WMD's and Belief

Weapon's of Mass Destruction. Those were popular for awhile. Early part of the last decades it seemed to be all we would talk about. Not so much now.

But still, after all we've been through some are interested in the topic. No, I'm not talking about people all jacked up on the idea of bombing Iran into oblivion (...Though, there is some overlap.). Nor do I mean the people who still remember all the eager talk of WMD's and the need for wars (Thankfully some remember and try to keep the rest of us from forgetting.). Rather, I mean the lot who still believe and want to make other's believe that Iraq was a success for the US on the WMD chase topic.

Yes, many people, mostly Right Wingers, believe the antiquated dilapidated hype of the Bush PR team. Of course, they are largely FOX News watchers so they believe plenty of naff things. But this is particularly interesting as the continued embrace of this tenuous point makes them more reassured of the idea of the preemptive Iraqi invasion and claims of WMD threats in other places.

Lessons must be learned.

Let us remember just why we went in. We were DAYS from getting nuked by those mad Iraqis. They were mass producing nukes and other horrors, and we had all the proof we needed. So we got shaky intel, we got dubious sources, we got vials of talc to shake in people's faces, and we got all the King's Men in a line to say, "Yes. Freedonia must go to war." (Sigh...I know, obvious joke.)










Then they lined up the allies.

And off we all went, whether we liked it or not.

WAR.

And the results, on the WMD front, were bupkus.

Despite what some want to claim, we found nothing new. What was there is what we already knew of. All the weapons and facilities were in place (Yes, chemical, biological, and nuclear.). They were in place and unused since 1991. That's when we first made them close up shop.

And some want to go, "AH HA!!! Vindication!" ...No. We knew about this stuff. It was no threat. Hell, alot of it was 80's mustard gas, from back when Iraq was our ally. What about the deadly (but sounding, oh so, delicious) yellowcake? Packed up in barrels way back in the day by inspectors. And no sign of the passionately promised Nigerian buys (Looking at you, Powell.).

But people tried and still try to move the goalpost. We can call it WMD's, so they are everything we claimed. So Iraq had them, and the Neocons were right. ...No.

Oh, no. We were told of active work being done. Nuclear warheads, ready to go. Deadly toxins, ready to deploy. But none of that was found. Just the tracks that showed where the goalpost was moved from. From fantastical pristine research labs to the reality of rusting bins in a storage facility.

Whatever the reason we want to say we went into Iraq, and it's impact on our nation, Iraq, and the world, we did not go in and preempt any genuine immediate threat.

That should be a part of the legacy of the Iraq War never forgotten.

But some try to convince us we can forget, and move on to the next war.

Haiti arrests and right wing reaction

It is interesting to note that following the arrest of Christian workers couriering kids over the border, the right has reacted.

It is interesting to note right winger angst.  Especially against treatment of terror suspects.  They are all for water boarding and eternal imprisonment, and never learning the truth.  But some good Christians suffer, by being held, that is just outrageous.  I guess it is just okay when "we" do it to "them".

Interesting.  Too bad there compassion doesn't that far out from themselves.

Brennan bite

John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor, has come out and nicely gone after the BS coming from Rep and Conservatives over the Pant's Bomber.  He sets things straight and calls out Reps for politicizing the one thing the said should be beyond politics.

As AMERICAblog notes, this is what we need from the WH.  They need to be calling out lies, time and again.

When Gore ran for president he was constantly called a liar in the media, and it stuck.  The GOP is actually lying constantly.  Shouldn't they be tarred by their acts?

Now Sen. Kit Bonds wants him fired for standing us to them...and they didn't understand what he meant when told them what happen.

And as much as they want to go after Brennan now, they can't deny their timeline.  They were fine until Cheney told them they weren't.

When did hating America become patriotic?

When did it? As I have been watching conservatives mouth off and rant in the last month they have veered further and further into attacks they once called unamerican and traitorous. But now it is all virtuous and true.

You have the John Voight's declaring the president a new Caesar (w/ vid). Apparently Bush's marching the legions into 2 countries, and cracking down on liberties in this one don't count that way. Then he says he is too weak and naive. He makes no sense. But this guy is a tool, and an actor, so who really cares.

But you have Orrin Hatch who reminds us how we can all get along. Just do as he and the rest of Republicans demand. How nice of him.

Cause as Glenn Beck likes to remind us, progressives are the problem with the country.

And as Dr. Tiller's murderer promises, more violence is coming. How nice of the conservative nut jobs.

And the Secret Service seems to be quite busy dealing with a number of ongoing threats to the President...and conservatives love America...?

So why are they angry. Apparently Newt knows. Gingrich has warned the pious...those PAGANS are everywhere...LOOK OUT!!!

As Crooks and Liars, among others, have been chronicling, the right wing has been passionately decrying day after day march to socialism. They seem to love to announce and decry it time and again, as Chris Wallace was on his show (w/ vid).

Better yet we have Rep. Kirk of Illinois. He is advising the world to not trust the government financial numbers...so...he is warning the world away from doing business with the US...WTF?

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now appears to have taken a bold step in the debate over the budget deficit: Openly telling a foreign government not to trust the administration in Washington.

The Straits Times reports that Kirk spoke to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, and discussed a meeting he had with Chinese leaders. ...

He's telling the Chinese our number are not to be trusted, particularly if we make changes to health care. Nice. Remember when a female politician wearing a scarf while visiting the Middle East was a betrayal of American ideals?

And then there are others in Congress, actually have been disclosing dribs and drabs of our intel secrets. What patriots. Remember when this stuff was supposed to be wrong?

What further damage could these America loving patriots do to the country? Oh yeah! Rush and others are calling for boycotts of GM and its cars and services. So they want to destroy one of the countries large businesses...

Geez, these people are such tools. Let us see, disrupt the economy, reveal intel secrets, foment revolt and violence, disrupting our diplomacy with other nations, and we are supposed to be more worried about an old man in a cave on the other side of the world? I mean, really, conservatives in power the last eight years and out of power now seem far more capable and active doing far more damage.

Anything else? Oh right. Republicans want to keep the Supreme Court seat held up for a couple of years.

Republicans are now suggesting that they need a pro-rata allotment of days before Sonia Sotomayor's hearings based on the time she's served on the bench. Which, we did the math, would come out to waiting 610 days before the senate can hold hearings on her confirmation. How does that make sense? Eric Kleefeld got their spokesman on the phone to see if they're really going to hold out for the full two years.

Teabag Rage

Conservative talkers have been trying hard to drum up rage and increase it. With the analysis from DHS, they wanted Napolitano fired, for her organization pointing to possible risks.

Right-wing battle cry: Bring me the head of Janet Napolitano!

Anyone notice how right-wing behavior toward President Obama so far is mimicking, structurally speaking, their behavior toward President Clinton in the 1990s: encourage anti-government hysteria, freak out about incipient totalitarianism, accuse him of destroying the country and making it weaker, and then constantly attack his appointees and demand their firing? What's next, an investigation of his investments?

Does it surprise anyone, then, that the first object of Republicans' ire -- the first Cabinet appointment whose resignation they're demanding -- would be a woman named Janet?

Greta Van Susteren and Byron York last night on Fox were fairly representative (check out the Limbaugh rant at the beginning), though the fire-Napolitano talk has been bubbling up everywhere. As Amanda Terkel notes this morning, John McCain even went so far as to falsely claim that the person responsible for the report had been fired.

...

They are outraged at the notion anyone that might agree with them could be dangerous...

Teabagger arrested for threatening to turn the Oklahoma City capitol steps into a bloodbath

A number of us have been saying for a while now that the Republicans' extremist, anti-American rhetoric was going to push someone to violence. And it almost just did. From WIRED ...

...

Wow, you mean a potential domestic terrorist was associated with gun issues. Funny, but that's exactly what the Homeland Security report said - the one the Republicans and the religious right wanted us to ignore.

On torture from the current admin

Olbermann gave criticism of the stance the Obama administration on the torture that happen under Bush and what will be done about it now we are learning how bad it was.



AMERICAblog adds in about the political realities.

... He explains why we should proceed with prosecution, rather than how this president CAN proceed safely. Democrats are notoriously ham-handed. A Democratic president is going to prosecute Republicans for going too far in trying to protect our country? Fat chance. While owning the moral high ground, that kind of charge takes a political dexterity that Democrats simply don't have.

I don't criticize Olbermann for his argument. He's right. I criticize everyone responsible for making the Democratic party so poor at messaging, and thus so necessarily spineless, that politics would trump morality when talking about war crimes.

You don't need this computer, right?

I heard about this months ago, and was worried. Hearing about it again makes me all the more perturbed.

PZ Myers:

As someone who takes his laptop everywhere, this is chilling news about the ongoing erosion of our rights:

Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

...

Not to worry though. We are told this WILL NOT affect your privacy. And the government, especially this one, telling me that just makes me feel...all the worse.

What is this? They can just take my computer from me? Just for the heck of it? How is this right? How about they do a better job at surveillance, intel work, and law enforcement. And not just set up laws to allow them to randomly grab private property, just in case, or tap every phone, just in case.

Now, most of us are not involved in crime, that we know of. But why are we asked to surrender or personal property like this? At what point does this invasion of privacy not okay? Dogs sniffing, X-raying, open bags, no shoes, where is the line? At what point is too much being asked for us to function comfortably as a society. I was a little weirded when they started check laptop for any substances on them. But I let it slide, as long as I can see the computer and know it is safe, like I do when I place my wallet and bag on the belt.

And now they want to just up and walk off with the laptop, if they feel the need. How long 'til someone takes advantage of this policy for a quick buck?

I am just wondering how this will work in court? If you take someones computer and happen to find something criminally related (fraud, child pornography, illegal downloads, etc.) can it be acted upon, how is it different that grabbing into a persons coat, or bag, and lucking into something illicit. That is supposed to be inadmissible. So how is this going to work.


I went back to the original story at the WP. This is an issue now as the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the policy in April, so people are more aware of it now.

So, this is not new. But it is there to be used, widely. With the Drug War it has a use, with the War on Terror added uses. This ridiculous policy is just so wide open it is just a way to ignore the law on a whim...which defeats the point of drafting LAW! Ahem.

And while it is a not new policy it is getting used more and more. Again, a reason to not leave crap policy in the books to be abused.

Civil liberties and business travel groups have pressed the government to disclose its procedures as an increasing number of international travelers have reported that their laptops, cellphones and other digital devices had been taken -- for months, in at least one case -- and their contents examined.

So if a company is a threat to US business, grab one of their computers. If a political party or group is causing a given White House trouble, take their cellphones or blackberries and go through them. How are Republicans okay with this? Oh, right. They are in power. And civil liberties are not a big deal...yet.

And to close let us not forget how wide this policy is in materials that can be seized.

The policies cover "any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form," including hard drives, flash drives, cellphones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes. They also cover "all papers and other written documentation," including books, pamphlets and "written materials commonly referred to as 'pocket trash' or 'pocket litter.' "

May I remind you the current government is spying on Quakers as a potential threat. How comfortable are you to go to an airport?

Freedom after all these years.

It has been stunning to see the sudden liberating of a large number of hostages in Colombia. It looks like tight operation, where the military slipped in in disguise and took 15 hostages away to freedom, convincing their captor that they were to be moved to meet the supreme commander of FARC (Yeesch, makes the guy sound like Cobra Commander.). Included were 3 Americans held for 4 years. Also a presidential candidate who was kidnapped while she campaigned, Ingrid Betancourt. Six years of captivity have ended for her. Many have been worried about her health, and many world leaders have tried to intercede to help. She seems far better now that she is out of captivity and able to be with her mother and speak her mind and stand unafraid.

But, thankfully, these people are out now. 100's are left in the hands of the FARC. But with the strike killing one leader. Another leader killed by one of his own for a bounty. More bounties are being offered for more leaders and for the freeing of more hostages. US satellites are spotting their camps. Their communications are being tracked. Plus the Colombian government is infiltrating the camps. And now these people who were being used as pawns, left in the jungle to suffer are out of the FARC's hands. I know right now many many Colombians are celebrating the hope restoked.

One can only hope that this is a sign of the soon to come end of the FARC. It would be a great day for Colombians if this nearly 50 years of warring could be brought to a quick and peaceful end. Listening to the families of the Americans react to their loved ones returning, and to Betancourt sharing her thoughts, it would be hard to not be moved.

I am glad to see CNN giving this extra coverage tonight, instead of running reruns. Three Americans returning from half a decade of captivity used to be a bigger deal.

AP report:


CNN:

4th amendment...is that important?

TPM:

Always Read the Footnotes

The AP did:

For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.

That view was expressed in a secret Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.

The October 2001 memo was written at the request of the White House by John Yoo, then the deputy assistant attorney general, and addressed to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time. The administration had asked the department for an opinion on the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.

The 37-page memo is classified and has not been released. Its existence was disclosed Tuesday in a footnote of a separate secret memo, dated March 14, 2003, released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

''Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,'' the footnote states, referring to a document titled ''Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.''

Forward with Iran

Interest in McCain's claims...misstatements...claims...continues.

Crooks and Liars:

I know the two Democratic presidential candidates seem inclined to go after one another right now, but the more they criticize John McCain, the better it is for the party and our chances of winning in November.

At a news conference in Amman, McCain said Iran supported the Sunni group al Qaeda in Iraq, until he was corrected by a colleague. U.S. officials believe predominantly Shi’ite Iran has been backing Shi’ite extremists in Iraq, not al Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group.

It was the first stumble of note that McCain has made since clinching the Republican presidential nomination early this month, and Obama quickly pounced on it.

“Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shi’ite, Iran and al Qaeda,” Obama said.

“Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades,” the Illinois senator said.

When McCain gives them a golden opportunity — such as repeatedly screwing up the basics of Iraq, Iran, and al Qaeda — it’s important to take advantage.

Mark Kleiman added, “Given McCain’s buffoonish performance in Jordan, wouldn’t this be a good time for Hillary Clinton to say, ‘Gee, I thought he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief, but it sure doesn’t sound like it. The least we should expect from the President is some basic knowledge about who our enemies are.’”

But apparently the impossible is possible...just like it's been for the last 7 years.

NY Sun:

...

But while the McCain campaign is backing away from the specific claims about Iranian training of Al Qaeda, it is asserting that Iran collaborates with Osama bin Laden's organization.

Mr. McCain's national security adviser, Randy Scheunemann, told The New York Sun, "There is ample documentation that Iran has provided many different forms of support to Sunni extremists, including Al Qaeda as well as Shi'ia extremists in Iraq. It would require a willing suspension of disbelief to deny Iran supports Al Qaeda in Iraq."

...

Really? They are bringing al Qaeda in and out of Iran and funding them? The group that they fanatically oppose? Could we get some sound evidence?

An example.

...

A subsequent story, based on an interview with a Kurdish prisoner who went by the name Osman the Small, said Iran's revolutionary guard and domestic intelligence service had issued the Kurdish jihadist group political refugee cards, identifications that made it possible for them to cross back and forth into Iraq from Iran.

...

Oh good, some with a presumed name with an inside story. Am I the only one that remembers this stuff from...five years ago was it?


Josh Marshall has some added thoughts on McCain "thinking" on Iraq, and what it means for the US and the world.

Paul "No Second Takes" Bremer

Crooks and Liars:

Former head of the Iraqi Provisional Government and Neo-Con Apologist L. Paul Bremer comes on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer on the fifth anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq to admit, that yes, mistakes were made (and gosh, he had made recommendations that were ignored over assumptions that turned out to be false)…blah blah blah, but even still, he doesn’t think they would have done anything differently in retrospect.

...

Wow. A very tragic price to pay considering we went in for NO REASON, Bremer. And this tired meme that all these other countries agreed with our intelligence continues to be put out without any challenge. OUR OWN weapons inspectors questioned it. The UN questioned it. France and Russia questioned it.

...

Maybe he needs to review Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone, for a refresher on how wrong he lead things.

McCain Claims

On Rumsfeld: (with video)

One of the more outlandish claims John McCain routinely makes on the campaign trail is his boast that he called for Donald Rumsfeld’s ouster before he resigned. Part of the problem with the bogus claim is that major media personalities believe the claim, and keep passing it on to national audiences as if it were true.

...

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that Blitzer and Borger have heard McCain make the claim, and they assume he’s telling the truth. Of course, if Blitzer and Borger were better journalists, they’d actually check to see if McCain’s claim was accurate before repeating the lie for a national television audience, but my hunch is, they both think, “McCain wouldn’t just make something like that up. He keeps saying it, so it must be true.”

It’s part of the larger problem of McCain’s media adulation — there’s simply no skepticism. They accept his “straight-talking” persona, which they’ve helped manufacture, at face value.
With this in mind, it’s worth setting the record straight. Every time McCain claims credit for calling for Rumsfeld’s ouster, he’s not telling the truth.

On Waterboarding: (with video)

Is there any doubt that the media is in the bag for McCain? Maybe I should say—at his barbeques? McCain was profiled on 60 Minutes Sunday night and it was the type of softball profile we’re used to seeing for Republicans, but when they brought up waterboarding—-well then, it’s time to at least be serious. McCain unequivocally says it’s torture and brings up the prosecution of the Japanese and their use of it in WWII to make his point.

...

Pelley asked him about American interrogation methods today. Asked if water boarding is torture, McCain said, “Sure. Yes. Without a doubt.”

“So the United States has been torturing POWs?” Pelley asked.

“Yes. Scott, we prosecuted Japanese war criminals after World War II. And one of the charges brought against them, for which they were convicted, was that they water-boarded Americans,” McCain said.

“How did we lose our way?” Pelley asked.

“I don’t know the answer to that. I think one of the failures maybe was not to listen more to our military leadership, including people like General Colin Powell, on this issue,” McCain said.

How then did John McCain lose HIS way on torture? Why didn’t he ask him the reason he flip flopped and voted in favor of waterboarding if in fact McCain believes it’s torture? Isn’t that the type of question that America needs an answer to? Howard Kurtz even brought it up on his show and criticized the media over their treatment of it a few weeks ago.

KURTZ: But another Senator McCain was on display this week, one who seemed to differ from the former prisoner of war who has made his signature issue out of opposing torture tactics by American interrogators. McCain voted against the bill to ban tactics such as waterboarding, saying he felt agencies like the CIA needed flexibility in terror investigations. Why has this received so little media attention?

“The New York Times” today has a story about this five days after the vote. “The Washington Post” did it yesterday. But most of the establishment media kissed it off.

McCain closes by saying he can win in November because he’s a conservative Republican, but Pelley had nothing in the piece about the contempt held for him by conservatives—especially the talk show hosts that skewer him constantly. And what about the Hagee endorsement? Can’t mention that either? Contact Scott Pelley/ 60 Minutes and ask them why these most important issues were either purposefully left out of the segment and why journalistic malpractice was committed.

Oh? I guess were all dead in 3...2...1...

Crooks and Liars:

...

All the GOP has left is the fear card, and that sucker is wore slam out. Bush’s trusty Supreme Court has already seen fit to throw up a firewall for the telecoms, so why is it the Republicans are still insisting on holding up the FISA bill? It’s because the Republican Party will do anything they can to keep whatever secrets are hidden in those NSA spy rooms from ever incriminating their President, even if it does mean putting our country at more risk to do so. That’s why.

TPM:

...

Remember that yesterday, Republicans made it clear that there will be no negotiating. So either Dems give in and award the telecoms immunity for cooperating with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, or the Republicans will strive for even better produced efforts at fear-mongering.

Yeah. If things are this dire, why no ability to compromise in any way, shape and form? Can they explain why the retroactive immunity is so pivotal? Will they ever, honestly?

FISA and trust

Crooks and Liars:

...

President Bush and the Republicans have been doing their best to scare the pants off the American people by lying through their teeth about the current FISA legislation and the fact-challenged pundits on Fox News Sunday did their best to perpetuate those lies this morning.

The perception they’re trying to give is that if the FISA legislation isn’t passed, our intelligence community will have to shut down operations and will no longer be able to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists — which is absurd. William Kristol is dumbfounded as to why the Democrats don’t believe the president and his appointees (who cares that they have been lying to us for years?), when they say we’ll all die if this legislation isn’t passed. Luckily, Juan Williams steps in with the reality the GOP isn’t telling the public - the U.S. government can STILL do surveillance on suspected terrorists without telecom immunity.

Gosh, why won't Dems just take the president's word? I mean it is not like he has ever gone back on his word, or abused power given to negotiate to get us into a war...It's not like we have reason to doubt his sincerity...right?


Crooks and Liars goes more into how unfounded the gloom, doom, and boom of presidential claims are really.

...

Democratic Senator and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed, appeared on Late Edition and did a great job of debunking the lies and spin being floated by President Bush and the GOP on FISA. As Juan Williams did earlier on Fox News Sunday, Reed makes it clear that allowing the flawed FISA legislation passed last August to lapse does not mean the U.S. can’t do surveillance on suspected terrorists.

Host Wolf Blitzer floated out the exact same argument William Kristol did on Fox, which is this notion that Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, is some sort of apolitical figure and somehow that makes him more believable. Reed shot that down, reminding Blitzer that the previous FISA laws are still in place and that U.S. intelligence can still go after suspects for several days before requesting a warrant.

Canada not so happy with the States

Canada goes to the trouble of illustrating for America what the flaw in a casual torture policy.

AMERICAblog:

Our neighbor to the north had added the United States to its list of nations that torture:

In Canada, the United States has joined a notorious group of countries -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan and China, among others -- as a place where foreigners risk torture and abuse, according to a training manual for Canadian diplomats that was accidentally given this week to Amnesty International lawyers.

The manual is intended to create "greater awareness among consular officials to the possibility of Canadians detained abroad being tortured." Part of the workshop is devoted to teaching diplomats how to identify people who have been tortured. It features a section on "U.S. interrogation techniques," including forced nudity, hooding and isolation.

...

A story to be thinking about

TPM:

Here's another section from Lawrence Wright's New Yorker piece on Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that shouldn't be overlooked. Wright reports on McConnell's Cyber-Security Policy, a plan that "will propose restrictions that are certain to be unpopular....

In order for cyberspace to be policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation," he said. Giorgio warned me, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'" (my emphasis)

With the cyber-security initiative, McConnell is asking the country to confront a dilemma: Americans will have to trust the government not to abuse the authority it must have in order to protect our networks, and yet, historically, the government has not proved worthy of that trust. "FISA reform will be a walk in the park compared to this," McConnell said. "This is going to be a goat rope on the Hill. My prediction is that we're going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens."

After Siobhan Gorman of The Baltimore Sun -- now of The Wall Street Journal -- first broke the story of the Cyber-Security Policy in September, the plan seemed relatively close to completion. But then Democrats on the Hill, namely House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS), demanded to review it before it was launched. Since then, it hasn't been clear how close it is to completion. Wright reports that it's still in "the draft stage." With the FISA debate far from over, it seems likely that the Cyber-Security plan will remain on hold.

We will have to trust the government with maintaining the facade of privacy, hmm? There are a number of serious network threats, from individuals, groups, and nations. But this quiet and covert move to take this control is troubling.

The president has no need for or belief in intelligence. No one is surprised.

Slate:

President George W. Bush hasn't accomplished much on his voyage to the Middle East, but he did take the time to inflict another wound on the entire U.S. intelligence community—and on the credibility of anything he might ever again say about the world.

...

In the latest Newsweek, Michael Hirsh reports that, during a private conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Bush "all but disowned" the agencies' Dec. 3 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. A "senior administration official who accompanied Bush" on the trip confided to Hirsh that Bush "told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views."

This remark has three baleful consequences. First, it can't help but demoralize the intelligence community. NIEs are meant, ultimately, for only one reader, the president; and here's the president telling another world leader that he doesn't believe it because, well, he doesn't agree with it.

Second, it reinforces the widespread view that the president views intelligence strictly as a political tool: When it backs up his policies, it's as good as gold; when it doesn't, it's "just guessing." This result is that all intelligence is degraded and devalued, at home and abroad. Let's say that six months from now Bush publicizes an NIE concluding that Iran has resumed its nuclear-weapons program or that, say, North Korea is reprocessing more plutonium. Given that he pooh-poohed an NIE that rubbed against his own views, why should anyone take him seriously for embracing an NIE that confirms them?

Third, by telling Olmert that it's all right to ignore the NIE, Bush is in effect telling him that Israel should go ahead and behave as if its findings had never been published. Hirsh reports that, when Olmert was asked whether he felt reassured by Bush's words, he replied, "I am very happy."

...