• Barack Obama – Has my vote. He’ll be terrific, and we need him – and a Democratic Congress, too.
• Teddy Kennedy – Captain, my captain, my forever Senator.
• Hillary Clinton – Strong, inspiring, gracious.
• Bill Clinton – Love that man. ‘Nuff said.
• Joe Biden – Trustworthy. Talk to the people, Joe. And relax.
• John McCain – Has turned his back on what made him worthy of respect.
• Sarah Palin – Bad choice for women and everyone else. Much to say, but the word is oil.
• See Bush bail, See Cheney bail (from the Republican Convention)
• Pseudo-Christians, quit praying for God to hate the people that you hate.
• Susan Eisenhower – Expressed my own view more clearly than anyone else, so here are her words:

REMARKS BY SUSAN EISENHOWER AT THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION – INVESCO FIELD AT MILE HIGH, DENVER, COLORADO AUGUST 28, 2008

I stand before you tonight not as a Republican or a Democrat, but as an American. The Eisenhowers came to this great country in the 18th century, settling first amid the hills of Pennsylvania and later on the plains of Kansas. Like many of your ancestors, they built our nation and served it in times of national crisis and war.

I grew up in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania where my parents and grandparents, Dwight and Mamie Eisenhower, chose to live after Ike’s retirement as Supreme Commander, Europe, and as President of the United States. It was also in Gettysburg where Abraham Lincoln gave his historic address.

On the killing fields of Pickett’s Charge our country came of age and assured our nation would survive as one.

Yet today the divisions in our country are deep and wide. Our cohesiveness as a nation is strained by multiple crises in finance and credit; energy and health care.

At the same time, we have knowingly saddled our children and grandchildren with a staggering debt. This is a moral failing – not just a financial one.

Overseas, our credibility is at an all time low. We must restore our international leadership position and the leverage that goes with it.

But rather than focus on the critical strategic issues, our national discourse has turned into a petty squabble.

Too many people in power have failed us. Belligerence has become a substitute for strength; stubbornness a substitute for leadership; and impulsive action has replaced measured and thoughtful response.

Once during the Eisenhower administration, Ike was under fire from his critics for moving too slowly in responding to political pressure. After a visit to the Oval Office by Robert Frost, the famous American poet sent the president a note of support. “The strong,” he wrote, “are saying nothing until they see.”

I believe that Barack Obama has the energy, but more importantly, the temperament, to run this country and provide the leadership we need. He knows that we can either advance on the distant hills of hope– or retreat to the garrisons of fear. He can mobilize and inspire all of us to show up for duty. Discipline will be required; as will compromise, flexibility and quiet strength.

The task before our next President will be overwhelming. But no undertaking can be more critical than bringing about a sense of national unity and purpose, built on mutual respect and bi-partisanship.

Unless we squarely face our challenges, as Americans—together– we risk losing the priceless heritage bestowed on us by the sweat and the sacrifice of our forbearers. If we do not pull together, we could lose the America that has been an inspiration to the world.

On December 1, 1862, in his Annual Message to Congress, Abraham Lincoln immortalized this thought when he said: “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”

Let us respond this November to President Lincoln’s challenge. Let us restore the hope, and bring the change, that our nation so desperately needs.

Yes we can!

Tell Congress to Take Torture off the Table

Congress needs to send a clear message to the Bush administration: cruel interrogation techniques – including mock execution, forced nakedness and induced hypothermia – are morally wrong and have to stop.

Important legislation that sets one humane standard for ALL government agencies has been passed by the House, but has stalled. Keep the pressure on! Tell Congress to swiftly bring U.S. interrogation policy into line with the laws and values of our country.

(Human Rights First)

We are too easily misled and kept in the dark. When we see a bit of light, it is too easy to cover our eyes. We have been progressively desensitized, but we’re not the first.

I am beginning to have some hope again.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.” — Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945

Americans are starting to be unable to avoid recognitions of some of the consequences… at last. Don’t forget the lessons of the “Good Germans”.

Our moral trajectory over the Bush years could not be better dramatized than it was by a reunion of an elite group of two dozen World War II veterans in Washington this month. They were participants in a top-secret operation to interrogate some 4,000 Nazi prisoners of war. Until now, they have kept silent, but America’s recent record prompted them to talk to The Washington Post.

“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an M.I.T. physicist whose interrogation of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, took place over a chessboard. George Frenkel, 87, recalled that he “never laid hands on anyone” in his many interrogations, adding, “I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”

Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day. Let the war’s last supporters filibuster all night if they want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country’s good name.

In related news, Gen. Michael V. Hayden has ordered an investigation of its own Inspector General John L. Helgerson – for Helgerson’s own investigations into the CIA’s involvement in torture. Got that? Read it again.

This warrants an immediate and aggressive investigation by Congress into a clear case of attempting to suppress dedicated public servants because they may believe the United States should abide by international law and basic human morality. … This story fits the pattern of absolutely everything this Administration does: fail, commit crimes, try to cover up those failures and crimes, and when honest and competent people make honest and competent efforts to keep our government honest and competent, punish them.

On the domestic front lines, it looks as though the NSA approached Qwest before 9/11 to enlist telecommunications firms in surveillance without court oversight. Don’t give me any more fluff about the “post-911 world,” if you please.

Details about the alleged NSA program have been redacted from the documents, but Nacchio’s lawyer said last year that the NSA had approached the company about participating in a warrantless surveillance program to gather information about Americans’ phone records. In the court filings disclosed this week, Nacchio suggests that Qwest’s refusal to take part in that program led the government to cancel a separate, lucrative contract with the NSA in retribution.

From Gary Wood at Hear My Thunder, here’s a commentary worth reading on our 4th largest city, Prison USA:

Based on 2005 population figures for both our prisons and U.S. cities the prison population would rank as the 4th largest city behind New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago while beating Houston out by over 200,000 people.

Check out Amy Branham’s article on how we went shopping while our constitution burned, too.

Be sure to take a look at Jon Stewart’s little video on America’s favorite private mercenary force (Killing People since 1906 … for Money), care of Crooks and Liars.

One nice thing in the news, at least. Hey, Al Gore! You rock! Congrats on the Nobel Peace Prize!

But McCain is such a wanker, making this nasty and absurd statement:

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain said the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, announced today, should have gone to someone else other than former Vice President Al Gore. “I would have liked to see that prize go to the Buddhist monks who are suffering and dying in Burma,” McCain said after a speech this morning in Davenport.

I sure hope not, but nice try for the heartstrings. There would have been a long line of suffering and dying people who would have been in line before them.

I think Gore’s contribution was to work for the recognition of a worldwide problem that we need to solve together in peace. We can all be warring with one another until there is nothing left to fight for, or we can work together on a larger project, one that is truly a global problem.

…McCain, an Arizona senator, said he hoped Gore would now support nuclear power and a cap and trade proposal made by McCain and Sen. Joseph Lieberman to mandate that all sections of the U.S. economy reduce greenhouse gasses through a market-based system of trading emissions.

Trading guilt – like indulgences?

At this point, the second Lieberman’s name is on it, I have serious reservations. I would be more optimistic about nuclear power in the US if I felt sure about the government’s true ability or inclination to safeguard the public…

The statement from White House spokeman Tony Fratto on the honor to Gore was hilarious (or maybe it’s just me). Not only is Bush fully aware that Gore should have been President… but don’t forget that Bush has vigorously opposed mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas throughout his “reign,” appointed industry cronies to important posts, and even interfered with scientific reports. Bush may be the least environmentally-friendly President in history, and he is no friend to Gore (obviously). So, what can he say?

First there is the humorous suggestion that the President is “happy”:

“Of course he’s happy for (former) vice-president Gore and happy for the international panel on climate change scientists who also shared the peace prize.”

But it gets better!

Obviously, it’s an important recognition and we’re sure the vice president is thrilled.

It almost gushes – we’re SURE the vice president is THRILLED. Mrriooww- hissss.

Oh brother.

I want to see, and I think it’s really time for us all to see, a serious unmoderated round-table debate between John Edwards, Dennis Kuchinich, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and maybe even Ron Paul. I’m getting tired of the bull already. I don’t want a performance – I want to see a serious discussion where they have to deal with each other.

What I’ve seen of the Republican debates doesn’t make me want to see any more, but they should do this too.

And – hey – why not have a series of two at a time? Not the stupid dogshows they do later, but real debates. Unmoderated debates, but under standard rules of debate. Sigh. I’ll keep hoping, although everything I see works against it ever happening.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released its third annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress entitled Beyond DeLay: The 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and two to watch). This encyclopedic report on corruption in the 110th Congress documents the egregious, unethical and possibly illegal activities of the most tainted members of Congress. CREW has compiled the members’ transgressions and analyzed them in light of federal laws and congressional rules.

Go to the new site to read up on any of these. I’m not surprised to see southern Democrats on this list… but Murtha? Hmmm.

Members of the Senate:

• Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
• Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)

Members of House:

• Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
• Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
• Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
• Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
• Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
• Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
• Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
• Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
• Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
• Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
• Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
• Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
• Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
• Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
• Rep. David Scott (D-GA)
• Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
• Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
• Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)

Dishonorable Mention:

• Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)
• Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

On Staged “Terrorist” Attacks and Dictatorship

Impeach Now or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy, Paul Craig Roberts, Counterpunch

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran. Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of “executive orders” that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, “terrorist” events in the near future.

(thanks to John Gamble)

On Executive Order “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq,” July 17, 2007

This order allows the Executive Branch to freeze assets – without evidence, notice, oversight, trial or appeal – in a chain of perceived culpability. Even representative legal services could be interpreted to be a form of support.

The Treasury Secretary has sole discretion to determine who is in violation of this order, in ‘consultation’ with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. That last part is verbiage; Treasury has the power per this order. Even better, the Secretary of Treasury has the explicit authority to delegate this decision to any flunky or flunkies of his choice per Sec. 6. This order applies to all persons within the United States. If Treasury declares that a person is a ‘SIGNIFICANT RISK’ to commit violence in Iraq, or a ‘SIGNIFICANT RISK’ to support violence in Iraq in any way, or to have assisted in any way a person who is a ‘SIGNIFICANT RISK’ to do so, all their assets are to be immediately frozen.

It is a further violation of the order to make a donation to such a person whose assets have been frozen. (I was being literal when I said ’starve’ them. Such a person would have no legal means of acquiring food, clothing, or shelter. They couldn’t buy it with frozen assets, nor accept it as a gift, and stealing is already illegal.)…

Oh, I probably don’t need to mention the obvious, but the lack of due process, lack of evidentiary requirements, and the vagueness surrounding exactly what constitutes a violation make this order a totalitarian dream. And there is no end to the ‘daisy chain’ it creates, either. If you donate money to a person whose assets were frozen because they gave money to a person who was declared to be a ‘significant risk’ to commit or support violence in Iraq, then you are subject to the order, subject to have your assets frozen, and anyone helping you thereafter gets the same treatment. This order is far in excess of the presidential orders from 20+ years ago that were circulated to make us afraid of the government.

(From Shakesville, via Frogs and Ravens)

On Obstruction of Justice and the Expansion of Executive Privilege

No, the documents will not be forthcoming. No, they don’t have to testify. No, they won’t be held in contempt. No, Congress will not be allowed to pursue this matter.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. …

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration’s stance “astonishing.” “That’s a breathtakingly broad view of the president’s role in this system of separation of powers,” Rozell said. “What this statement is saying is the president’s claim of executive privilege trumps all.”

The administration’s statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year.

On Bush’s Veto Choices

The White House said that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program which is set to expire Sept. 30. The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan plan “would reduce the number of uninsured children by 4.1 million.”

On the Iraq War and Occupation

The Iraq war is lost, Peter Galbraith

The case for the war is no longer defined by the benefits of winning — a stable Iraq, democracy on the march in the Middle East, the collapse of the evil Iranian and Syrian regimes — but by the consequences of defeat.

Constitutionally, Iraq’s central government has almost no power, and the Bush administration is partially to blame for this. When the constitution was being drafted in 2005, the United Nations came up with a series of proposals that would have made for a more workable sharing of power between regions and the central government. The U.S. Embassy stopped the U.N. from presenting these proposals because it hoped for a final document as centralized as (and textually close to) the interim constitution written by the Americans. …

For the most part, Iraq’s leaders are not personally stubborn or uncooperative. They find it impossible to reach agreement on the benchmarks because their constituents don’t agree on any common vision for Iraq. The Shiites voted twice in 2005 for parties that seek to define Iraq as a Shiite state. By their boycotts and votes the Sunni Arabs have almost unanimously rejected the Shiite vision of Iraq’s future, including the new constitution. The Kurds’ envisage an Iraq that does not include them. In the 2005 parliamentary elections, 99 percent of them voted for Kurdish nationalist parties, and in the January 2005 referendum, 98 percent voted for an independent Kurdistan.

But even if Iraq’s politicians could agree to the benchmarks, this wouldn’t end the insurgency or the civil war. Sunni insurgents object to Iraq’s being run by Shiite religious parties, which they see as installed by the Americans, loyal to Iran, and wanting to define Iraq in a way that excludes the Sunnis. Sunni fundamentalists consider the Shiites apostates who deserve death, not power. The Shiites believe that their democratic majority and their historical suffering under the Baathist dictatorship entitle them to rule. They are not inclined to compromise with Sunnis, whom they see as their long-standing oppressors, especially when they believe most Iraqi Sunnis are sympathetic to the suicide bombers that have killed thousands of ordinary Shiites. The differences are fundamental and cannot be papered over by sharing oil revenues, reemploying ex-Baathists, or revising the constitution. The war is not about those things….

In laying out his dark vision of an American failure, Bush never discusses Iran’s domination of Iraq even though this is a far more likely consequence of American defeat than an al-Qaida victory.

On Lack of Accountability for Weakening our Intelligence Network and Outing a CIA Agent

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal. Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband’s criticism of the administration. Bates argued that such efforts (treason?!) are a natural part of the officials’ job duties, and “immune from liability.” Bates dismissed the case against all defendants (Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage) and said he would not express an opinion on the “constitutional arguments.”

How many CIA operatives and informants are dead or compromised because of this? How much vital intelligence have we missed because of this? Review again the kind of work that Valerie Plame had been doing…

Bates? A Bush appointee, additionally appointed by Chief Justice Roberts in February 2006 to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is currently overseeing the warrantless spying operations.

• 1995-1997: Served as Deputy Independent Counsel to Whitewater investigator Ken Starr and its intensely partisan investigation.
• December 2002: Ruled that Congress lacked the standing to sue Cheney over access to the records of the energy task force. The lawsuit was an attempt by U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker to make Cheney reveal the names of industry executives who were instrumental in shaping the national energy policy. Bates said that turning over that information “would hobble an administration’s essential, legitimate ability to receive frank information and advice.”
• 2004: (Glimmer of light) Rejected the Bush Administration’s argument that a U.S. citizen detained abroad under U.S. control cannot invoke habeas corpus (Abu Ali v. John Ashcroft). “The Court concludes that a citizen cannot be so easily separated from his constitutional rights.”
• August 2006: Ruled that it was okey-dokey for the president to sign a bill that had not been passed by Congress.

This is for my friend Mary, who asked me to blog on this (thank you, but look what you’ve done!).

HSPD-20 / NSPD-51 (National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20) is a presidential directive (not a law) that was issued by the White House on May 9. As you might have guessed from the numbers, there have been other directives. I’m not sure why this one is so special, or causing such a buzz.

The first time I read it, it really did fill me with alarm. I thought – “Oh, good lord, now all they have to do is drop a bomb here at home, and BOOM – no more elections.” But I’m not so sure that I completely understand its significance. Maybe they all read like that. After all, think of the topic of discussion. In a disaster, we do want some plans in place!

HSPD-20 is a presidential proclamation that declares how the White House plans to deal with a “Catastrophic Emergency” – “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

Yeah, that makes me nervous already. It’s the “regardless of location” that bothers me – a lot. Think about possible locations…

Ok, what KIND of plan, and what has changed?

There is the creation of the position of an executive branch “National Continuity Coordinator” who will be in charge of coordinating plans to ensure just the continuity of Federal Government structures and the implementation of Federal continuity policies – it’s about policy coordination for contingency plans?

This is a bit ambiguous. I think you could defend the interpretation that it declares the executive branch itself to be the “National Continuity Coordinator” over “executive departments and agencies” – what unspecified power for executive “guidance” is it claiming over local, state, and private organizations to ensure continuity for national security (as well for emergency response and recovery)? These are very different things. This is perhaps an extension of the powers of commander-in-chief (it’s only supposed to cover the army and navy).

The most ominous part of the document somehow is the revocation of Presidential Decision Directive 67, “Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations.” What is being revoked? Why it is all being revoked? Why not just amend, or supersede?

It appears that the text of PDD67 has never been released to the public. This is going to be a pain.
but it’s unclear what Bush would see as needing to be revoked.

— OK, back. PDD67 was issued by Clinton in October 1998 – it directs all levels of government to plan for full minimum operations in any potential national security situation. Uniform policies were created for developing and implementing plans to ensure the continuation of essential operations during any man-mad, natural, technological, or national security emergency. So it’s about how to plan the plans? Sheesh.

Each federal agency was assigned specific functions based on their capabilities and authority, and each had to publish a contingency plan (”continuity of operations plan”- COOP), maintain the budget to support it, and ensure readiness with training, testing and evaluation (including computer simulations, war games, hazmat training, rehearsals, and the like). This built on and amended previous plans and directives, such as PDD-62 (Clinton, May 22, 1998), which established an integrated program to counter terrorist threats and to manage the consequences of attacks on the US. PPD-63 and the EPA’s Critical Infrastructures Protection Plan made each department and agency maintain plans to protect their own infrastructure (including their “cyber-based systems). In case of catastrophic disaster, the EPA is responsible for protecting the water and air supply against “corruption” (Don’t you feel safe now, knowing that the EPA has it under control? I’m starting to see why it’s so important for cronies to be in these positions… steady, steady – no ranting…).

So, to reword, plans were developed to identify possible requirements for a “Plan B” of chain of command and emergency functions and things like that in the event that the status quo was seriously disrupted. There were different roles for different agencies and departments (some or all of which may still apply?). So now it looks like they have to show metrics for successful performance? Is that new? I’m not sure. The EPA and the Department of Defense will probably still train state and local emergency responders, and so on.

We’re familiar with FEMA. Most of the resources of the National Preparedness Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] used to be spent on ensuring the continuation of civilian government in the event of a nuclear war, through what are known as these Enduring Constitutional Government programs.

They called it “coordinating consequence management activities.” Lovely.

I’m thinking sci-fi scenario – the underground bunkers, maybe even the secret blast-off to a satellite – but maybe that’s become a dated chain of thought (or maybe I’ve read too much science fiction).

“Like, dude, what do we do with all these people dying of radiation poisoning? How many towns do we have to quarantine to prevent the epidemic? Where should I put all these bones?”

“Never mind that, get the President and the Speaker and those lobbyists into the capsule.”

Keep laughing. The George W. Bush Administration was the first president ever to put the Continuity of Operations plan into action – right after September 11, 2201. They pulled a rotating staff of 75-150 senior officials and other government workers from every Cabinet department and other parts of the executive branch into two secure bunkers on the East Coast (a government-in-waiting that Congress didn’t even know about, nice).

Still, even if we don’t like to think about it, we do need to have executable contingency plans so that everyone wouldn’t be running around, not knowing what to do, or thinking that they should all sit and wait for the Rapture, or go hysterically violent, or something like that.

So what’s new? Under the previous arrangement (as far as I can glean), there is no ultimate coordinator or boss or czar or whatever. The Head of each Federal agency/department was responsible for ensuring continuity of functions, essential resources, facilities and records, and the delegation of authority for emergency operating capabilities (within applicable laws – and probably without, too).

This directive would take away some authority in planning, and probably impose a new uniform standard of some sort? Would it take away authority or action at the time of disaster too? I can’t tell.

Each branch of government is responsible for its own plans. This would add a functionary to coordinate with the other two branches for “interoperability.”

Would this Coordination be arbitrated by a higher authority? What grievance procedure could there be in this? What happens if the head of one of the federal agencies or departments disagrees with this “coordinator”? Then what? Who has the final word? What about oversight?

This Coordinator person has to come up with a plan for all this within 90 days. Right. So it’s already written, and the person is already chosen? Wolfowitz needs a job, for example? Shouldn’t this be a position that needs to be confirmed? Oh oh… he couldn’t be thinking Gonzales…Rumsfeld… Rove? No, no, couldn’t be. Back to the text.

The White House could be building on its previous successes in expanding the executive role (hence the concern) – in which case state and local governments, territories, other properties (Guantanamo?), and interestingly enough, also private corporations – would be his (and Cheney’s and ?) to command in case of a national emergency. That would be really, really bad – I’m guessing that’s the cause of all the buzz and noise, if people read it that way.

The other interpretation might be that he is trying to do what he’s done in other places, like Homeland Security, which is to centralize power and information. In this case, the executive branch would be (or have?) the ultimate “coordinator”, like a wedding planner. Think the right will steal that metaphor?

Still, even then, the language of “coordinating” might be a screen for more of a “dictating” role. Have you actually dealt with someone whose title was “coordinator”? So you know what I mean. Anyway, the document says it’s not a directive role…and there’s lots of repetitions of “constitutional.” Maybe he’s trying to respond to criticisms about how this government has failed to respond effectively to catastrophes.

There are two different time-frames being discussed – one is the coordination effort for planning, and the other is what kinds of authority would be activated in case the plans went into effect.

If it means that all these agencies and authorities and private interests have to answer to the White House or its representative during an actual disaster, that seems like a very bad idea. I’m not sure if that’s what it means or not, and I don’t think I’d be able to tell without having access to more of the document, which is classified. So I don’t know.

Are there any other “eyes” in the legislative branch who would know what we’re actually talking about here?

You don’t want to be waiting for authorizations at a time like that, and suppose communications systems are disrupted? And “systems are down”?

Decentralized and adaptive power structures are much more effective. There is some concern about communication networks in the document, and a science and technology officer is responsible for ensuring those systems. I guess it all depends on the kind of disaster…

One thing we should have learned from Global Terrorism (and Global Corporations – I wonder who learned from who?) is that “cells” and “units” with multiply-redundant lines of communication and feedback are more adaptive and effective than “headquarters.” Interpenetration is more effective than top-down management. Instead of using methods of intelligence-gathering integration, we blunder in without even knowing a language or culture and whip up hornets nests. We were better when we had some classy spies, and practiced protective camouflage. We’ve forgotten our roots as Revolutionaries. We’re the new “red coats” – sticking out a mile. But back to the matter at hand, already in progress…

There are those who are saying that this is a setup for Bush to become an actual, old-fashioned dictator. No – it’s a bit more subtle. The Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG) refers to all three branches – but the difference it that they would be “coordinated by the President.” I would need to hear more details about what the coordination and implementation would look like in order to start screaming “Dictator.” Bush would like to be a Dictator, I’m sure, but he’s not.

Most of the document that has been released is more about structures and planning than about actual implementation. Read one way, it’s almost a will, since it also provides for the succession to the Presidency. “Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.” Hmmm.

There will be a new threat alert/readiness system – the President will get to issue the COGCON level focused on threats to the National Capital Region.

Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions. COGCON? Are they kidding? It sounds like an inside joke. Cogswell Cogs, cog in the works, brick in the wall, conference, conjob, conning the cogs, the con about continuity of government. Anyway, that level issued (through the super-secret underground lair communication device?) will signal all the agencies and departments of the executive branch to comply with assigned requirements under the program.

“Bible college never prepared me for THIS – are you SURE that’s the required action for this department?” “Yeah, honey, now just stand over there…”

All details of the COGCON program are classified.

This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders. – George W. Bush

The directive does not have the same weight as, say, the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act. There may be aspects of it that are even more dangerous, that go further than “total information awareness” and the other kinds of surveillance on American citizens that this administration seems to crave.

Hermeneutics/deconstruction – deconstruction/hermeneutics.

Nope. Can’t get a fix. I can read it as intending to protect and defend the American people and the Constitution. And I can read it as a very scary document that we’ll think should have given us warning about the destruction of America as we know it. And I can believe it could even, in some sick way, be both.

We could say – “thank goodness we had this.” We could say – “they were planning it all along.” We could say – “he just wanted to one-up Clinton, and somebody wanted a new job.”

I have serious reservations, but I don’t think I have enough information to credibly argue about this document. For all I can tell, they’re just trying to reduce the paperwork.

One thing that I can tell you is that I am happy that I don’t write government documents for a living. I suspect that there are many things that we don’t know about – across the board – at the federal level of government.

After all this, I’ll have to stew some more. Sigh.

Well, at least I’ve got the initial bits that struck me.

Comments are welcome.

“Everything we do here is on the defense. Any troops increase over here – they will just be more sitting ducks, more targets.” – Army Sergeant Ronn Cantu, serving his second tour in Iraq.

Get informed, and take action to oppose escalation in Iraq. The war – it isn’t “really” a war, and yet Bush has assumed war powers – is wrong. No “surge” of troops, no bloody sacrificial sop to Bush’s pride can be acceptable to informed Americans.

Sign at least a couple of the petitions, send emails to your representatives, participate in local events, write to your local newspaper or television news station.

Search for local events at America Says No.org (True Majority, Democracy in Action).

Sign the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Petition

Dear President Bush,

On Election Day, America spoke with one voice about its desire to end the war in Iraq. In the weeks and months since, members of Congress from both parties have urged you to heed the will of our nation and propose real change. Regrettably you have chosen to ignore the will of the American people. Concern about your escalation strategy is non-partisan. It is opposed by Democrats, it is opposed by Republicans, it is opposed by top military leaders, and it is opposed by an overwhelming majority of the American people.

Democrats, Republicans and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have all offered you a roadmap to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis, begin the phased redeployment of American troops and end our open-ended commitment to Iraq. America doesn’t need another White House P.R. campaign — we need a real change of course in Iraq.

United for Peace March on Washington to End the War, January 27th.

10 Reasons Why the US Must Leave Iraq

Teddy Kennedy sums it up pretty well:

The President’s decision to send more American troops into the cauldron of civil war is not an acceptable strategy. It is against the advice of his own generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the wishes of the American people and will only compound our original mistake in going to war in Iraq.

…The mission of our armed forces today in Iraq no longer bears any resemblance to the mission authorized by Congress in 2002. The Iraq War Resolution authorized a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein because he was believed to have weapons of mass destruction, an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, and was in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolutions.

Not one member of Congress would have voted in favor of it they thought they were sending American troops into a civil war.

The President owes it to the American people to seek approval for this new mission from Congress. Congress should no longer be a rubber stamp for the President’s failed strategy, and should insist on a policy that is worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

We have been irresponsible in allowing Bush to act like a King. It’s not the President’s decision anymore. It’s ours.

Senator Kennedy has introduced legislation that makes the issue plain. It states that any substantial new commitment in Iraq requires a plan from the administration and explicit authorization from Congress.

Add your name to the petition in support of Senator Kennedy’s legislation.