Bush asked to explain UK war memo

Bush asked to explain UK war memo (Wednesday, May 11, 2005 CNN.COM)

Okay, some CNN.COM visibility on the Bush/Blair planned Iraq invasion in July 2002 issue is great.

Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.

But, uh, the Congressmen asked for the explanation last week, and CNN is only now getting around to reporting it?

C'mon, this is big news. Hey there News Media, this is your chance to bring down a really big target! You up to it?

Well, I guess not. The article has already disappeared off the article listings on CNN's website.

Article Reference: 

Bush asked to explain UK war memo

Molly Ivans on a "smoking gun"

Earlier (Bush/Blair planned Iraq invasion in July 2002) I noted a leaked British memo released during Britains election cycle that just ended.

They Lied to Us (By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted May 10, 2005.)

Molly Ivans studied the same document and calls it a "smoking gun". Proof of the theory we've all fallen into about the formation of the Iraq war, that the administration purposely lied us into the war knowing they had a thin case.

It's certainly a very damaging document.

One wonders, where's the rage? Why isn't this being covered in the U.S.?

If it ain't broke, don't privatize it. Social Security, that is

If you haven't noticed, President Bush decided to touch the "third rail" of American Politics. He's been talking about privatizing Social Security. Except he's using every term but "privatizing", preferring the term "private accounts". But what it boils down to is to toss our retirement dollars into the stock market and gamble, but if the last four years hasn't taught us to be careful about the stock market, then what else would?

Recycled rhetoric Bush's huge gamble on dismantling the cornerstone of the New Deal will fail. And if the Democrats remain disciplined, his defeat will be profound. (By Sidney Blumenthal, SALON.COM, March 3, 2005)

First we have a history lesson. It seems that the "Social Security is unworkable and fundamentally flawed" claim is not new at all. Instead the claim has been circling around the Republican Party since 1936, and has been repeated by several Republican Party figures through the years. It's no doubt the failure of those prior claims that has led us to regard Social Security as the third rail of American Politics, because several generations of Republican leaders have killed their political careers over this issue.

But when Reagan became president he jettisoned his denunciation of Social Security. In 1983, he signed a bipartisan tax and benefits bill extending its solvency until 2060. The ultimate conservative had used anti-Social Security rhetoric to galvanize his conservative base to gain office, but as president he joined his Republican predecessors in supporting the system. With that, he took the issue off the table for years. In 1996, Sen. Bob Dole never mentioned a word against Social Security, proud of having been a co-sponsor of the 1983 bill Reagan had signed.

...Bush's impending defeat on Social Security is no minor affair. He has made this the centerpiece of domestic policy of his second term. It is the decades-long culmination of the conservative wing's hostility against Social Security and the Democratic Party. Projecting images of Roosevelt and Kennedy cannot distract from Bush's intent to undermine the accomplishments of Democratic presidents. The repudiation of Bush on Social Security will be fundamental and profound and will shake the foundations of conservative Republicanism. Bush's agony is only beginning, if the Democrats in the Senate can maintain their discipline.

While it's delicious to consider Bush dying in a self-made immolation ...

Let us turn to ten myths about Social Security. It's published by The Social Security Network, an informational resource about the Social Security program operated by The Century Fund.

What they've done is collect all the Republican claims that the Social Security system is due to collapse, and refuted every one.

They've also published a list of 12 reasons why privatizing Social Security is a bad idea.

We also have to consider how accurate are the claims made by the Bush administration. Apparently to justify the claim that the system will fall apart in 2042, they have to assume horrible U.S. economic performance in terms of GDP growth rate. How bad? It would be the worst economic performance since the 1930's, that is how bad. So, if our economy were to be that bad wouldn't a privatized account whose growth depends on the stock market also perform badly?

I gathered all this from a Flash animation titled "If it ain't broke, don't privatize it!", which won MoveOn's contest to make an animation explaining why the Social Security proposals are just plain bad.

The most interesting point from the animation is the cap. Social Security is taxed at a fixed rate on your income, for up to $90,000 of your income. If you make more than $90,000 income, you pay a maximum of around $5800 in Social Security. Even if you make $zillions per year, all you are taxed for Social Security is the $5800.

The simplest way to "fix" Social Security is to simply raise the cap.

Examining nukes to replace oil

I haven't caught up with President Bush's proposals last week in energy policy. I was traveling and didn't have time to read it as it happened.

When It Comes to Replacing Oil Imports, Nuclear Is No Easy Option, Experts Say (By MATTHEW L. WALD, Published: May 9, 2005 NYTIMES.COM)

Apparently one proposal was to promote the building of more nuclear power plants, as a way to balance energy needs.

Hmmm... The article above says this is using peculiar reasoning:

There is a problem, though: reactors make electricity, not oil. And oil does not make much electricity.

The problem facing us is oil. In the NOW, there is a high price for oil (in the $50-60 range, up from the $25-30 prevalent since 2000, and up from the $10-15 range it had been through most of the 90's). And we see in the near-term future an impact from the "Oil Peak" effect where it will become impossible to increase production of oil products, even in the face of rising demand.

Oil is used largely for fuel for vehicles (cars, trucks, airplanes, etc), which are largely not electrically driven.

Which just means that by proposing nuclear power to balance a problem with oil supplies is a ruse. Another lie from the Bush administration, this time intended to get more nuke plants out there for some reason.

The article does go into some useful figures:

According to the Energy Department, last year the electric utilities used about 207 million barrels of oil, or less than 600,000 barrels a day. (Total American consumption of oil is about 20.5 million barrels a day.)

This says that a mere 2% of the oil used in this country goes to electricity production. Hmmm, not much.

The article goes on to describe a sideways process that could improve the existing oil supply to be more suitable for vehicle use. It's a little complex, so let's take this one step at a time:

Gasoline is made of molecules with a certain ratio of carbon to hydrogen. Part of each barrel of oil consists of molecules with too much carbon to be useful in gasoline; instead, those molecules are used only in low-value products like asphalt and tar.

The technology exists for refineries to break up those molecules and add hydrogen, until the hydrogen-carbon ratio is suitable for making gasoline or diesel.

They go on to explain that heavy oil has a higher ratio of carbon, while light oil has a higher ratio of hydrogen. It is the light oil that we put into vehicles.

Hence, the idea is to convert heavy oil into light oil by adding hydrogen.

For example:

Canada has vast reserves of shale oil, now being converted to ingredients of motor fuel by using natural gas. The gas is used to heat the shale to make its oil flow more easily, and hydrogen, also obtained from the natural gas, is incorporated into the oil to make it suitable for use in gasoline. But a nuclear reactor could do those jobs, delivering both hydrogen and steam for cooking the oil out of the rock, Mr. Herring said.

Another strategy, he said, would be to break down coal, shale oil or other hydrogen fuels into a gas comprising hydrogen and carbon monoxide. At high pressure, these materials could form molecules suitable for making gasoline or diesel. A reactor could provide the energy required.

The "reactor" in question is not the current design of nuclear reactor, but is in the process of being designed and will take another 20+ years to get ready.

The Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, which is owned by the Department of Energy, is working on ways to take very hot steam from a nuclear reactor, then run a small electric current through it to separate the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. If that can be done more cheaply than the current method of producing hydrogen, which uses natural gas, the hydrogen could be used at refineries to make components of gasoline.

Yup, use a nuclear reactor to make heat and with that heat optimize the electrolysis process used to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. That gives you some hydrogen you can then use to improve the heavy oil to create light oil.

This sounds like a lot of work, and a very circuitous process, all just to preserve the hold the oil industry has over the U.S.A. It will take a lot of R&D dollars to go this route, and I wonder "why".

Why not use those dollars to improve funding for alternatives like wind, solar, etc..?

NO NUKES!!!!!

Bush/Blair planned Iraq invasion in July 2002

It was obvious to me all through 2002 that Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. He kept claiming no plan was set, and that merely he was doing hardball negotiations with Saddam Hussein. But it always looked to me as if he was predetermined to invade, and was simply building a case to the public. It became especially obvious once materials, equipment, and troops started being moved into the area.

Yet, Bush has so far gotten away with this and the other lies that were told to justify the war.

Iraq leak puts pressure on Blair (Sunday, May 1, 2005 CNN.COM)

The secret Downing Street memo (The Sunday Times - Britain, May 01, 2005)

At issue is a British document leaked during the recent elections in the U.K. The document concerns IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

...The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

To decode this a little ...

"C" is most likely Sir Richard Dearlove, Britain's "spy chief" who had just returned from visiting the U.S. for talks.

We have him clearly reporting that the U.S. leadership, in July 2002, was already planning to invade Iraq. While the evidence was recognized to be slim, they were planning a public relations campaign to cause the public to ignore the slim evidence and support the war anyway.

Britains Attorney General pointed out the only legal route to launching an invasion of Iraq is to get UN Security Council approval. And that using the UN Security Council Resolution number 1205 provided slim grounds. But that the U.S. leadership was unwilling to go to the UN Security Council.

See here for resolution 1205: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1998/scres98.htm

Related blog posts:

The British Election and the Iraq War

Proof: How America was deceived.

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts

Iraqgate?

Iraq: The Fix was on in July, 2002

Real ID ... another step to "Big Brother"

Since the "secret government" has been meeting since September 11, 2001 we have to examine some of the acts of government in the light of "is this bringing on 'Big Brother'"? The "secret government" in question was triggered on September 11, 2001 when Richard Clarke declared a certain governmnet response (whose name I've forgotten), the effect of which was to disperse government leaders and beaurocrats to secret bunkers so that they can operate the reins of government in relative safety from attack.

The triggering of that secret government was described by Richard Clarke in his book Against All Enemies.

Another cause for concern is the Total Information Awareness system, later renamed to Terrorist Information Awareness system, before being canned when public uproar became too great. This gem was lead by Admiral Poindexter, who had previously been convicted of lying to Congress. Its purpose was establishing a widespread and highly invasive system of violating our individual rights to privacy.

FAQ: How Real ID will affect you (Published: May 6, 2005, 4:00 AM PDT, By Declan McCullagh, Staff Writer, CNET News.com) The Real ID system is a proposal that's been attached to a bill providing more funding for this stupid illegal war we're fighting in Iraq. I suppose the idea is that, by attaching it to a sure-bet bill, nobody is going to vote against it, the President surely isn't going to veto it, and therefore it's certain to sail through Congress and become law. Regardless of whether we, the people, whom those people are supposed to be working for, want this or not.

What does that mean for me?
Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.

Actually this isn't different from today, because we need to show identification to do all the above named things. The difference here is the type of ID card it is.

What's going to be stored on this ID card?
At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on. The card must also sport "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes."
Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.

The physical implementation will likely be a "smart card". What's a smart card? Well, if you have visited a Kinko's copy center recently you will have had an opportunity to use a smart card to operate the copy machines. Or if you have an American Express "Blue" card, that's a smart card. My employer, Sun Microsystems, makes a smart card we call the "Java Card", and we use them for employee badges. The U.S. Military uses Java cards as the identification card as well.

The smart card is the same shape and size as a regular credit card. Embedded in it is a computer, with some contacts on the outside of the card. It also includes an RFID chip, just to add to the spooky big brother aspects no doubt. When you insert a smart card into a reader, the contacts take in power, start the CPU running, and the smart card reader interacts with the smart card exchanging data and instructions.

What's the justification for this legislation anyway?
Its supporters say that the Real ID Act is necessary to hinder terrorists, and to follow the ID card recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made last year.

It will "hamper the ability of terrorist and criminal aliens to move freely throughout our society by requiring that all states require proof of lawful presence in the U.S. for their drivers' licenses to be accepted as identification for federal purposes such as boarding a commercial airplane, entering a federal building, or a nuclear power plant," Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said during the debate Thursday.

Uh, huh... It could also end up hampering our ability to move freely within our own society, and enjoy the freedoms we have fought hard to maintain over the two and a half centuries this country has existed.

Visit the Total Information Awareness system page, written originally in February 2002. The DoD pages referenced have since went away, because DARPA canceled the project as an official entity. However some of the sub-projects have continued to exist and move forward. It's instructive to study the picture those projects create.

Specifically, the intent clearly was to establish a surveillance system to track our every economic activity, our every travel, etc, all in the name of looking for patterns that indicate an impending attack or illegal activity.

Having an ID card of this sort, and requiring it for pretty much any activity, would be a required step towards establishing such a surveillance system. Namely ... Such an ID card, to be useful, would require sending some data to computers operated by the Department of Homeland Defense. The ID card won't be able to establish validity on its own. Instead it will have to be verified with DHD computers. Hence, the DHD computers will, as a side effect, know everywhere you take your card.
The credit card companies already know this, in that they already know every place you use your credit cards to buy anything. But the Real ID card would be used in more places than your credit card.

Hmmm.....

Prudes vs. Texas Cheerleaders

In a proposed Texas law, Cheerleaders are to be prohibited from using sexually suggestive routines.

Texas House to cheerleaders: Don't shake it (Thursday, May 5, 2005 CNN.COM)

"People are calling and telling me how disgusting it is to see sexually suggestive routines on the part of marching units or cheerleaders," said State Rep. Al Edwards, a Houston Democrat who sponsored the bill.

...Democratic state Rep. Senfronia Thompson, also of Houston, said the bill was a waste of valuable time.

"I think the Texas Education Agency has enough to do making sure our kids are better educated, and we are wasting our time with 'one two three four, we can't shake it any more?"' Thompson told legislators.