Bureaucratic intelligence

Tim Russert held a panel discussion on Meet the Press Sunday, largely to talk about the NSA spy program. Miraculously, the two democrats on the panel, Jane Harmon and Tom Daschle agreed the spying was needed and wanted it to continue, showing they don't take their marching orders from the Democrat Underground or the Cindy Sheehan Command Center.

Bottom line, neither appeared interested in frog marches or spiteful payback, only that our intelligence gathering fits within FISA if possible, and if not, that FISA fits within our intelligence gathering. In today's world of spit-ball politics this sort of non-partisan adult-talk is breathtaking, almost comparable to seeing the ocean for the first time. Alright, almost.

Funny, we know Tom Daschle is capable of mixing it up with the best of em. Wonder if his relatively relaxed stance on the NSA program has anything to do with this little howdy hi there he received a few years back?


The panel also delved into Iraq "intellegence failures". Russert asked for opinions about comments from Paul R. Pillar, a former CIA counter-terrorism analyst, who's accused Bush of intel cherry-picking to justify war. Replied Ms. Harmon:

"He was trying to get everyone's attention. Intelligence was ignored. Yes, everyone agreed there was WMD in Iraq, but the weight of the [intelligence community's] recommendation was Saddam was contained and he wasn't going to use it. And that's the part that the administration never let us hear about."

Yes, but that same intelligence assessment originated from the community that dropped the ball on 9/11, Iran, Libya, and who had practically no assets on the ground in Iraq. And oh yeah, missed several opportunities to kill Bin Laden. Strange how they never include all the failures in the definition of intelligence failure. It's only Iraq.

In her book "Bush vs. the Beltway" Laurie Mylroie discussed Mr. Pillar. On pages 125-126, she describes his reaction to Bush's 2002 State of the Union address:

According to Pillar, Bush should not have said that "Iraq could give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists because there is no evidence of this occurring in the past". There was 'no evidence', he also asserted, "that Iraq had sponsored terrorism since the 1993 assassination attempt on former president George H.W.Bush"

Pillar seems to be of the same opinion as Richard Clarke, who also felt Clinton's 1993 cruise missile attack on Saddam's Mukhabarat headquarters permanently ended his aspirations of terrorism against America. What if they were wrong? There's plenty of evidence, albeit circumstantial, to suggest they might be.

Trusting our security to retirement countdown bureaucrats in this age of suicide terrorism is a scary thought. Large bureaucracies are like amorphous blobs feeding on the taxpayers. They always do what's best for the bureaucracy, regardless of what's best for the country, and are absolutely horrible at admitting mistakes.


2/14 corrected Mylroie quote above

NEVER MIND? 2/15/06

If a partisan like Tom Daschle won't touch the NSA program, it must be important. And if the democrats in Congress aren't willing to draw a line in the sand after a private briefing on the matter, then we're probably under a considerable threat--right now.

Republican Mike DeWine wants to shield the program:

He said he is drafting legislation that would "specifically authorize this program" by excluding it from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established a secret court to consider government requests for wiretap warrants in anti-terrorist investigations.

Only Jay Rockefeller seems to be digging heels. He may soon find himself on a deserted island:

As for Rockefeller's bid, Hagel said: "If some kind of inquiry would be beneficial to getting a resolution to this issue, then sure, we should look at it. But if the inquiry is just some kind of a punitive inquiry that really is not focused on finding a way out of this, then I'm not so sure that I would support that."

A headline tour of operation birdshot

(This post was somehow deleted by Blogger. This is my attempt to undelete.)


Let's see how the press is treating Cheney's accidental shooting...

"(CNN) -- The campaign contributor accidentally shot and wounded by Vice President Dick Cheney..." Actually not the headline, but the lead-in. The story goes on to make a big deal the victim was a Bush contributor, perhaps to suggest the man was complicit in this obvious cover-up.


"(Fox News) -- Press Attacks" Sorta like Mars attacks. Hey wait, isn't Fox a member of the press, too? The headline should read, "Rest of Press Attacks"


"(MyWay News) -- Bush Knew Saturday about Hunting Accident" The (child born out of wedlock). Is there nothing Dick Bushalliburton won't try to cover up? (Note, this was an AP originated story).


"(Editor and Publisher) -- Reporters Press McClellan on Delay in Reporting Cheney Shooting Incident" Same allegation as the above story. The liberal media are a bunch of morons. There, I've said it.


"(Reuters) -- White House Under Fire after Cheney Shooting Incident" Gotta admit, that's kinda funny.


"(AFP) Cheney Accidently Shoots Hunting Partner" What? I thought the French hated Bush??? How can they have the most accurate headline of all? I demand an investigation and boycott!

And finally..


"(Scrappleface) -- Cheney Shoots Hunter, Repeals 2nd Amendment" without comment..

edit..removed cuss word, per demand of the boss. after all, this is valentine's day..


IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT, FOLKS 2/14/06

It's hard to recall seeing anything quite so unhinged as how some in the MSM and left are reacting to this accident.

For example, here's a completely irresponsible WAG from one of the bigger lefty sites in Tennessee, insinuating Cheney was drunk. And we can always count on Arianna, can't we?

If God forbid this gentleman were to die, I bet the elite media wouldn't even bother to interview his family or friends in tripping over themselves to figuratively jab Cheney's head onto a pike.

MORE

The definition of unhinged here applies to those who would immediately forecast all kinds of evil conspiracies without the slightest supporting fact, as opposed to others who are just curious as to why the story wasn't immediately distributed to press outlets.

Sadly, one of the considerations for politicians in this day and age is how the press might react to something as innocent as a hunting accident, as evidenced today. We do need to consider Marlin Fitzwater's opinion , since he's walked the walk. But he wasn't there, either.

It's possible the liberal-leaning press would've made this a big story even if they'd been briefed from the tall grass seconds after gunfire. Cheney probably considered it a private matter--it wasn't like he shot a war protester or environmental activist, rather he shot a fellow evil republican. Probably figured nobody would care. Still, Bush needs to address this with the press and put this tempest back into its teapot.

AND ON WE GO 2/15/06

Check out this headline: "Top Democrats urge Cheney come forward on shooting"

The phrase "come forward" used in this context suggests Cheney is covering criminal or unethical behavior with this accident. First off, the democrats have access to the accident report, just like the rest of us. Second, politicizing the accidental shooting of this man borders on sleazy.

Cheney might be waiting until the man recovers before taking any questions from the press. If he allows a press conference on the pretext of the accident it will likely turn into a free-for-all about his role in the war, etc, and they know it.

CHENEY SPEAK 2/15/06

Vice President Cheney popped out of his secure location today to answer questions about the accidental shooting. Surely it frosted the mainstream press he went to Fox, and it won't do much to silence the maddening crowd.

But let's not kid ourselves here. The real reason the press corp went ballistic was probably because they saw a "Cheney in the headlights" moment coming...a chance to interview the Veep about the shooting followed by probing questions about Iraq and the War on Terra in general. Witness Chucky:

"The vice president hasn't had a press conference in three and a half years and he ought to have one to clear the air not only on this issue, but more importantly on the many other issues that have been shrouded by a veil of secrecy," Schumer said in a statement.

I think Cheney should do a press conference. It might make the dems and media realize they should be careful what they wish for.

WHAT?

David Ignatius is so far off base he's at the hot dog stand:

Nobody died at the Armstrong Ranch, but this incident reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy's delay in informing Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969.

Lord, what can one say? Remember the pale, David. You passed it miles ago.

CASE CLOSED? YEAH, BUT... 2/16/06

More stellar headlines: "Cheney's troubles far from over" and "Hunting Mishap Pushes Cheney's Bigger Problem From Public View - for Now"

Yep, the disappointment is written all over their face. But the AP is crafty. Instead of finding some unhinged democrat to tell their story, they found a GOP:

The hunting accident "really has gotten Scooter Libby out of the press," said Deb Gullett, a GOP activist from Phoenix, who is chief of staff to the city's mayor. "But it will come back."

Unless AP's Ron Fournier misquoted her, the Republicans should fire this woman. Scooter Libby has been in the headlines since 2003, and people have the same level of disinterest now as they had then. Most people don't even know who he is. That's not to say there's no scandal, just that anyone who believes this hunting story knocked some more important story out of the top spot is either exercising wishful thinking or is comepletely out of touch with reality, probably both.

As we've seen, the coverage has exposed much more about the people covering Cheney than it has the Vice President himself.

CLINTON SPEAKS 2/19/06

His opinion is hardly unreasonable and he didn't jump on the pile, but his blaming the lack of immediate candor on "secrecy" is funny. His own administration had elaborate spin teams manhandling every event along with a press corp who voted for him.

No comparison

I strongly disagree with this Reuters story, which tries to defuse the Muslim reaction to the Muhammed cartoons by comparing it with the violent sins committed by other world religions after their icons have been trashed. The story makes liberal use of Professor Juan Cole.

Some righty bloggers refer to them as "al-Reuters". I've refrained, but perhaps this is an example why they do.

COULTER AND MORE CARTOONERY 2/12

Michelle Malkin is not impressed with Ann Coulter's colorful language at the CPAC event. Here she describes her free expression line in the sand:

I don't. Not in public. Not at home. I have no ill will towards peaceful people who happen to cover their heads for their faith.

Fine, but then Michelle tries to defend her resepctful speech barrier against the backdrop of the cartoon imbroglio:

A few readers are comparing Ann's "raghead" comment to the Jyllands-Posten's publication of the 12 Mohammed cartoons. That's absolutely the wrong analogy. The Jyllands-Posten's purpose was to make a profound statement about the chilling effect of Islamism on Danish artists. Ann's purpose, clearly, was to do nothing more than get a cheap laugh.

With all due respect, I fail to see the difference--free expression is just that. Either you have it absolutely without any split hairs, or you restrain it using judgment and respect.

Before I'm accused of being a card carrying member of the soggy set, let me explain. Cracking on someone's Godhead is akin to blasting their mother-- them's fightin' words.

Does that mean I believe we should outlaw such speech? Of course not. I believe in the freedom to publicly babble just like the next guy. But with that freedom comes a certain responsibility. Yes it's corny, but recall that most of us on the right just got finished scouring Reverend Lowery for excercising his free speech rights (albeit in a very distasteful manner) at the Coretta Scott King funeral.

I simply think civility has to be considered at times. It has nothing to do with dhimmitude or running scared from Muslim threatmongers. It's just an application of respect, sometimes to folks who don't even deserve it.

MORE 2/13/06

Consider this analogy regards the cartoons:

"It’s like blaming Jesus for the sins of Pat Robertson."

Agreed. Trashing dead folks used to be considered in poor taste, and as far as we know Muhammed is still dead. Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Abu Hamas, Sami el Arian, etc., etc. So many targets of opportunity.

We know there were WMDs, over there

At the recent funeral of Coretta Scott King the Reverend Joseph Lowery made tsunami-like waves by proclaiming "we know there were no WMDs over there..".

The crowd went wild, providing plenty of subsequent fodder for talk radio and cable news. Yet throughout the fray the media darlings largely focused on the crassness of the comment, not the veracity of the comment. Was the Reverend wrong on both counts?

Laurie Mylroie has a new piece about this very subject. An expert on Saddam and the Middle East and author of several books, Ms. Mylroie explores the much-vaunted Syrian connection:

Damascus now harbors a significant number of Saddam-era officials, while current Iraqi officials assert that Syria is the main external source of support for the Iraqi insurgency. Ties between the Syrian and Iraqi Baathists are very close

The problem is there's always been a gulf between Baghdad and Damascus. Syria lined up against Saddam in the Gulf War, and their Ba'athism is not the same. So any alliance would represent strange bedfellows to some degree.

But think about the route used by most of the Algerian and Saudi holy warriors on their way to become ordnance in Iraq. Their road leads through Syria. And as Ms. Mylroie indicates, Ba'athist Syria has already allied itself with Islamic Iran, who are themselves using the Palestinian-Israeli issue as a rallying cry. So these two also appear strange bedfellers. Yet all share a common enemy--the Great Satan.

I agree with Luigi in that large scale chemical WMDs seem more useful in controlled operations like Halabja rather than by stealth terrorist operations in New York or DC:

The first class of weapons is exemplified by the chemical munitions Saddam fielded in his war with Iran: nerve gas, blistering agents, and so forth. These are relatively bulky, probably require traditional delivery systems such as bombs and sprayers, and do not really rise to the level of WMDs.

But as for the biologicals,

Former undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith suggests there may be a loose Iraqi WMD problem, similar to the problem of loose Soviet nukes. It has been over four years since high quality, weapons-grade anthrax was sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy. That material was more lethal than the anthrax produced by the U.S. and Soviet biological weapons programs. The FBI’s claim that it was produced by a lone scientist was always a stretch; indeed, it is much more likely that it was produced by an enemy state. Notably, the FBI has provided no explanation of who was responsible.

With Great Satan presence higher than ever, one has to wonder if there's any correlation between Iran's brass ball sabre rattling and Saddam's ever-elusive WMDs?

What to do about hostage Jill Carroll

Kidnapped journalist Jill Carroll is starting to look more Islamic with every video release.



Unless she's developing Stockholm Syndrome or has switched sides of her own free will, she's probably doing whatever it takes to get out.

However, getting her out continues to be a game of street level chicken. The kidnappers busted their initial deadline, however the Coalition was wrangling with a decision to release some Iraqi women from lockup at the same time. This suggested some contact between the two parties.

However, when only a few of the female detainees were released from Abu Ghraib (accompanied by a terse statement reitorating our policy against negotiating with terrorists), Ms. Carroll dropped off the scope.

There was always the possibility a backroom deal was made, perhaps to release some in January and more in February to make it look good, whereupon the prisoners would be swapped. But that's pretty risky, since any impression we are negotiating would not only be enormously embarrassing but would spur more kidnappings.

So she's back on al Jazeera with the original demand. If there is no deal, it seems likely we'll be forced to push them to another deadline, this time on the 26th. Doubtful she'll get another reprieve, since failing to follow through would make these terrorists look pretty weak. Not a pleasant situation.

Having said all that, we shouldn't count these guys out yet.

Saddam's future--Napoleon or Mussolini?

Uncle Saddam contines to make news. The latest wild acre story is that the US offered Saddam asylum, ala Napoleon, if he would use his influence to stop the insurgency. The Mussolini treatment was offered if he refused. Not surprisingly, a Coalition spokesman quickly tried to quash that notion:

"This appears to be some vain attempt by a lawyer to make it look as if Saddam still has some power or authority over people, which he doesn't,"he said.

But it's clear Saddam has at least some influence over events on the ground, not directly, but through proxy. That was established a few months ago when President Bush himself identified elements of the insurgency he called "Saddamists".

Case in point, we haven't heard jack squat about Saddam's number two man Izzat al-Douri since he supposedly died last year. Reports of his death were premature, just as reports of his capture were premature, but it marks a pattern of deceit that follows some of these ex-regime members. For example, Tariq Aziz should be running out of time about now. Such stuff suggests the regime still has some power.

As to the report, if somehow it's true, and that's certainly not a given, jaws would definitely drop. Perhaps the main question begged would be, "how could Saddam stop the insurgency at all? He's not a member of al Qaeda". Also, how would the Coalition explain his disappearance to the public--that he escaped? Sounds like a PR nightmare.

Furthermore, to even hint of an offer would suggest both a state of desperation on our part and leverage on his, no doubt causing him to increase his courtroom precociousness in an effort to further delay a trial already moving at glacial speed. Wait, that's already happening.

More than likely the story is yet another page out of the OJ playbook, much like the silly request earlier asking for the 'outright release of the kidnapped president'. Let's hope so, because we really don't want to go to the other place.

SADDAM THE HOMOPHOBE 2/13/06

"Degradation and shame upon you, Raouf," Saddam yelled. Later, he called the investigating judges "homosexuals."

This was in between rants about Bush and his dehumanizing detention. Half brother Barzan even graced the court wearing his underwear, then turned his butt to the judge. Quite appropriate, since they've all been showing it from day one.

Meanwhile a few more peasants testified about how they were tortured or something.

A SOLUTION? 2/14/06

Saddam claims to be on a hunger strike and has not eaten for three days. Keep up the good work, dude.

Seriously, he really knows how to manipulate the headlines. Almost every story about the trial spends the first five paragraphs on his antics, leaving the victims' torture tales down where only the heartiest readers venture.

Hurricane Michael

The democrats were hoping for a Cat 5 blame-a-cane from Michael Brown’s testimony before Congress today. Turns out it was mainly just breezy bureaucratic finger-pointing designed to kill a few scapegoats:

In an often tense exchange, Brown told the committee that he wasn't exactly sure who he talked to from the White House staff that night, but said it was probably Deputy Chief of Staff Joseph Hagin, who he said was in Crawford, Tex., with President Bush.

Let’s face it, the Bush administration’s initial response to Katrina was poop. Was it negligent? No. Embarrassing perhaps, but don't forget the scope of damage was unbelievable. Even Moses might have been overwhelmed.

Brown's testimony indicated he communicated with various people within DHS and the White House, but was largely ignored. But wait a sec, he's surprised there was miscommunication between government bureaucracies? Doesn't he know half the government budget is spent buying stove piping?

But after all this time we're still hung up on the definition of levee failure:

...asked if he told the White House staffer specifically that the New Orleans levees had been breached, Brown said he could not recall..

Let's get this straight. Bush was beat about the torso for saying he didn't know the levees would fail. But he wasn't wrong, since they told him the storm surge would cause the levees to be overtopped. Nobody was telling him the walls themselves would fail, since the feeling was they could withstand a Cat 3 (which is what they got). Since the winds and surge were less than forecast the mindset Monday was that NOLA had been largely spared.

There's plenty of blame, but not every agency got it wrong--the National Weather Service was mostly correct, yet officials had trouble believing their doomsday forecast. Not surprising, there's a natural tendency to disbelieve weathermen. Perhaps they should study better ways for scientists to communicate with normal people.

But the real lesson from Katrina hasn't changed since day one, and it's very simple--do not put all your faith in big government during a major emergency. They aren't coming right away, and they won't help you. Get a plan and carry it out then hope the govmint helps you rebuild.


PS, speaking of the NWS, they got it right today here in Left Tennessee. It's a winter wonderland round here.

HE BLINDED ME WITH SCIENCE! 2/11/06

John B. Judis from the New Republic recently penned an article (they've hidden it behind their subscription firewall but someone provided me a copy) attempting to prove a conspiracy between global warming, Katrina and the Bush administration. The article cites a back-and-forth between reporters and NOAA officials from a November news conference:

The first question from a reporter was one the press had been asking since Hurricane Katrina reached land three months before: "I was wondering if one of you can talk about what extent, if any, global warming may have played in the storms this year?" NOAA's chief hurricane forecast scientist, Gerry Bell, stepped forward to answer. Bell denied that "greenhouse warming" had any effect on the hurricanes. The hurricanes, he insisted, were merely part of "the 20- to 30-year cycles that we've seen since 1950."

Conspiracy?! Not quite.

That statement happens to represent the opinion of several prominent researchers at NOAA's National Hurricane Center, who've had these opinions since before Bush took office. Besides, answering that question with even the slightest notion that global warming might affect hurricane intensity would undoubtedly produce headlines such as,

"NOAA admits global warming may affect hurricane strength", or

"NOAA scientists cite the role of greenhouse gases on the strength of Katrina", or

"Bush administration continues to reject Kyoto, ignoring its effect on hurricane strength, according to NOAA".

All lead to the same conclusion--Bush is somehow responsible for Katrina.

Mr. Judis goes on to mention Kerry Emanuel's paper, which received much attention during the storm aftermath, as proof of White House is white-washing. Problem is, this is just one paper amidst many, and the preponderance of evidence points to the natural cycle theory. Judis also tries to assert that lower level scientists like NHC Director Max Mayfield is somehow a Bush stooge, which is laughable.

Perhaps in the interest of fairness he could have looked at some of the historical facts. For example, this chart shows the hurricanes by decade since the 1800s. No real trend there. The image below shows similar data in graph form. Although it doesn’t contain 2005 data, it does feature several spikes that can’t easily be explained away with global warming. Cycles, anyone?



Yes, the graph shows a gradual rise in the number of storms since the 19th century, but keep in mind we have better sensing equipment and more people available to witness and report storms. Also, satellite technology didn’t come on line until the 70s.

And, I'm not saying there isn't an affect from atmospheric warming, but it's yet be conclusively proven as to how it might affect hurricane strength or frequency, which was what the reporters and Mr. Judis were seeking from the scientists at the press conference.

Bottom line, there is no cover-up at NOAA. We’re simply seeing an organization talking about science not politics, as it should be. Since the left seems to want top government scientists also spouting policy and politics, perhaps they can devise a way for the public to vote for them.

BTW, if you'd like Mr. Judis' article you'll have to go to NewRepublic.com and sign up. It was simply too long to post here, besides they might come after me.