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.