba.
LOAD-DATE: March 8, 1992
1James Mann, The Rise of the Vulcans, p. 209, hardover edition.
A LITTLE GOSSIP
It seems that Paul Wolfowitz is sweetening things up for his little love bunny:
'Outrage' at World Bank Over Colleague's Generous Salary
By Al Kamen
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A19
The World Bank rank and file were most upset by our recent column noting that Shaha Riza, linked romantically with bank President Paul Wolfowitz, got some curiously hefty raises upon being detailed to work at the State Department -- but remaining on the bank's payroll.
Riza, a senior communications officer for the Middle East and North Africa region, was promoted to a higher-paying position on Sept. 19, 2005, the day she left for Foggy Bottom, without any of the required open competition for the job, the association said. She also got a pay raise more than double the amount allowed by the rules, the e-mail said, followed by another allegedly overly large raise.
Before these bumps up, Riza had been earning $132,660. She's now paid $193,590. (Correction: We said last week that this figure was about $7,000 a year more than what is paid to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for whom Riza now works. That now appears to be very misleading. Riza's reported pay is net, we're told, and Rice's is gross. So Riza takes home a whole lot more than Rice. We regret the error.)
'Outrage' at World Bank Over Colleague's Generous Salary
By Al Kamen
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A19
The World Bank rank and file were most upset by our recent column noting that Shaha Riza, linked romantically with bank President Paul Wolfowitz, got some curiously hefty raises upon being detailed to work at the State Department -- but remaining on the bank's payroll.
Riza, a senior communications officer for the Middle East and North Africa region, was promoted to a higher-paying position on Sept. 19, 2005, the day she left for Foggy Bottom, without any of the required open competition for the job, the association said. She also got a pay raise more than double the amount allowed by the rules, the e-mail said, followed by another allegedly overly large raise.
Before these bumps up, Riza had been earning $132,660. She's now paid $193,590. (Correction: We said last week that this figure was about $7,000 a year more than what is paid to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for whom Riza now works. That now appears to be very misleading. Riza's reported pay is net, we're told, and Rice's is gross. So Riza takes home a whole lot more than Rice. We regret the error.)
DRAWDOWN (AGAIN)
After reading Klein's article below, I poked around at TIME magazine and found this article:
America's Broken-Down Army
By MARK THOMPSON
Thursday, Apr. 05, 2007
In the field, manpower shortages are everywhere.
Captain David Eastburn's artillery company—part of the 2nd Infantry Division—arrived for its second tour in Iraq with only 72% of its personnel slots filled. "It just puts extra pressure on us," Eastburn, 30, says of his troops during a patrol in southeastern Baghdad. "They have to work longer, harder to make up for the lack of personnel." After training to fire the artillery's big guns at foes 15 miles away, his unit is pulling infantry duty. "I love the Army," the 12-year veteran, a native of Columbus, Ohio, says, "but I hate this war."
Dedicating Air Force personnel to Army missions is hurting the Air Force, its leaders have told Congress. "The Air Force doesn't guard prisoners. We don't have prisoners," Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told Congress Feb. 28. "The Army guards prisoners." But the Air Force is guarding them now in Iraq because the Army doesn't have enough troops.
America's Broken-Down Army
By MARK THOMPSON
Thursday, Apr. 05, 2007
In the field, manpower shortages are everywhere.
Captain David Eastburn's artillery company—part of the 2nd Infantry Division—arrived for its second tour in Iraq with only 72% of its personnel slots filled. "It just puts extra pressure on us," Eastburn, 30, says of his troops during a patrol in southeastern Baghdad. "They have to work longer, harder to make up for the lack of personnel." After training to fire the artillery's big guns at foes 15 miles away, his unit is pulling infantry duty. "I love the Army," the 12-year veteran, a native of Columbus, Ohio, says, "but I hate this war."
Dedicating Air Force personnel to Army missions is hurting the Air Force, its leaders have told Congress. "The Air Force doesn't guard prisoners. We don't have prisoners," Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told Congress Feb. 28. "The Army guards prisoners." But the Air Force is guarding them now in Iraq because the Army doesn't have enough troops.
JOE KLEIN ADDS A LITTLE MORE FUEL
Klein is a so-so reporter, and you can ask Atrios if you don't believe me, but I think he's finally catching on to the Worst President Ever.
An Administration's Epic Collapse
By JOE KLEIN
Thursday, Apr. 05, 2007
(excerpts)
A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration.
The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons--precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).
An Administration's Epic Collapse
By JOE KLEIN
Thursday, Apr. 05, 2007
(excerpts)
A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration.
The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons--precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).
A CYNICAL PUBLIC
The Pew Research Center for People and the Press has a new survey about people's trust of news sources on the Iraq War:
The military brass should be very worried about the loss of belief in the military's veracity about Iraq. It will be harder to have an all-volunteer military if too mnay don't trust the military. As usual these days, there's a significant partisan split in attitudes:
Four years into the Iraq war, most Americans say they have little or no confidence inthe information they receive – from either the military or the media – about how things are going on the ground. Fewer than half (46%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence that the U.S. military is giving the public an accurate picture of the situation, and even fewer (38%) are confident in the press’s portrayal of the war.
In March 2003 – in the first week of U.S. troop deployment in Iraq – fully 85% said they had at least a fair amount of confidence in military information, and nearly as many, 81%, were confident that the press was giving an accurate picture of the war.
On the negative side, 21% now say they have no confidence in military reports, while 27% have no confidence in press reports on the war. At the start of the war, virtually nobody expressed such views.
The military brass should be very worried about the loss of belief in the military's veracity about Iraq. It will be harder to have an all-volunteer military if too mnay don't trust the military. As usual these days, there's a significant partisan split in attitudes:
O'REILLY COMES CLOSE...
to completely losing it. Crooks & Liars has the video! I have to give Geraldo Rivera credit for going toe-to-toe with the Falafel Bully.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
CHENEY == WAR CRIMINAL
First, let's read what Cheney told Fats Limbaugh today (4/5/07):
Now, we get the truth from the WaPo (Via DU):
THE VICE PRESIDENT: ... Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.
Now, we get the truth from the WaPo (Via DU):
Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A01
Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.
The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information.
...a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.
The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff [NOTE: Scooter Libby] in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.
...the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials... The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda...
...the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office -- and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war -- were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work.
Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda in early 2004, after the U.S. invasion.
ANOTHER REPORTER ON ST. McCAIN
(Via Democratic Underground)
This is part of a Q & A with Allen Pizzey on 4/5/07:
Brian Montopoli: It seems that some reporters, including yourself and CNN's Michael Ware, have really taken umbrage at John McCain's recent comments, essentially saying that there are a lot of neighborhoods where you can walk around relatively safely. Is it fair to say that that really sort of bothered reporters?
Allen Pizzey: Yes. It's disgraceful for a man seeking highest office, I think, to talk utter rubbish. And that is utter rubbish. It's electoral propaganda. It is simply not true. No one in his right mind who has been to Baghdad believes that story.
This is part of a Q & A with Allen Pizzey on 4/5/07:
Brian Montopoli: It seems that some reporters, including yourself and CNN's Michael Ware, have really taken umbrage at John McCain's recent comments, essentially saying that there are a lot of neighborhoods where you can walk around relatively safely. Is it fair to say that that really sort of bothered reporters?
Allen Pizzey: Yes. It's disgraceful for a man seeking highest office, I think, to talk utter rubbish. And that is utter rubbish. It's electoral propaganda. It is simply not true. No one in his right mind who has been to Baghdad believes that story.
HIATT VERSUS BAKER
Fred Hiatt is a Bush apologist and all-around toadie for the neo-cons. James Baker is an established "old school" conservative and was co-chair of the Iraq Study Group. Hiatt's editorials get read with approval on-air by Sean Hannity, Baker's op-ed don't even get mentioned.
Hiatt reacts to Pelosi's Syria visit by condemning it:
Hiatt reacts to Pelosi's Syria visit by condemning it:
"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.James Baker has a more realistic approach to Syria:
Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri.
The president should beef up regional diplomacy, particularly that involving Syria and Iran, by establishing an Iraq International Support Group to encourage the participation of countries that have a critical stake in preventing Iraq from falling into chaos. He should move to further engage all parties to seek a comprehensive peace between Arabs and Israelis.
THE INSURANCE COMPANIES GET IT
New combatant against global warming: insurance industry
The world's second-largest industry, worried about losses related to climate change, offers incentives to 'go green.'
By Ron Scherer
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 13, 2006 edition
(EXCERPTS)
NEW YORK – Insurance companies, who like to stay out of the limelight, are becoming leading business protagonists in the assault on global warming.
• Next week, Travelers, the giant insurance firm, will offer owners of hybrid cars in California a 10 percent discount. It already offers the discount in 41 other states and has cornered a large share of the market.
• This fall, Fireman's Fund will cut premiums for "green" buildings that save energy and emit fewer greenhouse gases. When it pays off claims, it will direct customers to environmentally friendly products to replace roofs, windows, and water heaters.
• In January, Marsh, the largest insurance broker in the US, will offer a program with Yale University to teach corporate board members about their fiduciary responsibility to manage exposure to climate change.
"Climate change represents an ever- increasing risk, a risk far too great to ignore," says Clement Booth, a member of the Board of Management at Allianz AG, one of the world's largest insurance firms.
The world's second-largest industry, worried about losses related to climate change, offers incentives to 'go green.'
By Ron Scherer
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 13, 2006 edition
(EXCERPTS)
NEW YORK – Insurance companies, who like to stay out of the limelight, are becoming leading business protagonists in the assault on global warming.
• Next week, Travelers, the giant insurance firm, will offer owners of hybrid cars in California a 10 percent discount. It already offers the discount in 41 other states and has cornered a large share of the market.
• This fall, Fireman's Fund will cut premiums for "green" buildings that save energy and emit fewer greenhouse gases. When it pays off claims, it will direct customers to environmentally friendly products to replace roofs, windows, and water heaters.
• In January, Marsh, the largest insurance broker in the US, will offer a program with Yale University to teach corporate board members about their fiduciary responsibility to manage exposure to climate change.
"Climate change represents an ever- increasing risk, a risk far too great to ignore," says Clement Booth, a member of the Board of Management at Allianz AG, one of the world's largest insurance firms.
THE WAR WHORES
Wingnut World is saddened because the Iranians have released the British captives. Glenn Greenwald, as usual, has a fine dissection of these maniacs and the Newshounds have a nice report of Insannity getting bested on an H&C episode.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
MARS, WINGNUTS & GLOBAL WARMING
The wingnuts sometimes point to the fact that Mars is warming yet there are no greenhouse gas emissions there to account for the change in temperature. Now, we have some evidence of what the culprits are: Wind & Dust.
Global warming hits Mars too: study
PARIS (AFP) - Global warming could be heating Mars four times faster than Earth due to a mutually reinforcing interplay of wind-swept dust and changes in reflected heat from the Sun, according to a study released Wednesday.
Glistening Martian dust lying on the ground reflects the Sun's light -- and its heat -- back into space, a phenomenon called albedo.
But when this reddish dust is churned up by violent winds, the storm-ravaged surface loses its reflective qualities and more of the Sun's heat is absorbed into the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise.
The study, published on Thursday by the British journal Nature, shows for the first time that these variations not only result from the storms but help cause them too. Its authors, led by Lori Fenton, a planetary scientist at NASA, describe the phenomenon as a "positive feedback" system -- in other words, a vicious circle, in which changes in albedo strengthen the winds which in turn kicks up more dust, in turn adding to the warming.
Global warming hits Mars too: study
PARIS (AFP) - Global warming could be heating Mars four times faster than Earth due to a mutually reinforcing interplay of wind-swept dust and changes in reflected heat from the Sun, according to a study released Wednesday.
Glistening Martian dust lying on the ground reflects the Sun's light -- and its heat -- back into space, a phenomenon called albedo.
But when this reddish dust is churned up by violent winds, the storm-ravaged surface loses its reflective qualities and more of the Sun's heat is absorbed into the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise.
The study, published on Thursday by the British journal Nature, shows for the first time that these variations not only result from the storms but help cause them too. Its authors, led by Lori Fenton, a planetary scientist at NASA, describe the phenomenon as a "positive feedback" system -- in other words, a vicious circle, in which changes in albedo strengthen the winds which in turn kicks up more dust, in turn adding to the warming.
FROM JOSH MARSHALL
(April 04, 2007 -- 05:52 PM EST // link)
Far too bleak for snark.
From the Times of London ...
A newborn baby was one of at least 14 children and adults killed when a suicide bomber detonated a lorry laden with explosives close to a primary school in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk yesterday.
The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress.
-- Josh Marshall
Far too bleak for snark.
From the Times of London ...
A newborn baby was one of at least 14 children and adults killed when a suicide bomber detonated a lorry laden with explosives close to a primary school in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk yesterday.
The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress.
-- Josh Marshall
MORE LIES FROM THE WINGNUTS
(Via Avedon at Atrio's place)
Little Thom catches both Orrin Hatch and Fats Limbaugh lying about former US attorney Carol Lam. They each said she was formerly a campaign manager for Bill Clinton. Both are WRONG.
Little Thom catches both Orrin Hatch and Fats Limbaugh lying about former US attorney Carol Lam. They each said she was formerly a campaign manager for Bill Clinton. Both are WRONG.
GIULIANI == TOAST
I don't think there's any point in Rudy G. staying in the race because a huge part of the GOP base won't vote for him:
Land would sit out Giuliani-Clinton race
Florida Baptist Witness
Published March 22, 2007
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)—If the choice for president in 2008 is between Rudi Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, Richard Land says he'll skip that portion of the ballot.
The president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission made the comments March 9 during an appearance on the "Albert Mohler Radio Program," in which he and guest host Russell D. Moore discussed the presidential race.
Land has told several media outlets in recent days that Giuliani's past—he is on his third marriage and was involved in a particularly messy second divorce—and his positions on social issues would prevent most evangelicals and Southern Baptists from supporting him.
Land would sit out Giuliani-Clinton race
Florida Baptist Witness
Published March 22, 2007
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)—If the choice for president in 2008 is between Rudi Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, Richard Land says he'll skip that portion of the ballot.
The president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission made the comments March 9 during an appearance on the "Albert Mohler Radio Program," in which he and guest host Russell D. Moore discussed the presidential race.
Land has told several media outlets in recent days that Giuliani's past—he is on his third marriage and was involved in a particularly messy second divorce—and his positions on social issues would prevent most evangelicals and Southern Baptists from supporting him.
QUIZ
Below are three pictures from Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria. Guess which one was used by Little Green Footballs?
If you answered "NONE OF THE ABOVE," you are correct. LGF chose to use these pictures from Nancy's visit to a mosque to prove that she was appeasing Muslims extremists:
If you answered "NONE OF THE ABOVE," you are correct. LGF chose to use these pictures from Nancy's visit to a mosque to prove that she was appeasing Muslims extremists:
FATS VS. REALITY
Limbaugh made an astonishing claim today:
I used Lexis-Nexis to look into this and as usual, the truth is far removed from Fats' claim. (BTW, the link on Fats' site to the Daily Mail article doesn't work.)
One would think that this is official educational policy or that it was widespread. In fact, it is neither. The Express lets us know that it is not official policy:
Intead of a widespread phenomena, the Daily Post lets us know the report only found ONLY ONE SCHOOL in which the Holocaust was not taught:
"The Brits are not teaching the Holocaust because there are Muslim students in there who are Holocaust deniers, and they don't want them to be offended! "
I used Lexis-Nexis to look into this and as usual, the truth is far removed from Fats' claim. (BTW, the link on Fats' site to the Daily Mail article doesn't work.)
One would think that this is official educational policy or that it was widespread. In fact, it is neither. The Express lets us know that it is not official policy:
The Express
April 2, 2007 Monday
U.K. 1st Edition
SECTION: NEWS; 7
LENGTH: 377 words
HEADLINE: Why teachers drop Holocaust lessons
BYLINE: By Padraic Flanagan
Education Secretary Alan Johnson has ruled that subjects including the Holocaust are "untouchable" and must be retained. And Lord Janner, chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said: "Not only are schools required to teach about the Holocaust, it is hugely important that they do so."
Intead of a widespread phenomena, the Daily Post lets us know the report only found ONLY ONE SCHOOL in which the Holocaust was not taught:
Daily Post (Liverpool)
April 2, 2007, Monday
North Wales Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 404 words
HEADLINE: BRITAIN: Schools ignore the Holocaust;
'Teachers don't want to cause offence'
BYLINE: TIM ROSS
The researchers gave the example of one history department in a secondary school in a northern city which decided not to teach the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework.
The report said the teachers feared confronting "anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils".
WHY THE WINGNUTS HURT AMERICA
The April 2007 Mckinsey Quarterly has a brief article that applies to more than the business world:
The wingnuts deliberately avoid spreading accurate information and they are allergic to careful scrutiny.
See the world through probabilities
Faced with this basic uncertainty, wise managers approach problems as interlocking probabilities. Their objective is not to find keys to guaranteed success but to improve the odds through a thoughtful consideration of factors.
[SNIP]
...the goal should be gathering accurate information and subjecting it to careful scrutiny in order to improve the odds of success.
The wingnuts deliberately avoid spreading accurate information and they are allergic to careful scrutiny.
A NICE RIPOSTE!
Joan Walsh of Salon writes about how she pushed back against the "moral values" gasbags:
Here's the transcript from MSNBC:
I leave for the game wondering if I was intemperate last night on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," after producers played footage of Newt saying a "San Francisco liberal" like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be visiting Syria.
I got off a line I'd actually decided before the show not to use: I said I didn't think "San Francisco liberals" such as Pelosi or myself should be lectured by the likes of a "serial adulterer from Georgia" such as Gingrich.
Scarborough and Pat Buchanan got rather agitated, but I think it was fair: I'm proud to be a San Francisco liberal, embracing San Francisco values -- tolerance, social justice, diversity, environmentalism -- but people like Gingrich use the term as code for gay rights, gay marriage (which I also support and defend, but the complexities of the argument don't always make good sound bites) and other supposed left-coast lifestyle extremes. So I think Gingrich's
serial adultery should prohibit him from using loaded moral shorthand with his conservative base -- but I don't think Scarborough agreed.
Here's the transcript from MSNBC:
WALSH: I‘m proud. Hey, I‘m proud...
SCARBOROUGH: You‘re proud?
WALSH: ... to be a San Francisco liberal. I‘m proud to be a San Francisco liberal. And I‘m not going to have Nancy Pelosi lectured by the likes of Newt Gingrich, the serial adulterer from Georgia. I mean, San Francisco liberal is a slur. It stands for a certain kind of personal values, and it‘s outrageous. Plus, you guys, Frank Wolf, a wonderful Republican, went to Syria, as well. It‘s not just Nancy Pelosi. People are getting sick of the lack of diplomacy in this administration, and they are going to see with their own eyes...
BUCHANAN: But hold it. Now, Joan...WALSH: ... because they‘re tired of lies...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Before you get in, she was talking about slurs. I just want
to clarify this. So “San Francisco liberal” is a slur, serial adulterer—is
that...
(LAUGHTER)
WALSH: I‘m responding in kind. No, I‘m not pretending it‘s not a slur. I‘m just saying that Newt Gingrich tries to take the moral high road...
SCARBOROUGH: OK...
BUCHANAN: But Joan...
(CROSSTALK)
THE ANCIENTS & THE FETUS
I have written before that the Old Testament, specifically Exodus 21:22, does not consider abortion to be murder. Prof. John M. Riddle's book, Eve's Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West, makes the claim that this attitude was common in the Middle East.
From pages 70-71, hardover edition:
From all indications, the ancient peoples of West Asia and Egypt believed that life began at birth. There is not even a hint that the ancients regarded a fetus as a human persona. Quite the contrary. In fact, the property rights of a fetus were recognized and ascribed to the father of the family. A Sumerian law (ca. 1800 B.C.E.) reads:
[SNIP]
Sumerian, Lipit-istar, and Middle Assyrian laws maintain the same principles as those in the Hammurabic code (except that the penalty in the Middle Assyrian law is death for taking the life of a fetus by delivering a blow to the mother).29 The latter is the only law that could be said to protect the fetus itself, but that interpretation would be in-consistent with the practice of exposure or infanticide. A deformed, abnormal, or even unwanted child could be killed without legal sanction. The law's purpose may have been to protect a community from being robbed of a healthy child.30More likely, the laws protected a male's right to have a child he sired.
FOOTNOTES:
23 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament, 2d ed., ed. J. B. Pritchard (Princeton, 1955), p. 525 (hereinafter cited as ANET).
24 Hammurabi, Laws, 209-214 (Pritchard ed., p. 162).
28For a review of the ancient West Asian laws, see Stephen D. Ricks, "Abortion," in Anchor Bible Dictionary 1 (1992): 31-32.
29 Ibid., p. 31;ANET, pp. 525 (Sumerian Laws 4.1 2), 181, 184-185 (Middle Assyrian 50).
30 Ricks, "Abortion," p. 31; Emiel Eyben, "Family Planning in Graeco-Roman Antiquity," Ancient Society 11 (1980-1981): 81 if.
From pages 70-71, hardover edition:
From all indications, the ancient peoples of West Asia and Egypt believed that life began at birth. There is not even a hint that the ancients regarded a fetus as a human persona. Quite the contrary. In fact, the property rights of a fetus were recognized and ascribed to the father of the family. A Sumerian law (ca. 1800 B.C.E.) reads:
If (a man accidentally) buffeted a woman of free-citizen class and caused her to have a miscarriage, he must pay ten shekels of silver. If (a man deliberately) struck a woman of free-citizen class and caused her to have a miscarriage, he must pay one-third mina of silver.23One-third mina is twice the value of ten shekels, thus a deliberate act is a doubly egregious offense. Hammurabi's laws (1728–1686 B.C.E.) permitted the same recovery (ten shekels) for one causing a miscarriage, and five shekels for a commoner's daughter. If a slave's owner caused a slave to lose a fetus through a miscarriage, he was fined two shekels.24
[SNIP]
Sumerian, Lipit-istar, and Middle Assyrian laws maintain the same principles as those in the Hammurabic code (except that the penalty in the Middle Assyrian law is death for taking the life of a fetus by delivering a blow to the mother).29 The latter is the only law that could be said to protect the fetus itself, but that interpretation would be in-consistent with the practice of exposure or infanticide. A deformed, abnormal, or even unwanted child could be killed without legal sanction. The law's purpose may have been to protect a community from being robbed of a healthy child.30More likely, the laws protected a male's right to have a child he sired.
FOOTNOTES:
23 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament, 2d ed., ed. J. B. Pritchard (Princeton, 1955), p. 525 (hereinafter cited as ANET).
24 Hammurabi, Laws, 209-214 (Pritchard ed., p. 162).
28For a review of the ancient West Asian laws, see Stephen D. Ricks, "Abortion," in Anchor Bible Dictionary 1 (1992): 31-32.
29 Ibid., p. 31;ANET, pp. 525 (Sumerian Laws 4.1 2), 181, 184-185 (Middle Assyrian 50).
30 Ricks, "Abortion," p. 31; Emiel Eyben, "Family Planning in Graeco-Roman Antiquity," Ancient Society 11 (1980-1981): 81 if.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
MORE GOP WASTE & INCOMPETENCE
I neglected to post this before but it's a great example of the criminal incompetence of the Bush regime.
KBR spent millions getting $82,100 worth of LPG into Iraq
By DAVID IVANOVICH
03/15/2005
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Iraq needed fuel. Halliburton Co. was ordered to get it there - quick. So the Houston-based contractor charged the Pentagon $27.5 million to ship $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel.
"It is illogical that it would cost $27,514,833 to deliver $82,100 in LPG fuel," officials from the Defense Contract Audit Agency noted in the report.
KBR spent millions getting $82,100 worth of LPG into Iraq
By DAVID IVANOVICH
03/15/2005
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Iraq needed fuel. Halliburton Co. was ordered to get it there - quick. So the Houston-based contractor charged the Pentagon $27.5 million to ship $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel.
"It is illogical that it would cost $27,514,833 to deliver $82,100 in LPG fuel," officials from the Defense Contract Audit Agency noted in the report.
AN INSIDER SPILLS THE BEANS
(Via ThinkProgress)
Garance Franke-Ruta of TAPPED goes to a book party and returns with this gem from Grover Norquist:
Garance Franke-Ruta of TAPPED goes to a book party and returns with this gem from Grover Norquist:
The base isn't interested in Iraq. The base is for Bush. If Bush said tomorrow, we're leaving in two months, there would be no revolt.
ANDREA MITCHELL, GEN. PETRAEUS & THE GOP SENATORS
I found this in the comment section of my post about my e-mail to LTC Aberle:
ThinkProgress found Mitchell's correction:
Sir, Ms. Mitchell misspoke about the caucus, we have contacted her and she agreed and will be making a correction to her statement.The video teleconference Gen Petraeus participated in was for a bi-partisan group of congressmen arranged by the Defense Department Legislative Affairs office. http://www.defenselink.mil/la/
The office cited (OCLL) is the Army equivalent of the DOD office.
LTC Joseph Yoswa
Deputy, Public Affairs Officer
Commanding General Multi-National Force - Iraq
# posted by LTC Joseph Yoswa : 3:50 AM
ThinkProgress found Mitchell's correction:
Andrea Mitchell (sort of) issues a correction. Salon.com’s Joan Walsh highlights a strange moment on tonight’s Hardball: “Without mentioning what had been discussed on Sunday, Matthews asked Mitchell, rather out of the blue, to talk about what Petraeus was telling senators. ‘It’s a good thing you bring that up,’ Mitchell replied, and she went on to say that Petraeus recently held a ‘closed circuit briefing’ for senators of both parties, ‘Democrats as well as Republicans.’
THE BULLSHIT EXPRESS
Do YOU walk around your local farmer's market dressed like this?
“Every time the government announces anything — that the electricity is good or the water supply is good — the insurgents come to attack it immediately,” said Abu Samer, 49, who would give only his nickname out of concern for his safety.
The Iraqis know better:
By KIRK SEMPLE
Published: April 3, 2007
Published: April 3, 2007
NY Times
(excerpts)
“What are they talking about?” Ali Jassim Faiyad, the owner of an electrical appliances shop in the market, said Monday. “The security procedures were abnormal!”
“They paralyzed the market when they came,” Mr. Faiyad said during an interview in his shop on Monday. “This was only for the media.”
“They asked about our conditions, and we told them the situation was bad,” said Aboud Sharif Kadhoury, 63, who peddles prayer rugs at a sidewalk stand.
Ali Youssef, 39, who sells glassware from a sidewalk stand down the block from Mr. Kadhoury, recalled: “Everybody complained to them. We told them we were harmed.” “This area here is very dangerous,” continued Mr. Youssef, who lost his shop in the February attack. “They cannot secure it.”
Told about Mr. McCain’s assessment of the market, Abu Samer, a kitchenware and clothing wholesaler, scoffed: “He is just using this visit for publicity. He is just using it for himself. They’ll just take a photo of him at our market and they will just show it in the United States. He will win in America and we will have nothing.”
Several merchants said Monday that the Americans’ visit might have only made the market a more inviting target for insurgents.
“Every time the government announces anything — that the electricity is good or the water supply is good — the insurgents come to attack it immediately,” said Abu Samer, 49, who would give only his nickname out of concern for his safety.
Last March, Laura Logan of CBS News made a claim similar to Mr. Samer's:
You don't think that I haven't been to the U.S. military and the State Department and the embassy and asked them over and over again, let's see the good stories, show us some of the good things that are going on? Oh, sorry, we can't take to you that school project, because if you put that on TV, they're going to be attacked about, the teachers are going to be killed, the children might be victims of attack. Oh, sorry, we can't show this reconstruction project because then that's going to expose it to sabotage. And the last time we had journalists down here, the plant was attacked.
WINGNUT FLAMERS
Since the congressional Democrats passed bills limiting our Iraq Fiasco, some of the radio wingnuts have been making inflammatory comments. Insannity regularly claims that the Democrats are "stabbing our troops in the back" and "emboldening our enemies." Last week, Foamer Levin said that "John Murtha is the current Benedict Arnold."
It seems they are pandering to the GOP's "Freeper" base and probably some people who are simply ignorant. Here's a great example of the latter: a caller to the Fats Limbaugh show said Fats was a modern-day Edward R. Murrow!
It seems they are pandering to the GOP's "Freeper" base and probably some people who are simply ignorant. Here's a great example of the latter: a caller to the Fats Limbaugh show said Fats was a modern-day Edward R. Murrow!
A CLASSROOM ONE MORNING IN SEPTEMBER
Poster BfGrn on AOL found this video about 9/11/01/. Worth a look just to remember how incompetent Pres. Fredo really is.
I FIND ANOTHER "WOLFIE"
"If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities. "
- Pres. Fredo, 8/31/06, Remarks, Salt Lake City, UT
- Pres. Fredo, 8/31/06, Remarks, Salt Lake City, UT
OVER 17 YEARS AGO...
Fats Limbaugh was pretty much the same POS that he is today. (From Lexis-Nexis, so no link)
SOURCE:
The New York Times
December 16, 1990, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
NAME: Rush Limbaugh
SECTION: Section 6; Page 58; Column 1; Magazine Desk
LENGTH: 4400 words
HEADLINE: The Rush Hours
BYLINE: Lewis Grossberger, who was a columnist for 7 Days, is the author of "Read My Clips: Media Person Cuts Up," to be published by Random House in the Spring.
For in that universe are Limbaugh's favorite enemies: black activists, gay activists, abortion rights activists, homeless activists, animal rights activists, militant vegetarians, environmentalists, artists with erotic tendencies and, above all, "the NOW Gang." Such people he sees as crackpot oddball weirdos yet somehow, at the same time, a growing menace.
SOURCE:
The New York Times
December 16, 1990, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
NAME: Rush Limbaugh
SECTION: Section 6; Page 58; Column 1; Magazine Desk
LENGTH: 4400 words
HEADLINE: The Rush Hours
BYLINE: Lewis Grossberger, who was a columnist for 7 Days, is the author of "Read My Clips: Media Person Cuts Up," to be published by Random House in the Spring.
Monday, April 02, 2007
ANOTHER COST OF THE IRAQ WAR
In addition to stretching our ground forces thin, the Iraq War is also hurting our efforts in other areas.
China's Spying Overwhelms U.S. Counterintelligence (Update2)
By Jeff Bliss
April 2 (Bloomberg)
For every person caught and accused of passing U.S. military and trade secrets to China, they say, scores of others go undetected. Taking advantage of an outmanned counterintelligence effort drained and distracted by the wars in Iraq and against al-Qaeda, current and former officials say, China has systematically managed to gain sensitive information on U.S. nuclear bombs and ship and missile designs.
``Iraq and the struggle with terrorism are sucking resources across the board,'' says Joel Brenner, the top counterintelligence official in the office of Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell. Meanwhile, ``the Chinese are really making a run at us.''
While the Federal Bureau of Investigation tripled the size of its China unit in 2001, plans for further expansion were scotched when the Iraq war began, says Rudy Guerin, a China expert who retired from the bureau last year.
China's Spying Overwhelms U.S. Counterintelligence (Update2)
By Jeff Bliss
April 2 (Bloomberg)
For every person caught and accused of passing U.S. military and trade secrets to China, they say, scores of others go undetected. Taking advantage of an outmanned counterintelligence effort drained and distracted by the wars in Iraq and against al-Qaeda, current and former officials say, China has systematically managed to gain sensitive information on U.S. nuclear bombs and ship and missile designs.
``Iraq and the struggle with terrorism are sucking resources across the board,'' says Joel Brenner, the top counterintelligence official in the office of Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell. Meanwhile, ``the Chinese are really making a run at us.''
While the Federal Bureau of Investigation tripled the size of its China unit in 2001, plans for further expansion were scotched when the Iraq war began, says Rudy Guerin, a China expert who retired from the bureau last year.
MORE ON PETRAEUS
I sent an e-mail to a military media person about Petraeus & the GOP senators and this is the reply I got:
Mr. J. ,
I do not have that information. Please contact the U.S. Legislative Liaison Office in Washington D.C. with your query. They may be able to help you.
Regards,
LTC Aberle
LTC Josslyn L. Aberle
Chief, Media Operations Division
Public Affairs Office Multi-National Corps-Iraq
DSN (military land line): 318-822-2324; Commercial from the U.S.: (703)343-8999 then dial 822-2324; VOIP: 243-4347Iraqna (mobile): 0790-192-7471; Iraqna from the U.S.:011-964-790-192-7471
-----Original Message-----
From: steven j [mailto:radamisto99@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 4:15 AMTo: Aberle Josslyn L LTC MNC-I PAO Chief Media Relations
Subject: Gen. Petraeus and the Senate GOP caucus
Dear Col. Aberle, I recently learned that Gen. Petraeus had a private meeting with the Senate GOP caucus.
Would you please let me know:
1) Is this true?
2) Is there a transcript?
Thank you, Steven J.
Tucson, AZ
SOURCE:http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/petraeus-caucus/
Googling led me to this site:
The Office, Chief of Legislative Liason
From the Office's Mission Statement:
Mr. J. ,
I do not have that information. Please contact the U.S. Legislative Liaison Office in Washington D.C. with your query. They may be able to help you.
Regards,
LTC Aberle
LTC Josslyn L. Aberle
Chief, Media Operations Division
Public Affairs Office Multi-National Corps-Iraq
DSN (military land line): 318-822-2324; Commercial from the U.S.: (703)343-8999 then dial 822-2324; VOIP: 243-4347Iraqna (mobile): 0790-192-7471; Iraqna from the U.S.:011-964-790-192-7471
-----Original Message-----
From: steven j [mailto:radamisto99@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 4:15 AMTo: Aberle Josslyn L LTC MNC-I PAO Chief Media Relations
Subject: Gen. Petraeus and the Senate GOP caucus
Dear Col. Aberle, I recently learned that Gen. Petraeus had a private meeting with the Senate GOP caucus.
Would you please let me know:
1) Is this true?
2) Is there a transcript?
Thank you, Steven J.
Tucson, AZ
SOURCE:http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/petraeus-caucus/
Googling led me to this site:
The Office, Chief of Legislative Liason
From the Office's Mission Statement:
The Office, Chief of Legislative Liaison (OCLL) is directly responsible to the Secretary of the Army and responds to the Office of the Chief of Staff when required. OCLL is the sole directive agency for Department of the Army Congressional Affairs.
It acts as a point of contact for the Department of the Army with Members of Congress, their staffs, and all relevant committees.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
PARTISAN PETRAEUS???
ThinkProgress makes a great catch once again. On The Chris Matthews Show, Andrea Mitchell claimed that Gen. Petraeus recently had a special meeting with the Senate GOP Caucus and, as Mitchell put it, "General Petraeus has persuaded them that for all intents and purposes, they can’t vote a withdrawal before September."
Did the Senate Democrats have the same opportunity? Was this visit by Petraeus in response to a request by the GOP Caucus or from the White House?
Did the Senate Democrats have the same opportunity? Was this visit by Petraeus in response to a request by the GOP Caucus or from the White House?
A NEW DAKOTAKEN WINNER!!!
In reply to my statement "Our Constitution was created by LIBERALS", this moron replied:
#13 - 4/01/07 08:51 PM (Msg Id: 523441:3120977) HILLARY LEFTIST
our constitution was created by christian conservatives you uneducated jerk
TOM "NOT ME" DELAY
I listened to a re-broadcast of a Michael Medved show last night and I heard Tom Delay make this astonishing claim:
Medved didn't correct him and I'm sure most of the listeners don't recall the facts but The Bugman lied again:
From CNN (1/4/05):
From CNN (10/7/04):
"frivolous ethics charges against me...all dismissed"
Medved didn't correct him and I'm sure most of the listeners don't recall the facts but The Bugman lied again:
From CNN (1/4/05):
The ethics panel said DeLay's attendance at a June 2002 golf fund-raiser for his leadership political action committee created an "improper appearance." The event was attended by energy company officials and held as House and Senate conferees were about to hash out energy legislation.
The committee also found that DeLay's office improperly contacted the Federal Aviation Administration in May 2003 to track a plane carrying Texas Democratic legislators, who had fled the state in an attempt to thwart a Republican plan to redraw the state's congressional district map. The committee said the contacts amounted to an improper use of governmental resources for a political undertaking.
From CNN (10/7/04):
DeLay was also admonished by the committee on another complaint, related to a promise DeLay made to a fellow GOP House member to endorse his son's bid for Congress in return for the lawmaker's vote for the Medicare prescription drug bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
