At the end of another day

The House passed a $696 billion defense bill that gives a 3.5% pay raise to troops retroactively. Doesn't sounds like much, still, hoo-rah! The Asshat-in-Chief threatened to veto the previous bill version until Bush got what he wanted -- a provision that would allow him to "grant Iraq immunity" nullifying any "guarantees that U.S. victims of state-sponsored abuse can sue foreign governments in court." Uh-oh.

Go Cheney yourself: Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) held a press conference on an economic stimulus program. Boehner addressed House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) -- "As soon as they put those cameras away, I'm going to flip you the bird." Transcript. CQ Politics on the stimulus plan.

Tomorrow... Oversight & Government Reform Committee hearing: Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) will convene "Assessing Veteran’s Charities – Part Two” that will "focus on orgs operated by Roger Chapin, who failed to comply with a subpoena compelling his testimony" in December. Chapin will appear to respond to questionable activities of 20 organizations "including a number of veterans’ and military-oriented charities." Previous hearing and transcript here.

Pentagon kerfuffle: SecDef Gates pissed off Britain and other allies "accusing Nato countries fighting in southern Afghanistan of lacking experience in counter-insurgency warfare." Times UK

Tsk, tsk. Those Ungrateful Saudis. OBL and Ahmadinejad scored higher favorability than Bush in a poll conducted in Saudi Arabia last month. Read Robert Scheer at The Nation. With friends like these...

Missing WH emails gone forever -- A new court filing disclosed that the WH "effectively erased e-mail related to some of the biggest controversies of the Bush administration, including the leak of a CIA officer's name, the start of the Iraq war and the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes." Who's to blame? The tape recycling system. CREW has more.

In the Noise -- Karl Rove revealed GOP strategies for attacking Hillary and Obama in '08. Details at the link. Bottom-line: "[T]he Republican candidate must show the electorate 'that they understand the surge is working.' Rove said the candidate should get firmly behind the war effort, painting the Democratic nominee as 'defeatist.'" SSDE.

Terror fundraising ring: In Kansas City, MO, a 42-count indictment will keep former Reagan appointee and Michigan Repub Mark Deli Siljander busy. And how! Counts include "money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists." AQ and the Taliban. Jeepers! TPM.

"Just how trivial can the media make the presidential race?" Matt Taibbi of The Rolling Stone offers some answers and Greg Sargent analyzes the John Edwards media blackout .

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of another day" >>

Finally!

Talk about your "better late than never" step to alleviate a worsening problem!

Finally, twenty years after the problem crossed over into "long overdue" territory, the Defense Authorization Bill for FY 2008 specifically bans gang membership in the ranks. Currently the regulations stipulate prohibitions against membership in organizations that “espouse supremacist causes; attempt to create illegal discrimination … advocate the use of force or violence; or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.”

Street gangs are not explicitly named and forbidden, and civilian law enforcement officials have criticized that loophole as a way for commanders to turn a blind eye to gang affiliations in tough recruiting times. The FBI has reported on gang activity not just on seven stateside installations, but signs of gang activity have been verified at bases in Germany, Italy, Japan and Iraq as well. “I’ve heard from police officers across the country that there are problems with gangs on posts,” said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., who introduced the amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. “The FBI suggests there are problems not only in the states but on bases abroad. So somebody hasn’t been serious enough.”

Representative Thompson, who served in Vietnam, expressed the hope that the new stronger and specific language will spur investigations into gang activity by military officials, but he acknowledged that the uniformed services often lack the resources of agencies like the FBI and gang task forces that operate as part of state and local police departments. This affords those law enforcement entities to recognize and identify gang affiliation and activity more readily than the military officials can. “We want to make sure they’re sharing the same list, identifying problems and minimizing the opportunity for gang members to get in (the military),” Thompson said.

Gang membership has been a steadily worsening problem for about twenty years, but a dramatic jump in the reporting of serious gang activity (from 25 incidents in FY 2005 to 60 in FY 06) seems to have penetrated the bubble a little bit.

I have heard anecdotal evidence of entire units that are gang affiliated. In my neck of the woods, Ft. Riley, Kansas has had it's own well-publicized difficulties with white supremacists and methamphetamines.

So can we have just a moment of common sense please? When you have one in five enlisted recruits entering service on waivers - and the most common waiver is for criminality - gang problems in the ranks are destined to worsen.

It is time to restore standards to recruiting and stop handing out waivers willy-nilly. Yes, it will impact recruiting numbers. But the price we pay as a society when we let the wrong people in uniform - and the price that the rest of our military pays when they have to serve with thugs - is simply not worth it.

[That's all, folks...]

Cross posted from Blue Girl, Red State

There's more: "Finally!" >>

The Video Press Release

Earlier today I wrote a post discussing an obvious change that has occurred in political punditry during the past months--the increasing use of video as a compliment to written commentary.

That post was a follow up to two I wrote over the last couple of days about Harry Reid and the missing video. The other day Senator Reid failed to make sure a clear, clean video of the reasons behind his pulling the Defense Authorization Bill was available on YouTube. Apparently he depended on the MSM to provide a suitable clip. They universally elected to provide clips of the Republican response. Unopposed the Republicans must have looked pretty good to the uninformed.

It seems to me that Reid and the others in the Democratic leadership have failed to recognize that the blogosphere has changed. That change presents them with a major new communications opportunity. They can now visually go over the heads of the main stream broadcast media by distributing short videos, along with more traditional press materials. All they need to do is put the video up on YouTube and send emails announcing the video along with written press materials to the hundreds (or is it thousands) of on-line political pundits and activists.

I am still trying to figure out Bmaz's comment, but to the extent he is suggesting formal coordination, I don't see the point. The purpose of any press release is to make information available to people writing stories. The reporter uses the information provided as he deems appropriate. If a story has any currency the press release makes the job of the reporter easier and helps shape the reporter's story.

Right now if a blogger asks nearly every congress member will email him a press package on any topic of importance to the congress member. I know. I have asked and congressmen and senators have responded by giving me the same materials they provide members of the traditional press. One item I have yet to receive from any congress member is a video.

That is not to say that others, apparently more media savvy, haven't provided me with access to video material. The other day, I received an email from the Partnership for Quality Care, a SCHIP reauthorization advocacy group. The email contained a press release, some links, a full set of press materials. One of the links was to a YouTube video. While the video wasn't as good as it could have been, it was still pretty good. I used it in a post on SCHIP authorization. The kids are very attractive. I have read just about everything published on the web touching SCHIP during the last couple of weeks. I can confirm that the PQC video has been used by several bloggers.

Candidates routinely send me links to their latest and greatest ad. I am sure we have all received links to video materials from the DSCC and other party affiliated organizations.

It seems elected officials haven't gotten the memo. Bloggers, confronted with the daily need to grind out two or three posts, would love to consider using Harry Reid produced video instead of something from one of the major networks. Think Progress built an entire post around the McCain and Kyl clips. How do you think that post would have been written if they had relevant video from a couple of Democrats?

Right now the MSM produces most of the video linked to political punditry. Inevitably those MSM produced videos are shaping many of the stories we post. I can think of no reason the major networks should be the exclusive video gatekeeper. Can you?

I would really appreciate some feed back. Bmaz tell me more about coordination. Mostly tell me what I am missing.

There's more: "The Video Press Release" >>

A Hint To Harry Reid--This is 2007, You Don't Need To Depend On Diane Sawyer To Spread Your Video Message

Last night I was stunned to learn that the Senate Democrats hadn't made sure there was clean, clear video of Senator Reid, or some photogenic Democrat of his choosing, announcing why the Democratic leadership pulled the Defense Authorization Bill available on YouTube within minutes of the announcement. The video could have anticipated and dealt with the Republican response. Bloggers could and would have spread the Democratic message across the Internet.

I guess the Senator Reid and the Senate Democrats depended on the MSM to help spread their message, but it seems the big media companies universally elected to show the Republican responses provided by Senators Kyl and McCain. Clips of Kyl and McCain seemed to be the only ones readily available for use by bloggers.

Senator Reid, maybe you haven't heard, but according to ClickZNews, citing a Pew survey, during the 2006 election cycle "31 percent of all Americans, and 46 percent of the country's Internet users" used the internet to gain campaign information and exchange political views. That is a lot of people. It includes nearly all the political activists in the Democratic party. You do not need to depend exclusively on the mainstream media to get your message out. You can do it yourself.

Video cameras are cheap. Almost any teenager and many college graduates can learn how to upload video to YouTube. Lots of people on your staff can assemble a list of relevant email addresses. The next time you are confronted with an MSM road block, simply give your youngest intern a video camera, some relatively cheap video editing equipment, and a computer with internet access. Before long she and her friends will be providing interesting content to all of the blogs.

Don't expect every blogger to use your video, and don't expect every one of them to toe the party line. They won't, but there are so darn many bloggers, your message will spread like wildfire.

Senator Reid, you won't have to depend on big media gatekeepers like Tim Russert, Katie Couric, Brit Hume and their bosses to make sure your video message is distributed. You can do it yourself.

There's more: "A Hint To Harry Reid--This is 2007, You Don't Need To Depend On Diane Sawyer To Spread Your Video Message" >>

Where Is The Democratic Video Explaining Why Reid Pulled The Defense Authorization Bill?

Darn, I wish progressives had the audiovisual capabilities of conservatives.

This morning after the all night Senate session, when he had every body's attention, Harry Reid announced that he was pulling the defense authorization bill from consideration until the Republicans relent and give the Senate an up or down vote on Iraq. I wrote an article. Greg Sargent and Spencer Ackerman wrote extensively on the significance of Reid's move. BobGeiger posted on the topic. There are comments all over the left side of the Internet. It was big news.

If you visit Think Progress you discover with a major failure on the part of both Senate Democrats and, just as importantly, the left side of the Internet. Think Progress has posted an article with video clips of John Kyle and John McCain deploring Reid's move. Essentially they are attempting a little political judo. While they engaged in obstruction, the Republicans are attempting make it look like Reid is hurting the country by denying the troops all kinds of things. As has been written everywhere the Defense Authorization Bill is for FY 2008 and doesn't go into effect until October. Kyl and McCain are simply lying. There is plenty of time to pass the Authorization Bill.

It seems their political judo might succeed simply because there are no comparable clips from Reid or any other Democrat explaining why Reid pulled the Defense Authorization Bill. At least I haven't found any on YouTube. I haven't found any on Think Progress. I haven't found any on TPM. None. Nada. If they exist, I am not seeing them.

Think Progress does have a Reid comment calling Republicans dedicated obstructionists, but as the article accompanying that clip notes his decision to pull the bill wasn't announced come until after he left the floor. It certainly isn't part of the clip.

Within minutes of Reid's announcement there should have been a professionally produced video up on YouTube starring the most articulate and passionate Democrats around. It shouldn't be hidden on some blog somewhere. It should be all over the place. Bloggers should be getting emails containing the YouTube embed. I am not shocked, but I am disappointed the Democrats left the field to the Republicans who promptly trotted out the disingenuous Kyl and McCain.

If I am wrong, let me know.

There's more: "Where Is The Democratic Video Explaining Why Reid Pulled The Defense Authorization Bill?" >>

Republicans On Senate Intelligence Commitee Send Administration A Message

When I woke up this morning I went to my usual sites. After a little digging I found that TheHill.com was reporting an important story, made hard to either understand or confirm by the authors refusal to give citations and links. It has taken me all day to clarify theHill.com article. Perhaps Elana Schor and Roxana Tiron will do better in future editions.

Seven years ago, Congress passed a law known as the Smith Amendment. The Smith Amendment has made it either impossible or extremely difficult for members of the armed services, Department of Defense employees and employees of defense contractors to obtain security clearances if they have served a year in jail, if they are users of illegal drugs, if they have been determined to be mentally incompetent or if they have been dishonorably discharged or dismissed from the armed forces. The Smith Amendment does provide a procedure for obtaining a waiver, but the DoD complains that waivers take as much as 18 months.

Arguing that they need greater flexibility when issuing security clearances, the Pentagon has asked their friends on the Senate Armed Services Committee to slip language into nearly identical sections of S.1547, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and S.1548, the Department of Defense Autnorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, repealing the Smith Amendment which is officially known as Section 989 of Title 10 of the United States Code. The Armed Services Committee inserted the language.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has oversight responsibilities on matters involving security clearances. They had to consider the repeal of the Smith Amendment.

The good folks over at the Senate Intelligence Committee sent a message to the Armed Services Committee. In a 10-5 vote, lead by Republican Kit Bond (R-MO), the committee rejected the repeal. Surprisingly, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV.), Russ Feingold (D-WS.) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) supported the repeal. According to the official report,

The Committee understands DoD's desire to have more flexibility to give clearances to otherwise qualified individuals who are currently barred from receiving or renewing their security clearances. Because of the extremely sensitive nature of DoD's military and intelligence activities, however, the Committee is concerned that a blanket repeal of section 986 could lead to unintended compromises or mishandling of classified information. Further, the Committee believes that the waiver authority that is currently provided in section 986 is sufficient to give DoD the flexibility and discretion it needs in handling cases involving convictions or dishonorable discharges. With respect to the two remaining categories, it is the Committee's opinion that an individual who is currently using illicit substances or is mentally incompetent is not suited for access to classified information.

The Committee believes that the issue of security clearances, including grounds for disqualification and waiver procedures, should be examined carefully in close coordination with DoD (and other appropriate offices in the Executive Branch) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Senators Rockefeller, Wyden and Feingold dissented. Essentially they argued that,

We have been advised that there is no comparable statute applicable to any other department or agency of the government. Throughout the government, the regular security clearance procedures established by the President under Executive Order 12968 make clear that `agencies may investigate and consider any matter that relates to the determination of whether access is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.'

Senators Bond,Chambliss, Hatch, Snowe and Barr responded,

Proponents of Section 1064, including the Administration, have argued that the procedure for obtaining a waiver is `onerous' and may discourage agencies or individuals from pursuing a meritorious waiver. Section 986, however, does not mandate any procedure for considering or granting a waiver. Rather, this statute clearly states that the standards and procedures are to be established by Executive order or other Presidential guidance. Thus, to the extent that DoD believes that the waiver process is too cumbersome or does not provide sufficient flexibility, DoD should seek changes in the implementing guidance issued by the Executive branch.

In recent years, there have been some noteworthy and unfortunate leaks of sensitive intelligence programs. These leaks have compromised classified information and likely led to our enemies changing their tactics to thwart our collection efforts. Because such leaks can cause irreparable harm to our intelligence programs, reasonable measures such as Section 986 that protect classified information should be preserved.

Section 986 has significant implications for the Intelligence Community as there are a number of Intelligence Community components within DoD. Further, we believe that we should give serious consideration to extending similar security clearance restrictions to the rest of the Intelligence Community. Rather than risk compromising our intelligence sources and methods, we believe that this statute serves as a good starting point for fully exploring further options in this area.

This is an interesting little squabble. It would appear the Executive is trying secure the repeal of an existing law in order to allow the President's executive orders to totally control the granting of security clearances. Instead of the leading Democrats trying to protect the power of Congress in this area, it is the Republicans, joined by some Democrats, who are telling the President that the Congress will handle security clearance issues, thank you very much.

I only wish Senator Rockefeller's press office had returned my call. I would love to know what the Senator was thinking. Thank you to Senator Bond's office for providing us the original report and the additional views of both the majority and minority. Much appreciated.

To the nice people at theHill.com, you are an online newspaper, with the emphasis on "on-line." Please link bills and other relevant sources. Some of us are curious.

There's more: "Republicans On Senate Intelligence Commitee Send Administration A Message" >>

Way to support the troops, Mr. Resident

Please, Republicans, never again tell me how you are the party that supports the military. Lay no claims to superior patriotism around me. If you say it to my face, I might do you an injury. From now on, “Them’s fightin’ words.” I’ve had it.

This is just too freakin’ much. Call it the metaphorical straw that broke the Donkey's back. The man currently occupying the oval is rejecting a 3.5% pay raise for the military. This comes on the heels of last years slap-in-the-face when the ground-pounders got 2.2% while the General staff got an 8% increase.

They get their tours extended, they get lousy medical care, they get blown up, and then they get blown off, and screwed out of any benefits at all if it’s at all possible (with a probability approaching 1 if they have the misfortune of needing any services and they are stationed at Ft. Carson. Where the hell is that Inspector General I’ve been asking for?)

This is from today’s print edition of Army Times:

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 17:34:13 EDT

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

Can we stop with the rhetoric and d*/#-measuring please? Zip up. The contest is over, and the Resident lost. He talked a good game there for a minute. Problem is, he never backs anything up, and actually works against the best interests of the American military and the American people.

It is time…

Cowboy up and

ITMFA!!!

There's more: "Way to support the troops, Mr. Resident" >>

Contact Congress and tell them to RESTORE HABEAS

As Congress debates the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal year 2008, which starts 01 October, they have the opportunity to restore Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Acts of 1807. All were suspended with the passage of the Defense Authorization Bill for 2007. Letting this situation stand is antithetical to American ideals, and if we lose our American ideals, we lose America. Get it yet?

Ike Skelton agrees:

Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) says he favors the reform. At a hearing on Guantanamo last month he said he thought Congress acted unconstitutionally in denying prisoners habeas. But Mr. Skelton didn't include the amendment in the draft bill he circulated to his committee. His staff says he concluded that the measure should be contained in a stand-alone piece of legislation, which he is said to be preparing. That strategy is at odds both with recent legislative history and with the judgment of most congressional observers: Mr. Bush, they point out, won't hesitate to veto a bill on habeas corpus but might be induced to accept the reform if it were attached to one of the annual defense bills.

Contact your congresscritters today and tell them that you want your country back, and the rule of law restored. No president needs the kind of power over Americans that this president has sought and achieved. What the hell does he take us for? Terrorists?

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "Contact Congress and tell them to RESTORE HABEAS" >>

Bond and Leahy should try again

When the Defense Authorization Bill for FY 2007 was being written, Senators Bond (R-MO) and Leahy (D-VT) added a provision that would have given the National Guard a seat at the table in the Pentagon decision making process. The provision would also have elevated the Guard chief to Four Star, and made the number 2 position at U.S. Northern Command a National Guard billet. “They have supported us in the global war on terror, and the National Guard has earned a promotion. It’s time the Guard had a seat at the table when plans are being made.” Bond argued at the time. Still, the provision was stripped.

The Defense Authorization Bill for 2008 is being written right now, and the Senators should try again. We ask too much of our citizen soldiers to continue to give them short shrift. Yesterday it was announced that the Pentagon has changed the guidelines under which the Guard and Reserves can be deployed. In the past, deployments of Guardsmen and Reservists were limited to 24 of 60 months. That limit has been eliminated and now they can be deployed for 24 months at a time.

If the Guard and Reserves are going to be relied on so heavily in the United States military missions, they deserve equal representation in the decision making process.

There's more: "Bond and Leahy should try again" >>