Sotomayor Is No Leftist

But is she a corporatist?

Posted on May 28, 2009

By E.J. Dionne
    
Republicans would be foolish to fight the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court because she is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made.

And even though they should support her confirmation, liberals would be foolish to embrace Sotomayor as one of their own because her record is clearly that of a moderate. It is highly unlikely that she will push the court to the left. Indeed, on many issues of concern to business, she is likely to make the Chamber of Commerce perfectly happy.

In this battle, it’s important to separate Obama’s reasons for choosing Sotomayor from her actual record. He was drawn to her not simply because the politics of naming the first Latina justice were irresistible, but also because he saw her as the precise opposite of Chief Justice John Roberts.In his September 2005 speech explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama argued that 95 percent of court cases are easily settled on the basis of the law and precedent. But in “those 5 percent of hard cases,” Obama said, the “legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision” and “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
    
And that is where Obama found Roberts wanting. The young senator insisted that Roberts “far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak” and “seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process.”
    
Obama believes Roberts’ subsequent behavior on the court has justified his initial suspicions. He hopes that Sotomayor will be the anti-Roberts, a person whose experience growing up in the projects of the South Bronx will allow her to see life and the quest for justice in a way Roberts never will.
    
Conservatives—particularly those who run direct mail outfits and want a big court fight—would love the decision over Sotomayor to hang on Obama’s call for judges who show “empathy.” They would cast her as a dangerous activist willing to bend the law to produce the results she wants.
    
They want to turn Obama’s argument on its head and claim that Sotomayor would show bias in favor of those who share her background—and never mind that they dismiss such assertions when they are raised with respect to white, conservative, male nominees.
    
The problem is that this approach is untrue to who Sotomayor has been and has little relationship to the decisions she has actually rendered as a judge. News accounts from the 1990s consistently described her as a “centrist” in her politics. Her lead sponsor when she was first named as a judge, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was hardly a conventional liberal. Obama may have found himself an empathetic judge, but she practices her empathy from the middle of the road.
    
A careful analysis of her record by Business Week, for example, concluded that she is a “moderate on business issues” and would fit the court’s current alignment of such questions.
    
She also upheld a ban on federal funds going to family planning groups that provided abortions overseas. Sotomayor wrote that “the Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.”

Dan Gilgoff, on his excellent “God and Country” blog, points out that Sotomayor also ruled in favor of a group of Connecticut anti-abortion protesters who asserted that police “used excessive force against them at a demonstration.” He concludes that her “thin record on abortion is most likely a relief” to pro-life groups. In picking her, Obama sent another signal that he is serious in seeking common ground on abortion.
   
Liberals should not take the bait of the right-wingers by allowing the debate over Sotomayor to be premised on the idea that she is a bold ideological choice. She’s not. But if conservatives succeed in painting this moderate as a radical, they will skew future arguments over the court. In fact, liberals should press Sotomayor on her more conservative decisions on business issues, an area in which the current court already tilts too far right.
    
As for Republican senators, they have to ask if it’s worth alienating Latino voters to wage a fierce battle against a woman who is, from their point of view, the best nominee Obama was likely to give them. 
     
E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
    © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group   
White House / Pete Souza

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Maddow: Supreme strike out

The republicans would go after Jesus Christ, if He were nominated by this president.

more about "Maddow: Supreme strike out", posted with vodpod

False Records At The CIA?

We are fairly convinced, at this point, that CIA Docs have been doctored. Our first clue was Former Senator Graham's  words that on at least two occasions , when the CIA had Docs saying he was briefed, no such meetings occurred . Everyone nows that Graham is is OCD about his schedule. The CIA backed down, saying that there must ave been mistakes. How can anything be trusted that came out of the years of Bush's CIA?

This would be hardly shocking nor would it be the first time that agencies of the Executive have lied to Congress.

Why Did Tenet Create a False Record on the Day After He “Quit”? By: emptywheel Wednesday May 27, 2009 9:11 am

d

William Ockham made another really important discovery:

I’d like to point to a document that was released a year ago (5/27/2008) as part of the ACLU’s ongoing torture FOIA. It’s a heavily redacted memo dated June 4, 2004 from George Tenet to the National Security Advisor (Rice). By June 2004, Tenet is on his way out as CIA director, the Abu Ghraib scandal has hit with full force, the CIA IG’s report has just been finished (but not yet briefed to Congress) and the 2004 Presidential campaign is in full swing. The CIA prison system was mostly still secret, but they had just released Khaled el-Masri in May 2004. The story of the ghost detainees in Iraq was just about to break.

With that as the background, here’s the parts of the second page of the memo that aren’t redacted (all the rest except the date, sender, and addressee are redacted:

3. As you know, beginning in September 2002, the Justice Department authorized CIA in its discretion, to employ on selected HVDs [Redaction ~3 lines] waterboard, [Redaction ~2 lines] CIA has reserved use of these [Redaction] techniques to elicit ongoing threat information from the most hardcore, senior terrorist figures that have been captured– men such as Khalid Sheik Muhammad, Abu Zubaydeh, [Redaction ~ 7 lines] key members of Congress have been briefed from the beginning–CIA informed the leadership of the Congressional Intelligence Committees of the existence and nature of the Program when it commenced in late 2002, in early 2003 when members of the leadership changed, and again in September 2003.

Rice and Tenet both knew that most of that was not true. They knew the program commenced long before September 2002, that the DOJ memos (which were not authorizations) came in August, that the Congressional briefings were after the fact and completely inadequate from a statutory perspective. What is this memo other than an attempt to create an after-the-fact coverup?

I'd add two details to those WO offers. The document appears not just after Tenet was on his way out, but the day after Bush announced his resignation. And it happened around the time Tenet asked for written endorsement from Bush of the torture program.

The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public. 
[snip]

The memos were the first -- and, for years, the only -- tangible expressions of the administration's consent for the CIA's use of harsh measures to extract information from captured al-Qaeda leaders, the sources said.
[snip]

The second request from Tenet, in June 2004, reflected growing worries among agency officials who had just witnessed the public outcry over the Abu Ghraib scandal. Officials who held senior posts at the time also spoke of deteriorating relations between the CIA and the White House over the war in Iraq -- a rift that prompted some to believe that the agency needed even more explicit proof of the administration's support. 

[snip]

By the spring of 2004, the concerns among agency officials had multiplied, in part because of shifting views among administration lawyers about what acts might constitute torture, leading Tenet to ask a second time for written confirmation from the White House. This time the reaction was far more reserved, recalled two former intelligence officials. 

Now, take a look at the document itself (PDF). See how long the redaction is after the number "3"? The redaction appears to be the paragraph's classification mark, and the length suggests it has a pretty specific classification beyond the Top Secret.

If that's right, then it may well be a CYA document (as WO suggests), but not one targeted toward anyone public, such as Congress.

So, in addition to the good question that WO asks, I've got two more. What do you bet the chances are that the document WO found is Tenet's request for that second written endorsement of torture from Bush? And if so, were Condi and Tenet building in plausible deniability of the illegalities regarding timing for Bush?

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

The Dumbing Down Of America: A Brilliant Success!

Those who misinform the American electorate, intentionally or through sheer negligence, should be considered enemies of freedom and Democracy.

Can there be any doubt that education matters not just in how we view the world, but in what kind of world we create -- or simply accept? And can there be any doubt that, despite a massive educational infrastructure (admittedly now fraying badly), Americans remain remarkably poorly informed about the world? Last year, Rick Shenkman, the editor of the History News Network website, published a book (now out in paperback), Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter, excerpted at this site. Stupid enough (or ill-informed) was the answer.

Since Barack Obama's election, many readers wrote Shenkman asking him if he still believes that "the voters are uninformed. Didn't Obama's election mean they were pretty smart?" In a recent post, he answered regretfully in the negative and here's just a little of what he had to say:

"The highlights of the 2008 election included controversies over Obama's bowling score, his middle name Hussein, and Hillary's crying. These were not exactly issues of much weight at a time when the financial collapse of the country was happening before our eyes. And yet they drew extended media commentary… The media was to blame for the deplorable low quality of much of the campaign. But I am firmly convinced that you get the campaign you deserve…

"Take the question of Obama's religion. Millions of voters paid so little attention to the news that they were easily bamboozled into believing that Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim. On the eve of the election, confusion reigned. Polls indicated that 7 percent of the voters in the key battleground states of Florida and Ohio and 23 percent in Texas believed that Obama was a Muslim. In addition, and worse, more than 40 percent in Florida and Ohio reported that they did not know what his religion was. The arithmetic is horrifying: 7 percent + 40 percent = a near majority guilty of gross ignorance.

"Americans did not come by their confusion by accident. A deliberate campaign was launched by Republicans to convince people that Obama's faith was in question. But what are we to make of voters who could be so easily bamboozled..."

I
It's sobering to consider just how many Americans can't sort out propaganda (or simply fiction) from fact in the media madness that passes for our "information age." It's no less sobering to consider a corollary possibility: that we get the society we deserve; that, in fact, our youth in college today are being prepared, as TomDispatch regular William Astore (who has taught at both the Air Force Academy and the Pennsylvania College of Technology) suggests, to enter a world in desperate shape, but not to challenge it. Tom

Selling Education, Manufacturing Technocrats, Torturing Souls

The Tyranny of Being Practical
By William Astore

Hardly a week goes by without dire headlines about the failure of the American education system. Our students don't perform well in math and science. The high-school dropout rate is too high. Minority students are falling behind. Teachers are depicted as either overpaid drones protected by tenure or underpaid saints at the mercy of deskbound administrators and pushy parents.

Unfortunately, all such headlines collectively fail to address a fundamental question: What is education for? At so many of today's so-called institutions of higher learning, students are offered a straightforward answer: For a better job, higher salary, more marketable skills, and more impressive credentials. All the more so in today's collapsing job market.

Based on a decidedly non-bohemian life -- 20 years' service in the military and 10 years teaching at the college level -- I'm convinced that American education, even in the worst of times, even recognizing the desperate need of most college students to land jobs, is far too utilitarian, vocational, and narrow. It's simply not enough to prepare students for a job: We need to prepare them for life, while challenging them to think beyond the confines of their often parochial and provincial upbringings. (As a child of the working class from a provincial background, I speak from experience.)

And here's one compelling lesson all of us, students and teachers alike, need to relearn constantly: If you view education in purely instrumental terms as a way to a higher-paying job -- if it's merely a mechanism for mass customization within a marketplace of ephemeral consumer goods -- you've effectively given a free pass to the prevailing machinery of power and those who run it.

Three Myths of Higher Ed

Three myths serve to restrict our education to the narrowly utilitarian and practical. The first, particularly pervasive among conservative-minded critics, is that our system of higher education is way too liberal, as well as thoroughly dominated by anti-free-market radicals and refugee Marxists from the 1960s who, like so many Ward Churchills, are indoctrinating our youth in how to hate America.

Nonsense.

Today's college students are being indoctrinated in the idea that they need to earn "degrees that work" (the official motto of the technically-oriented college where I teach). They're being taught to measure their self-worth by their post-college paycheck. They're being urged to be lifelong learners, not because learning is transformative or even enjoyable, but because to "keep current" is to "stay competitive in the global marketplace." (Never mind that keeping current is hardly a guarantee that your job won't be outsourced to the lowest bidder.)

And here's a second, more pervasive myth from the world of technology: technical skills are the key to success as well as life itself, and those who find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide are doomed to lives of misery. From this it necessarily follows that computers are a panacea, that putting the right technology into the classroom and into the hands of students and faculty solves all problems. The keys to success, in other words, are interactive SMART boards, not smart teachers interacting with curious students. Instead, canned lessons are offered with PowerPoint efficiency, and students respond robotically, trying to copy everything on the slides, or clamoring for all presentations to be posted on the local server.

One "bonus" from this approach is that colleges can more easily measure (or "assess," as they like to say) how many networked classrooms they have, how many on-line classes they teach, even how much money their professors bring in for their institutions. With these and similar metrics in hand, parents and students can be recruited or retained with authoritative-looking data: job placement rates, average starting salaries of graduates, even alumni satisfaction rates (usually best measured when the football team is winning).

A third pervasive myth -- one that's found its way from the military and business worlds into higher education -- is: If it's not quantifiable, it's not important. With this mindset, the old-fashioned idea that education is about molding character, forming a moral and ethical identity, or even becoming a more self-aware person, heads down the drain. After all, how could you quantify such elusive traits as assessable goals, or showcase such non-measurements in the glossy marketing brochures, glowing press releases, and gushing DVDs that compete to entice prospective students and their anxiety-ridden parents to hand over ever larger sums of money to ensure a lucrative future?

Three Realities of Higher Ed

What do torture, a major recession, and two debilitating wars have to do with our educational system? My guess: plenty. These are the three most immediate realities of a system that fails to challenge, or even critique, authority in any meaningful way. They are bills that are now long overdue thanks, in part, to that system's technocratic bias and pedagogical shortfalls -- thanks, that is, to what we are taught to see and not see, regard and disregard, value and dismiss.

Over the last two decades, higher education, like the housing market, enjoyed its own growth bubble, characterized by rising enrollments, fancier high-tech facilities, and ballooning endowments. Americans invested heavily in these derivative products as part of an educational surge that may prove at least as expensive and one-dimensional as our military surges in Iraq and Afghanistan.

s usual, the humanities were allowed to wither. Don't know much about history? Go ahead and authorize waterboarding, even though the U.S. prosecuted it as a war crime after World War II. Don't know much about geography? Go ahead and send our troops into mountainous Afghanistan, that "graveyard of empires," and allow them to be swallowed up by the terrain as they fight a seemingly endless war.

Perhaps I'm biased because I teach history, but here's a fact to consider: Unless a cadet at the Air Force Academy (where I once taught) decides to major in the subject, he or she is never required to take a U.S. history course. Cadets are, however, required to take a mind-boggling array of required courses in various engineering and scientific disciplines as well as calculus. Or civilians, chew on this: At the Pennsylvania College of Technology, where I currently teach, of the roughly 6,600 students currently enrolled, only 30 took a course this semester on U.S. history since the Civil War, and only three were programmatically required to do so.

We don't have to worry about our college graduates forgetting the lessons of history -- not when they never learned them to begin with.

Donning New Sunglasses

One attitude pervading higher education today is: students are customers who need to be kept happy by service-oriented professors and administrators. That's a big reason why, at my college at least, the hottest topics debated by the Student Council are not government wars, torture, or bail-outs but a lack of parking and the quality of cafeteria food.

It's a large claim to make, but as long as we continue to treat students as customers and education as a commodity, our hopes for truly substantive changes in our country's direction are likely to be dashed. As long as education is driven by technocratic imperatives and the tyranny of the practical, our students will fail to acknowledge that precious goal of Socrates: To know thyself -- and so your own limits and those of your country as well.

To know how to get by or get ahead is one thing, but to know yourself is to struggle to recognize your own limitations as well as illusions. Such knowledge is disorienting, even dangerous -- kind of like those sunglasses donned by Roddy Piper in the slyly subversive "B" movie They Live (1988). In Piper's case, they revealed a black-and-white nightmare, a world in which a rapacious alien elite pulls the levers of power while sheep-like humans graze passively, shackled by slogans to conform, consume, watch, marry, and reproduce.

Like those sunglasses, education should help us to see ourselves and our world in fresh, even disturbing, ways. If we were properly educated as a nation, the only torturing going on might be in our own hearts and minds -- a struggle against accepting the world as it's being packaged and sold to us by the pragmatists, the technocrats, and those who think education is nothing but a potential passport to material success.

William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), taught for six years at the Air Force Academy. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. A TomDispatch regular, he also writes for History News Network and Nieman Watchdog. His essays have appeared in The Nation, Salon.com, Asia Times, Le Monde Diplomatique, and elsewhere. He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.

Copyright 2009 William Astore

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

World Sitting on 'Powder Keg' of Social Unrest: Amnesty International

The world is sitting on a "powder keg" of social unrest, which risks exploding as human rights are eroded by the global economic slowdown, Amnesty International warned. But its annual report -- detailing abuses from China to Guantanamo Bay and from Sri Lanka to the ex-Soviet Union -- said the global meltdown also offers a chance to rebuild an economic framework putting human rights at its heart. 

 

"There are growing signs of political unrest and violence, adding to the global insecurity that already exists because of deadly conflicts which the international community seems unable or unwilling to resolve. "In other words: we are sitting on a powder keg of inequality, injustice and insecurity, and it is about to explode," said Amnesty chief Irene Khan.

No surprise here.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Rove sides with Cheney, says he would pick Limbaugh over Powell.

Karl Rove Is The Worst Of A--holes. Will Someone Please Arrest This Criminal Bastard!

more about "Rove sides with Cheney, says he would...", posted with vodpod

Powell Obliterates Cheney & Limbaugh

more about "Powell Obliterates Cheney & Limbaugh", posted with vodpod

Internet Threatened by Censorship, Secret Surveillance, and Cybersecurity Laws - by Stephen Lendman  (Read More)

At a time of corporate dominated media, a free and open Internet is democracy's last chance to preserve our First Amendment rights without which all others are threatened. Activists call it Net Neutrality. Media scholar Robert McChesney says without it "the Internet would start to look like cable TV (with a) handful of massive companies (controlling) content" enough to have veto power over what's allowed and what it costs. 

 

Progressive web sites and writers would be marginalized or suppressed, and content systematically filtered or banned. -- Media reform activists have drawn a line in the sand. Net Neutrality must be defended at all costs. 

 

Preserving a viable, independent, free and open Internet (and the media overall) is essential to a functioning democracy, but the forces aligned against it are formidable, daunting, relentless, and reprehensible. Some past challenges suggest future ones ahead. -- 

 

Censorship Attempts to Curtail Free Expression: The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -- -- Nonetheless, Congress and state legislatures have repeatedly tried to censor free speech, allegedly regarded as indecent, obscene, hateful, terrorist-related, or harmful to minors. However, the Supreme Court, in a number of decisions, ruled that the government may not regulate free expression, only its manner such as when it violates the right to privacy "in an essentially intolerable manner" - a huge hurtle to overcome, including online, because viewers are protected by simply "averting (one's) eyes (Cohen v. California - 1971)."

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Contractors say Blackwater supplied forbidden guns

By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press Writer Mike Baker, Associated Press Writer Thu May 21, 8:43 pm ET

RALEIGH, N.C. – The security firm formerly known as Blackwater armed some of its workers in Afghanistan despite U.S. military documents that prohibited them from carrying guns, said two former contractors who were fired after they were involved in a fatal shooting in the country.

Justin Cannon and Steven McClain said Thursday that they frequently asked superiors why the company distributed the AK-47 assault rifles without Department of Defense authorization.

"We were just told, 'Continue doing your job. Don't worry about it. That's above your paygrade,'" Cannon, 27, of Texas, said in an interview with The Associated Press. The men were involved in a shooting earlier this month that killed an Afghan and injured two others, and they recently returned to the U.S., saying they were cleared to leave after an interview with military investigators.

Blackwater, now known as Xe, has said the company's subsidiary, Paravant, fired the men "for failure to comply with the terms of their contract." McClain showed a letter detailing his termination, and it listed a violation of alcohol policy as the only specific reason for firing.

Both men said they weren't drinking and hadn't drank since arriving in Afghanistan in November. Their attorney, Daniel J. Callahan, said he believes the company is making up the alcohol issue so it can avoid scrutiny over contractors being armed.

"Blackwater's concerned about getting kicked out of Afghanistan as it got kicked out of Iraq," said Callahan, with Santa Ana, Calif.-based Callahan & Blaine. "They're trying to use these four men as scapegoats."
Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined to immediately comment on the accusations.

McClain and Cannon said the company issued weapons to the contractors even though they were supposed to train the Afghan National Army on other styles of weapons used by NATO forces. And they said the company told them to carry the weapons, even when they weren't training, and that it was no secret that they had the guns.

"These weapons pretty much went wherever we went," Cannon said. "If we go to the classroom, we take our weapons. If we go to the range, we take our weapons. If we leave the compound at all, we take our weapons."

They had the guns with them as usual on the night of May 5. The men said they had dinner with some interpreters and then went to drive them to a taxi stand several miles away. On the way, the men said a speeding vehicle slammed into the first car of their two-vehicle convoy, causing it to roll.

McClain, 25, of California, said he was hurt and that he and his passengers had to climb out of the sport utility vehicle's back window.

Cannon said the people in his SUV got out to help but saw that the car that had caused the accident had turned and sped toward them. Cannon said he and another contractor, Chris Drotleff, fired their weapons. He wasn't sure how many rounds were fired.

"At that point, the vehicle was the threat," Cannon said. "I thought I was about to get creamed by a 2,000-pound car."

The brother of one of the wounded Afghans has said the car was full of shopkeepers heading home from work and that the people in the vehicle misinterpreted one of the Americans hitting the car as an order to move.

A passenger was hit in the stomach and died two days later, said Shah Agha, whose brother Farid was driving the car. Farid was shot in the hand and another person was injured outside the vehicle, Agha said.
McClain said three of the men, including Armando Hamid, who were fired in the aftermath of the shooting have left Afghanistan while a fourth, Drotleff, is still there. Callahan had accused the company of holding the men against their will. But they said Thursday that Blackwater told them to stay but didn't physically detain them. They left the compound Saturday night.

Xe, which is based in North Carolina, dumped its brand name Blackwater earlier this year as it tried to distance itself from its operations in Iraq. The State Department is not renewing the company's lucrative security work in there, which comprises an estimated one-third of Xe's revenues.

(This version CORRECTS Corrects names of person identified as fired and person who stayed behind in Afghanistan in 16th graf. Moving on general news and financial services.)


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Jesse Ventura Questions 9/11 and Waterboarding Torture on Fox And Friends

Never Thought We Would Be Posting Anything By Jessie.

Nevertheless, I must say, right on, Jessie!

more about "Jesse Ventura Questions 9/11 and Wate...", posted with vodpod

Cheneylies: Point by Point

Has anyone else wondered where Lynn Cheney is, these days. It's been daughter, Liz , whose been on the talk shows, defending her clearly insane father. It used to be Lynn. Wonder what's up with that? I don't recall having heard much out of her since the Dick shot that old man in the face down in Texas. OT, maybe, but curious. nonetheless.

At any rate, when will someone be a true patriot and indict the snake, NOW?

WASHINGTON - Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s high-profile speech Thursday defending the Bush administration’s policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements, according to intelligence officials and the historical record, including:

Cheney said waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques produced information that “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” He also quoted Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair as saying the information gave U.S. officials a “deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization.”

In his statement April 21, however, Blair said “these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.” A 2004 CIA inspector general’s investigation found no conclusive proof that the information helped thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to one of four secret Bush-era memos released last month. And FBI Director Robert Muller said in December that he didn’t think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.

Cheney said his administration “moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.”

In fact, the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistan, leaving Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, at large nearly eight years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since 2001, and extremists have launched a concerted attack on nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Cheney accused Obama of “the selective release” of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.

In fact, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA, which said it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting release of materials that are subject of lawsuits.

Cheney said only “ruthless enemies of this country” were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.

A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries.

Cheney denied there was any link between the Bush administration’s interrogation policies and the abuse of detainees at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib jail, which he blamed on “a few sadistic guards.” But a bipartisan Senate Armed Services report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to approval of the techniques by senior Bush officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Bush criticized by former 9/11 commission member

Can anyone really be this obtuse while responsible for national security? Furthermore, how could the president not know what he knew, when he knew about it and what he did about it? After a catastrophe, it is human nature to flash back to we we should have, could have done to stop it.

By PETE YOST –

WASHINGTON (AP) — A former member of the 9/11 Commission criticizes former President George W. Bush in a new book for not responding to pre-attack intelligence on Osama bin Laden's intentions.

In "The Emperor's New Clothes: Exposing the Truth from Watergate to 9/11," Richard Ben-Veniste writes that CIA analysts told Bush that bin Laden was determined to strike inside the United States, "yet the president had done absolutely nothing to follow up."

A Democrat and a longtime Washington attorney, Ben-Veniste provides an inside account of the commission's three-hour interview with Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on April 29, 2004.

Bush told the panel that the Aug. 6, 2001 intelligence summary — known as a presidential daily brief — was the only one he ever received on the domestic threat, Ben-Veniste writes.

In the interview with Bush, Ben-Veniste asked the president why he hadn't met with the FBI director after getting the PDB.

Bush replied that there were concerns predating his administration about politicizing the FBI and interfering in pending cases.

But "this was no pending case subject to claims of political interference," Ben-Veniste writes in his book.
The president said he couldn't recall whether he asked National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to get in touch with the FBI regarding the PDB, according to the book.

There was no immediate response from a spokesman for the former president to requests for comment.

Finally declassified by the Bush administration amid public and political pressure in April 2004, the PDB from Aug. 6, 2001 said, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden related." The PDB also said that the CIA and the FBI at the time were investigating a call to the U.S. embassy in the United Arab Emirates three months earlier saying that "a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives."

In his interview with the commission, Bush said the mention of 70 pending FBI investigations was a good thing, helpful, according to Ben-Veniste's book. Rice testified publicly that the PDB contained "some frightening things." At the time the president received the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB, Rice was not with Bush, who was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

In the runup to the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks, Ben-Veniste wrote, the summer of 2001 marked the most elevated threat level the country had ever experienced, providing convincing evidence that a spectacular attack was about to occur.

"CIA analysts had written a report for the president's eyes to alert him to the possibility that bin Laden's words and actions, together with recent investigative clues, pointed to an attack by al-Qaida on the American homeland," Ben-Veniste writes.

In the commission interview, "President Bush volunteered that if there had been 'a serious concern' in August 2001, he would have known about it," Ben-Veniste writes. "Being on my best behavior, I didn't come out and ask him what he thought a briefing from the CIA titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.' was, if not a serious concern."

"Instead, I asked whether the president had discussed the Aug. 6 PDB with either the attorney general or the secretary of the treasury, the two cabinet officers who oversaw the FBI and other federal agencies charged with domestic law enforcement," Ben-Veniste wrote. "Had he discussed the PDB with Attorney General Ashcroft to ensure the FBI was doing everything necessary? The president said that he could not recall, nor could he say whether Rice had any such discussion with Ashcroft."

Ben-Veniste's book recounts five episodes from his career in which he played a role. Aside from his membership on the 9/11 Commission, Ben-Veniste prosecuted former top Nixon administration officials in the Watergate coverup; prosecuted the top aide to Democratic Speaker John McCormack for bribery and perjury; defended a lawyer in the FBI's Abscam sting operation in which bribes were paid to members of Congress; and served as Democratic counsel to the Republican-controlled Senate Whitewater Committee that investigated the Clintons.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Related articles

• Bush criticized by former 9/11 commission member
  The Associated Press - May 22, 2009
• Richard Ben-Veniste Smacks Bush. Again.
  Daily Kos - 13 hours ago
• Bush criticized by former 9/11 commission member
  KSWT-TV - May 22, 2009
• More coverage (3) »

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Is Pelosi really "Briar" Rabbit?

Already, more than a few Republican pols are steaming down the dual tracks of fear and loathing -- of their own.

At first it all seemed so happily serendipitous -- the self-presented target of San Francisco-überliberal Nancy Pelosi; plus, like manna from heaven, visions of pampered, Gitmo-released, daggers-in-their-teeth, swarthy terrorists roaming the streets of wholesome Des Moines at Barack Obama's invitation -- almost gifts from St. Jude, the saint of hopeless causes, including hopelessly imprudent political parties.

 But now it appears the good saint carries boomerangs of regret as well as crosses of hope.

With respect to Pelosi, "After a one-two punch from Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney," as Politico has reported, "House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican lawmakers worry that their party has overplayed its hand."

The specter of the ghoulish former vice president -- who by the way had had his own problems with the CIA -- nipping in his standard unchivalrous fashion at Pelosi's speakership heels was bad enough. But the GOP went and put Newt Gingrich in charge of the general attack, whose ultimate goal -- "Pelosi's ouster" -- is now being described as quixotically "unattainable."

Gingrich vs. Pelosi is a Dem Dream. Gingirch was not only having an affair with a staffer during his tirades against Bill Clinton, but he had his cancer-ridden wife sign diviorce papers in her hospital room while his. then, mistress waited in his car. I agree, he is really a disgusting hypocrite. He is tailor made for moral combat with Pelosi, the good Catholic with grandkids and the same husband she married the first time. He keeps saying that Pelosi didn't object to torture. Yes she did, with her signature under that of Jane Harman, who, at the time, was the ranking memeber on the House Int. Committee. Pelosi was ranking member of the House at the time. Not the Speaker of the House. That is a huge difference in the House. 

Mr. Gingrich, I would not go there with security either, if I were you. Your guys have created the biggest mess I've ever seen when it comes to national security, which we all know is never perfect. Some of us care more about our rights under the Constitution than we do perfect security. Some of us are not so cowardly as to believe that we have to have perfect security or, even deserve it, for that matter.

That means this overeager saga has evolved into a tale of yet more GOP extremism and yet another GOP failure. And as one "senior Republican lawmaker" so aptly framed it: "If the story becomes about us and not her, it’s a problem for us." It did and it is.

The "problem" wasn't unforeseeable. As Democratic Congressman Bill Delahunt mused: "The best thing for anyone, let alone Nancy Pelosi, is to be the subject of a petty, venal, absurd attack by Newt Gingrich. He’s the gift that keeps on giving."

Yet, almost unbelievably, some amorphous strategy team inside the GOP is shipping Newt out to give some more tomorrow on "Meet the Press" -- to the ongoing horror of Republican moderates, whatever their shrinking numbers, everywhere.

But that ain't the half of it. The party's much larger problem is the hauntings of Dick Cheney.

Agreed. That man given me the willies, makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on in and basically creeps me out. He strikes me as a functional psychotic with paranoid tendencies. Some heart medications can create this psychotic state, especially in the case of someone with those tendencies all along. Dick Cheney strikes me as sacred shitless. But of whom, really? Al Qaeda or the left? I thought the left were bleeding-heart, pinko limp-wristed wusses. Why would the leading Rethugs, all, be so afraid of them?

In time, the geniuses at GOP Strategy Central will undoubtedly ask Newt to sheath his Pelosi-directed sword. Given his presidential aspirations and their concomitant need for some internal brotherly love, Newt will likely listen and obey. But Cheney has no such restraining aspirations for the future. What's more, he knows he's singularly right -- about everything -- while everyone else is wrong. And in this final act of his tragic life he means to let you know it.

Actually, he's scared. Therefore, he must frighten the holy Begeebus out of everyone else. It helps him feel more secure. Either that, or his rantings are a forerunner to an attack he knows is coming.

Cheney is messing around in the "Devil's Triad," before he is anywhere near ready. Cheney is a middle-management guy, who cannot really function in the light for long, his cardinal sin is fear, an in his disintegrated state, he fear-mongers when he is terrified.

In short, he doesn't give a damn about his party and its needs. And what is it his party needs now more than ever? You got it: the retention as well as return of moderates -- which is going to be slow going, or no going, as long as Dick Cheney is out there, re-cementing the party's image as one of hateful, immoderate buffoons.

His initial national-security barbs at Obama were, in general, viewed by his party as helpful. He was a man of national conservative presence, but his out-of-office presence allowed him to take on the most popular pol in America without hammering the appearance of a direct GOP assault.

Cheneyism, however, has since become core Republicanism. The former's message as well as dark image could not be contained; now the moderates are fleeing from any association.

To date, John McCain has been perhaps the bluntest in his open disgust. When "asked about Cheney’s role in the party," the party's former presidential candidate -- and by all rights its titular head -- snapped: "I don’t have the time or energy to discuss that -- or the inclination."

When asked if she might want any campaign assistance from her party's former vice president, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, pointedly and tellingly, "You know, I haven’t thought that far." Chimed Utah Sen. Robert Bennett, who, not incidentally, has a 2010 primary challenger: "The most powerful national politician in Utah is Mitt Romney, and he’s already come to Utah to campaign for me. And I think I’ll leave it at that." Utah, no less.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee's head, John Cornyn, said two days ago -- the day of Cheney's pro-torture, pro-Gitmo speech -- that he’d be "proud to appear with the vice president anywhere, anytime"; nonetheless "in the next breath, Cornyn said it would be up to individual GOP candidates to decide whether they want Cheney campaigning with them in 2010."

In Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, Democrats seized on Cornyn’s suggestion and pressured GOP candidates in those states to choose whether they want Cheney to stump in their states. Neither former Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) nor Florida Gov. Charlie Crist -- both of whom are running for the Senate in 2010 -- responded to requests for comment about Cheney’s role, or lack thereof, in their campaigns.

As for North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr? "I’m not going to go there yet."

Sometimes it is well to remember that inside every silver lining there is a cloud. The GOP is now stuck with one that it can't just whisk away. While party moderates can indeed avoid further association with Dick Cheney, they cannot very easily shut down his increasing identification as the party itself. And that, as that Republican lawmaker said of the much shorter-term Pelosi affair, is a real "problem."

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......