Some Numbers to Drive Home Our Military Superiority

We have 11 aircraft carriers. Did you know that? Do you know how big an aircraft carrier is? They run on nuclear generators, and house up the 5,700 people. They are floating cities, equipped with the firepower to launch an all out war, all on their own. And we have 11 of them...

USS Ronald Reagan - Nimitz Class Star Destroy... er Super Carrier

A natural question might be, how many aircraft carriers do others have? Well, to begin with, it appears building and maintaining an aircraft carrier is a pretty big job. So far, out of the 195 countries in the world only 5 have aircraft carriers; the United States, Britain, France, Italy and Russia (although China is considering building one). France has one, Italy has two, Britain has Two and Russia has one. We have 11.

We have nearly twice as many carriers as the rest of the world combined has. We could lose 6 and still have as many as the rest of the world. Its clear we can reduce the size of our defense spending without increasing the risk to our country. Each costs 4.5 billion dollars. Think of how many kids that could put through college.

Listen, I love aircraft carriers, I hope my enthusiasm for the technology and sheer scope of them is clear; but it is important to understand what we're spending our resources on. We don't need to fight ANY of the countries that have aircraft carriers. France, the UK and Italy are close allies. And any war with Russia would be short and nuclear.

In short, we have a Navy that is not necessary for the world as it is. That is fat we can trim. It is better spent on domestic investments, like health-care or rebuilding infrastructure.

Largest Deficit in US History -- Without Adding War Costs

Some great highlights from an AP story on MSNBC regarding the amassing crisis of the deficit.

"The next president will inherit a record budget deficit of $482 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate released Monday."

"But the numbers could go even higher if the economy performs worse than the White House predicts."

"The administration actually underestimates the deficit, however, since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition — and in violation of new mandates from Congress — the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs."

Just to be clear, your government spent much more money than it took in, fudged the numbers so it wouldn't look as bad and despite the deception the budget was still the worst in history.

Reminds me of these charming graphs, be sure to remember this the next time someone tries perpetuate the myth of republican economic conservatism.

Obama Going to Iraq

An MSNBC Story contains this snippet about Obama's plans,

"Under heavy pressure from McCain, who criticized his failure to visit Iraq since 2006, Obama plans to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan. The dates have not been announced for security reasons but the trip is expected within the next month."

I'm glad he's going to Iraq to see the conditions on the ground, but I am more than a little worried about his safety. The Illinois Senator is the spearhead of a political movement sure to change the status quo. As such, he has no shortage of enemies. With perhaps 126,000 mercenaries in Iraq, I can imagine a few bad apples capable of such a deed. There is consolation in the fact that he will undoubtedly be under the protection of the US Army the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.

Let's hope these fears are unfounded.

New Blog

I have a new religion and politics blog, Jesusillin check it out
http://jesusillin.blogspot.com/

Blog back online, at least until December

Another quarter at UCI another class where I'm required to keep a blog. Lucky me I have this little thing. So expect pretty frequent updates from here on out until December.

Update: Greg Palast Responds to Criticism

Greg Palast has already responded, it seems I've been under a rock. He basically argues that all anyone can do with all the raw data is fact check it to death and do exactly what he and the BBC is doing. He's not a rouge blogger with no credentials, he's an investigative reporter with the best news agency in the world. He goes on to say that large portions of the evidence and investigative work are laid out in his book and none of that was disputed because none of it was considered. For now I'm placing my trust in Greg Palast. If he's over selling himself, it's a bold gambit.

Controversy Over Palast Claims

the community over at Daily Kos is having a heated debate regarding the validity of Greg Palast's claims. Some people, perhaps more rational than me, have argued for a bit of scepticism since Greg Palast has only produced dozens of the "500 e-mails" and only 1800 of the "tens of thousands" of names on "Caging Lists". I don't think this is meant to downplay the seriousness of this accusation, its merely meant to demand evidence before judgement, a worthy sentiment.

LA Mayor Supports Clinton

Raising Democratic Star, LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa threw his support behind Senator Hillary Clinton last week. It’s the latest in a series of endorsements that have come for the front runner.

This news means we should get used to Villaraigosa, The Guardian story points out that he is a popular Latino politician in a state with an increasingly Latino electorate. Combine that with his intimate relationship with party elites and state or national office seems to be in his future.

Why “Vote Caging” Should Have You Rioting in the Streets

3 million votes were challenged AFTER they were cast in the 2004 election, and it turns out that many of them may be from a GOP tactic called “Vote Caging”, here’s how it works. Bare with me, this is a thick and tangled web of scandal.

When ex-Alberto Gonzales aide Monica Goodling testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee she mentioned the term “Vote Caging” several times, in reference to Karl Rove’s protégé Tim Griffin (more on him later). The term was unfamiliar to many and it prompted Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., to ask Goodling, to explain the term. Goodling fumbled and muttered something about it being a “direct mail” term.

Monica was right; Vote Caging does use direct mail. But she left out the most important aspect of vote caging; it’s used to suppress votes.

This is how it works;

Step One: Send registered, first class mail to black people. Mark the letter “do not forward” so if they happen to be fighting in Iraq it will not go to them.

Step Two: Every letter that comes back “undeliverable” can then be challenged as being fraudulent. Voters are purged from the rosters, and the ones that demand their right to vote cast provisional ballots, which are less likely to be counted anyway.

Step Three: Repeat in every tight race in the country.

It’s a complicated GOP tactic that’s been used since the 80’s to win races with slight margins of victories.

You might remember that Tim Griffin was installed as a U.S. Attorney for Arkansas after Bud Cummings was fired. Of course Griffin immediately went to work “vote caging” and the focus of Monica’s testimony was in exonerating him from wrongdoing. She claimed there were good reasons for it, and that he did not believe anything he was doing was wrong.

If that’s the case then why did Tim Griffin resign? Because it seems like he’s worried that a contentious confirmation hearing might draw attention to the fact that the GOP has been subverting democracy.

This story was cracked open by BBC reporter Greg Palast. He’s an American but has to travel across the Atlantic to find a worthy news agency the hire him. I could tell you what he did, but let’s just listen to him. The part at 5:20 is particularly relevant.

I suggest watching the whole series, its long, but FUCK, your country is being stolen.

These articles are the base of this story.

Here is one on Greg Palast’s site

Here is another on Think Progress

Fred Thompson Running

He has to be, apparently he quit his job at Law and Order, started an exploratory committee, and lets not forget the most important thing of all, he is still polling higher than many declared republicans, despite not formally announcing.

He's begun campaigning, sort of... In a video response to Micheal Moore's new film sicko, Fred Thompson tells the film maker to seek help at a mental institution, all while holding a large, ridiculous Cuban cigar. Check it out



But what do we know about Fred Thompson? For instance, why did he quit the senate, the most powerful law making body in the world, for Law and Order? Pay too low? Not a taste for Government? what is it that made him quit that job, but go for this one?

NPR ran a story that saying he "[...] isn't keen to do the hard work of getting elected." If that's the case it might explain his step out of congress, and the slow start his presidential campaign.

Either way he enters a crowded field, and will have to fight the rest of the Republican candidates for political talent and donations. But more importantly, he's the only staunch conservative and the one most likely to carry on the ideological legacy of George W. Bush. Personally, I think this is an asset in the primaries, and POISON in the general. While Republican rank and file might be clamoring for another Reagan, America wants change, and their thirst will be quenched.

Bush Starts New Russian Arms Race

In 2001, President Bush, apparently possessed by the spirit of Ronald Reagan’s long dead Star Wars defense plan, opted out of the thirty year old Anti-Ballistic Missile Pact to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. The treaty was designed to stop the massive arms race during the cold-war that drained both economies, and placed the world on the brink of destruction.

Current President of Russia, ex-KGB officer, and accused radiation poisoner Vladimir Putin believes the target of Bush’s missile defense shield is Russia. In response he announced a new mutli-warhead ICBM and an advanced cruise missile adding, "We are not the initiators of this new round of the arms race."

I don’t know what is more ridiculous, the fact that we spent any money trying to deter a nuclear attack with a “shield” or that Russia thinks it can keep up with us in an arms race. Russia has thousands of war heads capable of overwhelming any defensive shield, and Russia has a GDP slightly less than Mexico utterly incapable of sustaining an arms race. Besides, didn’t we already play this game? The following photographs indicate a clear victor.

Here is a picture of Check Point Charlie
It was a flash point inthe Cold War, American and Russian forces actually faced off here

Notice the area indicated in each picture

"Snack Point Charlie"
Capitalism 1, Communism 0

Obama Lays Out Health Plan

Obama promises to create universal health care by the end of his first term. Every American would have “affordable, comprehensive, and portable” coverage. His plan (Overview Here, Full Plan Here) focuses on reforming the current system to make it more efficient while investing in prevention and management treatment to reduce the costs of catastrophic health issues. The savings from streamlining the health care delivery system will provide some of the funds needed to expand coverage universally. Additionally employers will be required to contribute to their employees’ health costs, either by providing insurance directly, or by paying for public coverage.

The plan provides a multitude of ways to cuts costs, but doesn’t offer any kind of assurance that these alone will pay for the program. Surely it is impossible to know exactly how the cost-saving measure will pan out and even harder to know what kind of employer contributions he could get through congress, but despite this he makes no mention of any use of public funds. No corresponding cuts in the national budget, or increases in taxes. Obviously this is a very early version of the plan, but it seems to me that national health care might require more than just increased efficiency to reduce patients’ costs so dramatically. I for one think this will end up requiring either a tax increase (maybe by repealing the Bush tax cuts and/or repealing the Reagan tax cuts), or shifting funding from another area of the federal budget (perhaps military spending).

CIA Warned Bush of Chaotic Iraq Post Invasion

It turns out the CIA had a pretty good idea of what Iraq might be like after we took the helm. The January 2003, report warned of sectarian violence, foreign powers near Iraq vying for influence, and a political culture antagonistic to democratization months before the invasion.

It makes one wonder why all these warning were not met with sound and comprehensive planning. Revelations like this make me question our leadership in multiple, over-lapping ways. Was this ignored? Downplayed? Thought to be unimportant? Or did they understand the costs but weighed the benefits as exceeding them? Perhaps the chaos achieved some end for Bush, if it serves some purpose it would make some sense. But what purpose could such egregious acts of violence hold except to their twisted perpetrators? I don’t know, but I do know that the only possibilities are that the Bush Administration is incredibly stupid, incredibly evil, or both.

New Twist to an Old Scandal

<- Lying Jackass

Apparently US Attorneys were not the only ones to have been politically screened for their jobs. Kyle Sampson, disgraced and resigned chief of staff for Alberto Gonzales, had his lawyer disclose that Federal Immigration Judges were also vetted by political affiliation. The revelation adds another charge against this administration, violation of civil service laws designed to preserve the independence of the Justice Department. This has been going on since early 2004. During Monica Goodling’s testimony (scroll down), she said that Sampson had told her that the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel said that immigration judges did no apply to the civil service rules that prevented taking political affiliation into account.

It’s a sad day when the department in charge of law enforcement goes out of its way to break laws. Unfortunately for us, that day happened years and years ago and we’re just finding out about it. Worst President in History!

Goodling Testifies, Says Next to Nothing

It wasn’t quite as juicy as I would have liked to be honest with you. She didn’t roll over on her old bosses, and only admitted to violating a statute designed to keep politics out of bureaucratic positions, a violation which she is protected from. She also indicated that she was not the one who the White House worked through, apparently, they only dealt with Alberto and Sampson …

Here are some highlights from the coverage.

CNN’s coverage emphasized Goodling’s lack of communication with the white house. The Washington Post’s coverage focused on Goodling’s politically bias hiring practices. Below is a series of quotes that sum up the important points from her day-long testimony.

• "I was not the primary White House contact for purposes of the development or approval of the U.S. attorney replacement plan."
• Referring to mastermind Karl Rove and Bush’s lawyer Harriet Miers she said,
• "And I'm certain that I never spoke to either of them about the hiring or firing of any U.S. attorney,"
• "I was responsible more for what happened after the plan was implemented rather than maybe the plan itself,"
• "I do acknowledge I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions, and I regret those mistakes."
• "Although I'm prepared to tell the committee what I know about the eight replaced U.S. attorneys, the truth is that I do not know why Kevin Ryan, John McKay, Carol Lam, Paul Charlton, Daniel Bogden, David Iglesias and Margaret Chiara were asked to resign in December of 2006."
• She also testified that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty lied to congress.
• "Despite my and others' best effort, the deputy's public testimony was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects, I believe the deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decision."
• Paul McNulty was the first Justice Department official to testify. He said the fired US Attorneys were let go for “performance reasons”.
• Obviously that’s been proven to be a sack of horseshit, the Justice Department’s internal review process found many of the fired attorneys rated excellent. In one example, shortly before Carol Lam was fired she had won a high-profile case against Republican Duke Cunningham for bribery.
• McNulty has been privately saying he was mislead by Goodling. Her testimony today refutes that position and casts McNulty and DOJ colleague William E. Moschella’s testimony in a criminal light.

Bush Wins, Troops Stay In Iraq Until September

The democratic leadership has stripped the withdrawal timetables from the war-funding bill. The move was ordered after Democrats failed to garner veto-proof margins for either their time-table or incremental war spending bills. Republican congressmen have been trying to hold off Democratic efforts to end the war until a progress report on the surge is given in September. Many say that they will reevaluate their options then, and abandon the war if progress remains slim...

Its interesting, by any measure the surge is failing, and why wouldn’t it. According to the militaries own literature on counter insurgency, a 1 to 40 ratio of soldiers to citizens is needed to properly quell an insurgent force. The Boston Globe describes what’s needed;

"The first chapter of [the] manual calls for a "force ratio" of 25 counterinsurgents (here meaning US, allied, and Iraqi soldiers and police) per 1,000 residents. In Baghdad that would require a total force of 120,000. But even with the additional 17,500 US troops President Bush has called for, and a reallocation of Iraqi troops from the North to Baghdad, the total force will be approximately 80,000, a full third less than what the manual prescribes."

You might wonder why the General leading the surge doesn’t follow these recommendations. Especially considering he’s the one who wrote them. That’s right, General Petraeus was the author of the US Military’s anti-insurgency doctrine and he isn’t following his own rules.

So in order for the war to go as Congressional Republicans would like, Petraeus has to tame the insurgency with an insufficient and battle-weary force by the end of summer. It is an impossible task, and the recent trend of violence should drive that point home. Unfortunately, Republicans need to see another season of carnage before they are willing to join with Democrats and end the war. They've won this battle and their prize is a bloody, IED-filled, death-squad ridden month. Way to go…

Gonzales Guilty of Perjury

A cadre of democratic heavy hitters sent the letter below to Gonzo today. It relates to some new testimony which contradicts Gonzales’s testimony from February regarding the NSA wiretapping program. Gonzo said there was no internal debate about the NSA wiretapping program, but this new testimony by ex-Deputy Attorney General James Comey says that Gonzo was part of an effort to “take advantage” of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was doggedly opposed to the program. Ashcroft was recovering from a gall bladder surgery when Comey, Andy Card, and Gonzo visited him. Comey had been made acting attorney general and refused to sign off on the NSA wiretapping program. So Gonzo and Card tried to persuade Ashcroft to sign off on the program. Ashcroft strongly resisted the men and expressed his distaste for the program.

The Program was authorized without justice department approval, Comey and Ashcroft resigned soon there after.

The testimony prompted Senators Kennedy, Feingold, Schumer and Durbin to write the following letter.

May 16, 2007

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

In very dramatic testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified that in March 2004, when you served as White House Counsel, you were involved in "an effort to take advantage of a very sick man," referring to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Specifically, Mr. Comey testified that you and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card went to Mr. Ashcroft's bedside at George Washington Hospital, where he was in intensive care, in an effort to get him to agree to certify the legality of a classified program that he and Mr. Comey, who was serving as acting Attorney General at the time, had concluded should not be so certified. Mr. Comey stated that when the Administration decided to go forward with reauthorizing this classified program without that certification, he and several other Justice Department officials, including possibly Attorney General Ashcroft himself, were ready to tender their resignations.

You testified last year before both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee about this incident. On February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing. The following is a transcript excerpt from that hearing:

Senator Schumer. Let me ask you about some specific reports. It has been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?

Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, here is a response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements. There has not been any serious disagreement, including - and I think this is accurate - there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the President has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into. I will also say -

Senator Schumer. But there was some - I am sorry to cut you off, but there was some dissent within the administration, and Jim Comey did express at some point - that is all I asked you - some reservations.

Attorney General Gonzales. The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we are not talking about today.

Senator Schumer. I want to ask you again about them, just we have limited time.

Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, sir.

Senator Schumer. It has also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, rather than going individual by individual—

Senator Schumer. No, I think we are - this is—

Attorney General Gonzales. By individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories does not - did not deal with the program that I am here testifying about today.

Senator Schumer. But you are telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program. Is that right?

Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I want to be very careful here. Because of course I am here only testifying about what the President has confirmed. And with respect to what the President has confirmed, I believe - I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you are identifying had concerns about this program.

In addition, on April 6, 2006, in answer to a question from then House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner about the hospital visit, which had been reported in the press, you responded: "Mr. Chairman, what I can say - and I'm sure this will not be acceptable, but let me say it anyway - is that I have testified before that the disagreement that existed does not relate to the program the President confirmed in December to the American people."

We ask for your prompt response to the following question: In light of Mr. Comey's testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?

Sincerely,

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD United States Senator	CHARLES E. SCHUMER United States Senator
EDWARD M. KENNEDY United States Senator	RICHARD J. DURBIN United States Senator

Giuliani v. Paul

While watching highlights of the Fox News Debate that was held yesterday in South Carolina, I found a particular exchange very telling.

In the video Ron Paul, who voted against giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq, argues that the 9-11 attacks were “blowback” from interventional foreign policy. He says that we’ve had our noses in the Middle East for fifty years causing rampant hatred and anti-Americanism. Giuliani, responded the only way he knows how, by calling names. He didn’t argue the merit of the statement, he didn’t explain why he disagreed, he simply called it absurd and demanded Rep. Paul retract his comment.

Giuliani showed a lack of maturity and understanding regarding international relations. Like it or not, there are international consequences for American foreign policy. It is the nature of hegemony. Our actions affect the rest of the world and sometimes, even if motivated by irrationality and executed with supreme violence, our actions incur costs. Certainly America didn’t ask for 9-11, but we just as certainly didn’t demand that our foreign policy be benign or friendly. Giuliani is ignoring our part in our world’s problems, and using fear of continued attack, and hatred for our enemies as a catapult into demagogic power. We need a President who understand the complexity of international relations and the simplicity of revenge, not one who assumes the world to be our sandbox and its inhabitants our toys.

UPDATE: Fox News Viewers agree with me for once, Ron Paul beat out Giuliani by 6 points in a Fox News poll that asked, "who won the debate". Paul came in second to Romney, by 4 points.

Bush Backs Off Wolfowitz Support

The Bush administration shifted its attitude on President of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz yesterday. Wolfowitz has been embroiled in a scandal regarding his long time girlfriend Shaha Riza. Apparently, Paul set her up for a series of promotions and pay-raises without informing the banks legal advisor. The bank’s executive board investigated the claims and issued a report stating that Wolfowitz broke ethics rules and endangered the reputation of the bank.

Until this point, The White House had fully supported Wolfowitz, this change in position is indicative of the precarious position the World Bank’s President is in. Wolfowitz has repeatedly said he will not resign and has made efforts to convince the bank’s executive board that he can remain at the helm of the institution. However the White House was among the last of Wolfowitz’s remaining allies. Since the White House has dropped support to keep him as president, The World Bank has no serious obstacles to get rid of him.

The only remaining question is exactly how he will be replaced. I for one, don’t care, a Neo-Con out of a position of international power is good enough for me.

House Passes Second War Funding Bill, Bush Talks Compromise

Despite a presidential veto threat, and with less than ideal support in the senate, the House of Representatives passed the incremental funding bill.

Here the Washington Post explains the basics of the bill

“The first, $43 billion, would be released immediately, with new standards for resting, training and equipping troops and a slate of benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. Bush would be required to submit to Congress by July 13 three reports -- on Iraqi progress in relation to the benchmarks, on which of the goals had been met and on how many Iraqi combat units are ready to operate on their own. About 10 days later, the House would vote again, first on whether to cut off funding for further combat in Iraq and then on whether to release the remaining $53 billion.”

That same article reports that a much tougher bill that was voted on shortly before the incremental bill. The anti-war bill would have all US troops out of Iraq within nine months. The bill fell short of a majority but garnered unpredicted support. 171 members of the House voted to end the occupation of Iraq, about 40 votes short of passing. It is an encouraging sign.

This comes on the heels of Bush publicly announcing that he would allow a bill with benchmarks, so long as they weren’t binding. Pelosi and Reid fired back that a bill without penalties for failing to meet benchmarks is pointless.

It is unclear what this compromise means to the actual language of the final bill, some republicans favor tying rebuilding funds to political benchmarks. That’s right, if the piecemeal, illegitimate, occupied regime of Iraq cannot undue a two-thousand year conflict, rebuild a shattered infrastructure, and write an equable constitution, they don’t get the money to rebuild the shit we bombed. RIDICULOUS! The President could support that shitty plan or they could form a new plan in negotiations with senate Dems. Wait and see…