Politics or Poppycock

A Look From the Left At Politics, Politicians, Policies and Issues of National Concern

The Right Reason For Saving Social Security

Posted by James O'Rourke on July 27, 2010

Brookings

The Right Reason For Saving Social Security

As a member of the Presidents Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is charged with producing a bipartisan plan to rein in future budget deficits, I get to hear the favorite deficit reduction schemes of friends, acquaintances and strangers. A surprising number lead with Social Security. Some begin, “The first thing is to raise the retirement age in Social Security, which would fix a big part of the problem, right?” (Wrong). Others are afraid the Commission will recommend cutting the benefits of elderly widows living on the edge of subsistence (absurdly unlikely). Many insist that Social Security, because of its separate funding, plays no part in projected federal deficits (also wrong), and therefore should be exempt from the deficit-cutting exercise. As usual, the real story is more complex.

The right reason for saving Social Security is to reassure all Americans that this hugely successful program is solidly funded and will be there for the millions who depend on it when they need it. That such action will make a modest contribution to reducing long run deficits is a serendipitous by-product, not the central motivation. The reason for acting now rather than later is simply that the sooner we act the less drastic adjustments we have to make. These adjustments can involve revenue increases, future benefit reductions (including retirement age changes), or some of each. They need not be large if they are done soon and they need not have a significant effect on those currently retired or close to retirement.

Here is a quick refresher on how Social Security works. Workers and their employers pay Social Security taxes on their wages (up to a limit of $106,800 increased annually for inflation) during their working lives and are entitled to benefits when they retire, become disabled or die leaving survivors. These payments are credited to a fund from which the benefits are paid.

Since the last reforms in 1983 Social Security has run a cash surplus. More money was coming into the fund in payroll tax collections than was needed to pay current beneficiaries. The excess was invested in special Treasury bonds that pay interest. However, with the retirement of the baby boomers and increasing longevity driving up benefit payments, as well as high unemployment reducing payroll tax collections and swelling disability rolls, that cash surplus is fast disappearing. Looking forward, current tax collections will not be enough to fund all benefits; so part of the benefits will have to be paid from the accumulated interest or from cashing in the Treasury bonds. By about 2037, on current calculations, the accumulated interest will be used up and the bonds will all be cashed. Payroll tax collections will still be coming in, of course, but will only be sufficient to pay about three quarters of the benefits due. If nothing is done before 2037, benefits will have to be cut immediately by a quarter (and more thereafter) or the government will have to find the money elsewhere to make up the difference. The system won’t “go belly-up,” as some scare-mongers allege, but it will require dramatic adjustment either in benefits, revenues or both.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Policy, Seniors, Social Security | Leave a Comment »

The Afghan War Diaries

Posted by James O'Rourke on July 26, 2010

thinkprogress.org

NATIONAL SECURITY

The Afghan War Diaries

Yesterday afternoon, the whistle-blower organization WikiLeaks.org released a massive archive of 92,000 classified reports revealing an “unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official portrayal.” The archive, containing reports from the ground written during a six-year period from 2004 through 2009, were released to the The New York Times, British newspaper The Guardian, and Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine “several weeks ago on the condition that they not report on the material before Sunday.” While the documents — which are already being compared to the Vietnam War’s Pentagon Papers — reveal little completely new information, and do not completely contradict the official account, they “confirm what the Afghan War skeptics have been arguing for some time — and completely invalidate those who have been promulgating a rosier view of outcomes inside Afghanistan.” Revelations include reports that the “Taliban have used portable heat-seeking missiles against allied aircraft,” weapons which “helped the Afghan mujahedeen defeat the Soviet occupation in the 1980s.” The reports also detail the “omnipresence” of and previously unreported problems with drone aircraft in Afghanistan, while revealing new information about the CIA’s paramilitary operations, and a commando unit that operated outside the NATO chain of command to hunt top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders. The archive is also “a vivid reminder that the Afghan conflict until recently was a second-class war, with money, troops and attention lavished on Iraq while soldiers and Marines lamented that the Afghans they were training were not being paid,” the New York Times noted. As the war becomes increasingly unpopular, “This massive storehouse taken, it would appear, from U.S. Central Command’s CIDNE data warehouse — has the potential to be strategically significant, raising questions about how and why America and her allies are conducting the war,” the Danger Room’s Spencer Ackerman noted. The White House reaction to the release was swift, with National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones saying in a statement, “The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security.” Jones downplayed the significance of the leak and noted that the documents mostly detail events that occurred under the Bush administration. The documents were written well before Obama “announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan…precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years.” A spokesperson for Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the leader was “shocked” by the size of the leak, but not its contents. Still, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement, “However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America’s policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan.

”

PAKISTAN’S ‘DOUBLE GAME’: One of the most troubling facts revealed by the WikiLeaks documents is that Pakistan has aided insurgents operating in Afghanistan. Observers of the war “have long harbored strong suspicions that Pakistan’s military spy service has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants.” The new documents reveal that Pakistan has indeed “allow[ed] representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.” At least 180 files contain allegations of “dirty tricks” by Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), “with accounts of undercover agents training suicide bombers, bundles of money slipping across the border and covert support for a range of sensational plots including the assassination of President Hamid Karzai, attacks on NATO warplanes and even poisoning western troops’ beer supply.” Some of the reports describe the ISI working “alongside Al Qaeda to plan attacks,” but experts cautioned that many of these reports come from biased, or unreliable sources, and that “directly linking the Pakistani spy agency…with Al Qaeda is difficult.” “Despite all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity,” the Guardian notes. “Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters – famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials – and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred,” the paper added. In his statement, Jones downplayed this alleged connection, and praised the Pakistani military for “[c]ounter-terrorism cooperation [that] has led to significant blows against al Qaeda’s leadership.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Obama Administration, Afghanistan, National Security | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

What The Wikileak Means For The Afghanistan War

Posted by James O'Rourke on July 26, 2010


Posted by MICHAEL CROWLEY Sunday, July 25, 2010

wpid-307_afghanistan_0726-2010-07-26-13-22.jpg

The Obama White House is furious this morning about the massive leak of military documents chronicling the unvarnished truth about the Afghanistan war. At the same time, though, there must be a certain sense of relief around the West Wing. When they first learned that the whistleblower website WikiLeaks had given the New York Times, among others, an astonishing 92,0000 documents, senior Obama officials must have been in a panic about what terrible secrets might emerge. But it turns out that most of the terrible aspects of the Afghanistan war–at least those detailed by this trove of insider accounts–are already pretty well known.

It’s never been a secret, for instance, that the Taliban have proven more resilient than anyone expected; that U.S. special forces hunt and eliminate Taliban leaders without the courtesy of a fair trail; that elements within our putative ally Pakistan play a sinister double game with radical Islamists; that our troops kill innocent Afghans on a regular basis. It’s not even a secret, as anyone familiar with the Pat Tillman saga knows, that the military sometimes manipulates facts about the war.

The trove of leaked documents affirms all these facts. And in their texture and detail–which it will take some time for other new outlets to sift in full–certainly offer a new appreciation for how difficult the war effort is. But based on their presentation by the news organizations given time by Wikileaks to study them before their release, the documents don’t seem to reveal fundamental new truths. (Also giving solace to the Obama team: the docs cover a time period from January 2004 to December 2009, meaning that the vast majority predate Obama’s tenure, and end just around the time of the address he gave last winter at the conclusion of his Afghanistan policy review.)

Take, for instance, perhaps the most explosive charge, and the one which led the Times website in a headline late Sunday night: Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert. Here’s the story’s opening paragraph:

Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harbored strong suspicions that Pakistan’s military spy service has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants, according to a trove of secret military field reports made public Sunday.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who even skims the front pages of major newspapers. Consider, for instance, this story which appeared on page A1 of the NYT on March 26 of last year:

Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say

The Taliban’s widening campaign in southern Afghanistan is made possible in part by direct support from operatives in Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, despite Pakistani government promises to sever ties to militant groups fighting in Afghanistan, according to American government officials.

This isn’t to say that the documents are irrelevant. Sometimes it can be crystallizing to see hard truths articulated not by reporters covering a war but in the real-time reports of the men and women on the ground. Moreover, the media frenzy about the documents–we’re already seeing comparisons to the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers–is bound to startle the public and put a further dent in support for the war.

And that’s not nothing. In recent months we’ve seen a steady drumbeat of bad headlines  from Afghanistan, from the mixed success of the ballyhooed Marjah offensive to the spectacular flame out of General Stanley McChrystal. The Wikileak dump is certain to accelerate the feeling, both around the country and here in Washington, that the war effort isn’t sustainable for much longer. And right now, the biggest secret of all, the one no one is leaking, is whether Barack Obama agrees.

Excerpted from What the Wikileak Means for the Afghanistan War – Swampland – TIME.com

Posted in *Obama Administration, Afghanistan, Politics As Usual | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Party Of No

Posted by James O'Rourke on July 21, 2010

thinkprogress.org

POLITICS

The Party Of No (Ideas)

The 2010 midterm elections are just four months away, and with Republicans excited at the prospect of picking up seats and perhaps even gaining a majority in at least one — and possibly both — legislative chambers, talk is now turning to what the GOP will do if it takes over. Several of their “plans” so far include vapid talking points about “standing with the American people back home” and hollow gimmicks to “listen” to the American public for policy ideas. If elected back into leadership positions, many members of the Republican Party would like to extend their “Party of No” agenda and put their partisan ideologies over the best interests of the American public. There are already rumblings that the GOP would try to repeal significant portions of President Obama’s agenda — including health care reform, the stimulus, and financial regulatory reform — and take the country back to the days of the Bush administration.

AVOIDING POLICY ISSUES: On a daily basis, many Republicans are out telling their constituents and the national media that Democratic policies are dangerous. Republican Ken Buck, who’s running for the U.S. Senate in Colorado, recently said that the “greatest threat to our liberty” is “the progressive liberal movement that is going on in this country.” Mississippi state Sen. Alan Nunnelee (R), who is running for a congressional seat in the northern part of his state, said last month that Democratic policies are “more dangerous” than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. So what’s the GOP alternative? If some Republicans get their way, those ideas will be kept secret. Last week, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told radio host Bill Bennett that Republicans shouldn’t “lay out a complete agenda” because then people would be able to scrutinize it and make it “a campaign issue.” And far-right candidates like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul are avoiding taking tough questions from traditional media outlets. According to the Washington Post, behind the scenes, GOP leaders are urging their members to “avoid issues at all costs.” Underscoring the intellectual deficit in the GOP leadership, yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) — the Party’s congressional campaign committee chairs — what Republicans will do if they return to power. Sessions simply said that the public “understand[s]” the GOP will be “standing with the American people back home,” and the two men were unable to name a single “painful choice” that Republicans would be willing to make to live up to their deficit-cutting rhetoric. After Labor Day, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) will reportedly roll out “a blueprint of what Republicans will do if they take back control of the chamber,” but it’s unclear if candidates will “actually want to run on those ideas.

“

EMPTY GIMMICKS: So far, the much-ballyhooed policy initiatives of congressional Republicans have been hollow gimmicks billed as a way to listen to the American public for policy prescriptions. First there was YouCut, a site that allows people to choose from a pre-selected list of programs that they would like to see eliminated from the federal budget. In late May, the program that  received the most votes was a successful jobs program, and more recently, users voted to prohibit “hiring new IRS agents to enforce health care law,” which the site claims would save $15 billion — even though IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman has testified before Congress that agents won’t be going after people to see if they have acceptable health care. More recently, Boehner launched “America Speaking Out,” an initiative involving a website and public town halls to solicit ideas for the GOP agenda. The project is rather farcical, however, since Republicans have admitted that they won’t incorporate any public ideas with which they disagree. The site has largely been a joke since its launch, with ideas including, “Don’t let the illegals run out of Arizona and hide. … I think that we should do something to identify them in case they try to come back over. Like maybe tattoo a big scarlet ‘I’ on their chests — for ‘illegal’!!!”

BACK TO THE BUSH YEARS: The one thing Republicans have made clear is that they’re yearning for the good ol’ days of President Bush. Cornyn recently told C-SPAN that Bush’s “stock has gone up a lot since he left office. … I think a lot people are looking back with more fondness on President Bush’s administration, and I think history will treat him well.” They are also clinging to the notion that the government can cut taxes and not offset the spending — despite all their deficit-cutting rhetoric and criticisms that Obama is “spending trillions of dollars we do not have on things we do not need.” Showing that he is a deficit fraud, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) recently said, “[Y]ou should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said that continuing Bush’s tax cuts “isn’t a cost,” and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) admitted that he’s willing to vote against unemployment benefits for out-of-work Americans unless they’re offset while waving through tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Many Republicans have also said they’re interested in repealing the progress of the past year, including health care reform, the stimulus, and financial regulatory reform. Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has even talked about repealing the 16th and 17th amendments — which would eliminate the income tax and end direct election of U.S. senators. Last week, Vice President Biden summed up their strategy: “Repeal and Repeat: Repeal everything positive done, and repeat the polices of the previous eight years of the Bush administration.” It’s also possible that if voters oust Democrats in November, far-right conservatives will take over Congress. Last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) filed papers to start and lead a Tea Party Caucus in the House, and U.S. Senate candidate in Kentucky Rand Paul has said that he would like to do the same if he is elected. Bachmann has also hinted at a bid to overthrow the current GOP leadership and install “constitutional conservatives.” A look at the ranking Republicans on top House committees and subcommittees, who would likely become chairs if their Party wins in November, includes Texas’ Joe Barton (who famously apologized to BP), Iowa’s Steve King (who said that Obama “favors the black person“), and Texas’ Louie Gohmert (who said that hate crimes legislation would lead to Nazism and the legalization of necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality).

Posted in Politics | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Act of honor, or betrayal?

Posted by James O'Rourke on July 14, 2010

Washingtonpost.com

Former NSA Executive Thomas A. Drake May Pay High Price For Media Leak

F or seven years, Thomas A. Drake was a senior executive at the nation’s largest intelligence organization with an ambition to change its insular culture. He had access to classified programs that purported to help the National Security Agency tackle its toughest challenges: exploiting the digital data revolution and countering terrorism.

Today, he wears a blue T-shirt and answers questions about iPhones at an Apple store in the Washington area. He is awaiting trial in a criminal media leak case that could send him to prison for 35 years. In his years at the NSA, Drake grew disillusioned, then indignant, about what he saw as waste, mismanagement and a willingness to compromise Americans’ privacy without enhancing security.

He first tried the sanctioned methods — going to his superiors, inspectors general, Congress. Finally, in frustration, he turned to the “nuclear option”: leaking to the media.

Drake, 53, may pay a high price for going nuclear. In April he was indicted, accused of mishandling classified information and obstructing justice. His supporters consider him a patriotic whistleblower targeted by an Obama administration bent on sealing leaks and on having something to show for an investigation that spans two presidencies. Many in the intelligence community, by contrast, view Drake as the overzealous one, an official who disregarded his oath to protect classified information so he could punish the agency for scrapping a program he favored.

It’s classic Washington: disgruntled officials sharing inside information with a reporter and an administration seeking to rein that practice in. Drake’s attorney maintains he broke no laws.

The case, whistleblower-rights advocates say, underscores how revealing abuses in the intelligence community is difficult because of the classified nature of programs and the lack of meaningful protections against retaliation.

An NSA spokeswoman declined to comment for this article, saying the agency cannot discuss an ongoing criminal case. Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said: “We have consistently said that leaks and mishandling of classified information are matters that we take extremely seriously.”

Whether or not Drake “thought he had a solid argument,” he “made it in the wrong form,” a former NSA official said.

What led Drake to this point, friends and others say, is a belief that his actions were justified if they forced such a powerful and secretive agency to be held accountable.

“He tried to have his concerns heard and nobody really wanted to listen,” said Nina Ginsberg, an attorney representing a former Hill staffer who shared Drake’s concerns.

‘Champions of the little guy’

Drake, an avid player of three-dimensional-chess who flew on Air Force spy planes and once was a CIA analyst, began working at the NSA in 1989 as a contractor evaluating software. “He always seemed to have a new angle on something,” said Edward Miller, president of Software Research, and a friend of Drake’s since the mid-1990s. “He was bringing the best of what was in the outside world into the insular thinking of a large agency.”

In 2000, Drake met Diane Roark, a Republican staffer on the House Intelligence Committee who tracked the NSA. She held dim views about agency officials, especially concerning complex technical programs.

They were friends with shared values, Ginsberg said. “He was very concerned about waste and mismanagement and so was she.”

The two were impressed by a project called ThinThread, developed in the late ’90s to provide the NSA with a way to sift through the massive volume of digital data the agency could vacuum up, then discern patterns and key pieces of information that would be useful to analysts. Drake and Roark viewed themselves as “champions of the little guy,” said a former NSA official. “The bureaucracy was the bad thing and entrepreneurial grass-roots efforts were the right thing.”

The people behind ThinThread were the right thing: They included two career employees, William Binney, a mathematician, and J. Kirk Wiebe, a communications analyst. A key component of ThinThread was privacy protection. The program could collect domestic data but would “anonymize” names and other identifying information with encryption codes until evidence was gathered to justify a warrant so that names could be revealed. Inexpensive and designed for off-the-shelf hardware, ThinThread was estimated to cost in the millions, not billions.

But there was dispute about how much data the program could handle, and anonymized or not, collecting domestic data without a warrant is illegal, NSA lawyers advised. Michael V. Hayden, who was then the new NSA director, decided to center a major modernization effort on Trailblazer, a $1.2 billion program that essentially performed the same functions as ThinThread.

In 2001, Drake was promoted to senior executive, heading the office of change leadership and communications. His first day on the job happened to be Sept. 11: In the course of hours, al-Qaeda’s attack changed the national conversation about privacy. Suddenly the emphasis was on detecting plots rather than on trying to ensure that the agency never spy on Americans, even inadvertently.

Drake still believed in ThinThread, that it was needed now more than ever to help find terrorists. However, friends said he began to hear rumors that the agency was embarking on a program that would abandon constitutional safeguards against wiretapping of Americans and engage in data-mining that could raise suspicions about innocent Americans. He thought this was unnecessary because of ThinThread, they said.

Friends said he took his concerns to senior agency officials but got no results. Three former agency officials said they didn’t recall Drake raising any constitutional concerns, though one recalled that he pushed ThinThread. Roark, Binney and Wiebe shared Drake’s concerns. Friends said that the three tried to alert congressional leaders and that Roark wrote to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. They got no results. Roark also went to her boss, House intelligence Chairman Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who referred her to Hayden. Hayden told her, “We’re proud of what we’re doing and how we’re doing it.”

Binney and Wiebe retired in October 2001, but the group of self-styled whistleblowers pressed on. In September 2002, Roark, Binney, Wiebe and a colleague — a former NSA technician — filed a complaint with the Defense Department’s inspector general. They charged that NSA ineptly sidelined ThinThread to pursue Trailblazer, a budget-padding program that cost 10 times as much and was less effective.

The four did not ask Drake to sign the complaint because they did not want him, as an NSA employee, to face retaliation, but they named him as a key source. For the next 2 1/2 years, Drake provided information to Defense investigators, friends said. That probe spawned two criminal fraud inquiries, they said. The inspector general’s office said it does not confirm or deny investigations.

Drake also testified before two congressional inquiries into the Sept. 11 attacks, detailing his concerns that NSA had information that could have helped prevent them and that it ignored programs such as ThinThread that could have turned up more clues and protected Americans’ privacy. But friends said he told them his input was not reflected in the final classified reports.

The still-classified inspector general report on ThinThread and Trailblazer was completed in December 2004. Drake saw no response to the findings from the Hill or the agency.

“What do you do when the established avenues are shut down?” a friend asked. “Just look the other way?”

A risk worth taking

Roark, friends said, suggested to Drake in November 2005 that he might contact Siobhan Gorman, a reporter who covered intelligence agencies for the Baltimore Sun.

A month later, the New York Times revealed that the NSA had been eavesdropping on Americans without court approval since shortly after 9/11. Drake, friends said, felt emboldened. Others who shared his concerns had gone to the media. He knew the risk — a leak investigation had already begun.

Still, he thought the risk was worth it, they said.

In February 2006, according to the government indictment, Drake e-mailed Gorman. He used Hushmail, a service that allowed him to keep his identity secret. For months, the two communicated via Hushmail, but Drake set conditions, including that Gorman would never use him as a single source. After a year, he showed up at her office and finally revealed who he was, friends said.

The government alleged, among other things, that Drake obtained classified documents from NSA networks that would be useful to Gorman’s articles and that he scanned and e-mailed to Gorman copies of classified documents, at least two of which he retained on his home computer. An attorney for Gorman declined to comment for this article.

Drake’s lawyer, public defender Jim Wyda, said the allegations are “wrong, both as a factual matter and because of the important principles diminished by such a prosecution.” He added: “Throughout, Tom Drake has tried as best he could to do the right thing in service of his country. His motives in this important matter are completely pure.”

Former NSA officials disagree. “What he did was unforgivable and clumsy, in my view,” said one, “and could only have been driven by hubris.”

Throughout 2006 and 2007, Gorman wrote a series of articles critical of NSA’s management of major programs, citing multiple sources. In May 2006, she produced a piece questioning NSA’s rejection of ThinThread, noting its rivalry with Trailblazer. The headline read: “NSA rejected system that sifted phone data legally; Dropping of privacy safeguards after 9/11, turf battles blamed.”

By then both projects were history: Hayden had acknowledged that Trailblazer was a failure and hundreds of millions over budget, an NSA inspector general report in 2003 concluded that it had been mismanaged, and Congress in 2003 had stripped the agency’s authority to handle major contracts. Former NSA officials say Trailblazer was not a total bust, that some elements survived and are still in use.

One government official said that the Sun article reflected “warring parties continuing their religious war” over the projects’ respective virtues, but that it was “probably a public service to have NSA embarrassed by these acquisition failures that otherwise, because they’re classified, get swept under the rug.”

No plea-bargaining with truth

In September 2006, the NSA transferred Drake to the National Defense University, where he taught a class on strategic leadership. Ten months later, on a Thursday morning in July 2007, teams of FBI agents descended simultaneously on the homes of Roark, Wiebe, Binney and the former analyst who also complained to the inspector general. In Binney’s case, a friend said, the agents came in with guns drawn. They hauled away boxes of documents, even taking the computers from renters in Roark’s basement in Stayton, Ore., where she had moved after retiring from the Hill.

On Nov. 28, 2007, shortly before 5:30 a.m., FBI agents knocked on Drake’s door in Glenwood, Md. His wife, an NSA contractor, was about to leave for work and to take their son to school. They took computers, photos, books on the NSA, materials for a dissertation he was finishing.

Drake met three times with federal investigators in what friends said he termed his “cooperative” period. He thought that he could make them see that crimes had been committed. Instead, in his final meeting with them, in April 2008, it became clear that the government believed that he was the one who had committed a crime. A prosecutor pressed him to plead guilty or go to prison, a friend recalled.

That month, Drake resigned from the NSA rather than be fired. He also hired a private attorney.

“I will never plea-bargain with the truth,” friends said he told them.

Throughout 2009, Drake’s attorney appealed to the prosecution to dismiss the case, arguing that Drake had violated no law. But in November, with a new prosecutor at the helm, it became clear that the case would move ahead.

That month, Drake ran into Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, in Bethesda. Drake, who knew of Hersh’s work uncovering the 1968 My Lai massacre, began talking to him and mentioned he was under investigation. He began sharing with Hersh what he had told congressional investigators years earlier, about the NSA’s pre-9/11 knowledge of al-Qaeda. The story, Hersh told journalists in Geneva in April, was “much more devastating, much more important” than what was reported in the Baltimore Sun. Neither man followed up with the other.

Around that time, Drake called a friend, who said he could feel “the fear . . . the dread, the forlornness” in Drake’s voice. “They’re after me,” he told the friend. “I can smell it.”

Staff writer Greg Miller and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Rights, Justice | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Tea Party Is Dangerous: Dispelling 7 Myths That Help Us Avoid Reality About the New Right-Wing Politics

Posted by James O'Rourke on July 5, 2010

Monday 05 July 2010

by: Adele M. Stan  |  Alternet | News Analysis

Few things are more confounding to liberals and progressives than the rise of the Tea Party movement, and the media’s infatuation with it. Just as we breathed a sigh of relief with the election of Barack Obama as the nation’s 44th president, after eight disastrous years under the reign of Bush the Younger, in swept a furious wave of misanthropic pique.

Really, we shouldn’t have been surprised. Just as a recession hit of unprecedented force, yielding high unemployment, conservatives found themselves sidelined, Obama’s triumph coming on the heels of the Democrats’ congressional victories of 2006. That partisan change would have been enough to make conservatives ornery, but the cultural change represented by the nation’s first African-American president struck fear into the hearts of many — especially after liberal San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to wield the gavel of the Speaker of the House.

The inevitable backlash against such a sweeping shift, shepherded by an array of corporate-funded entities, culminated in the creation of the Tea Party movement — a dangerous brew of resentment and fear that threatens to roll back the majority the Democrats enjoy in the House of Representatives, and set the nation on a path to a right-wing government even more restrictive and regressive than that of the Bush era.

But bad economies create bad politics, notes economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. Economic downturns traditionally, over the course of history, usher in swings to the right, Krugman writes. The administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an aberration in this regard, and, perhaps, as Michael Tomasky suggests, in the course of American history. But since the Great Depression offers our most recent experience of severe economic crisis, its story is etched in the progressive mind as the narrative for how the nation naturally responds to economic catastrophe.

More than a year ago, Robert Reich warned of the vitriol we see today from the Tea Party movement, as well as its likely targets. “Make no mistake: Angry right-wing populism lurks just below the surface of the terrible American economy,” Reich wrote, “ready to be launched not only at Obama but also at liberals, intellectuals, gays, blacks, Jews, the mainstream media, coastal elites, crypto socialists, and any other potential target of paranoid opportunity.”

We must not make the mistake Reich warned us about; we ignore the emergence of the Tea Party movement at our peril. We are the ones they’ve been waiting for.

The impulse to dismiss the Tea Party movement is understandable, especially given the kook factor (something that every grassroots movement has). The wacky signs, the crazy rhetoric about health care as some form of tyranny: How could this add up to a force able to defeat the massive coalition that led to President Obama’s election?

Charles P. Pierce, writing at Esquire’s blog, expresses this view with his claim that the Tea Party movement isn’t really a movement at all, but rather “the kind of noisy paranoid lunacy that used to be stapled to lampposts, or hollered about by people you would avoid in the public parks.” Some of that is true, but it also feeds an attendant denial of the kind of damage such a movement — or non-movement, in Pierce’s view — can do.

Ultimately, the same forces that launched the Religious Right in the 1970s lurk behind today’s Tea Party movement, aided and abetted by Fox News, corporate-funded organizing groups and far-right players within the Republican Party — forces which, taken in aggregate, constitute a sort of Tea Party, Inc. They have money. They have power. And they know how to get more of both.

Day after day, the themes favored by the billionaires and political operatives who mobilize the Tea Partiers are hammered with ruthless repetition not only by Glenn Beck and the rest of Fox News, but also by Rush Limbaugh and hundreds of radio talk-show hosts and right-wing syndicated newspaper columnists. And now those themes are finding their way into mainstream media as journalists feel compelled to address them in their reporting.

Over the course of the last 30 years, conservatives have held more years in power than liberals and moderate Democrats. But the men behind the right-wing fury don’t just want their power back; they want more of it than they’ve ever had before.

The right is patient, but it is not kind. Its leaders are content to take a long path to their goal of grabbing all the marbles. In the 2010 elections, they may win a few and lose a few, but in these two things they will succeed: moving both the civic discourse and the Republican Party further to the right.

Through the launch of successful primary challenges in key races for the U.S. Senate, they’ve introduced ideas far outside the mainstream of American political discourse: elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve, the outlawing of abortion under any circumstances. These ideas have never before had the breadth of coverage granted by national media to important electoral contests. Absurd as they may seem now, they may seem less so if liberal governance fails to heal the economy.

As progressives and liberals seek to make sense of the Tea Party movement, a handful of myths have emerged to explain the wishful thinking about the movement’s supposed inability to gain the kind of power that could set us back decades. Some are excuses for inaction, some are fantasies born of denial and some are simple simple misreadings of the times. Here are seven emerging themes for not taking the Tea Party movement seriously, and why they are wrong.

1. The Tea Party movement is largely a creation of the media, which devotes too much coverage to the Tea Party’s small constituency of malcontents.

There’s little doubt that media hype has played a significant role in both the growth and coverage of the Tea Party movement. But that does not negate the potential impact of this anti-government tribe on American politics or governance, as Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum believes. Rather, the role played by media in amplifying the Tea Party message simply speaks to one means — the major one, perhaps — by which the movement has grown. And now media are beginning to internalize some of those themes in their own assessments of the Obama administration, such as the obsession with reducing the federal deficit in an economy that, if history is any guide, will require serious deficit spending to repair.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Economy, Issues, Opinions, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

War In Afghanistan: Illegal, Untenable And Unwinnable

Posted by James O'Rourke on July 2, 2010

OpEdNews:

War in Afghanistan: Illegal, Untenable and Unwinnable – by Stephen Lendman

A May 30 Delaware County Times editorial headlined, “Is US fighting unwinnable war in Afghanistan” asking:

“Why should America (believe) it can (accomplish what the) Soviet Union (and) Britain couldn’t….? Public sentiment against it is growing, and “Many pundits say the war….can never be won militarily….” How many more “US service member” deaths are tolerable?

On January 21, 2010, Britain’s New Stateman sounded the same theme calling the Afghan war “unwinnable,” recent events showing intensified fighting, rising casualties, and a popular resistance determined to prevail. “Britain should be making plans to withdraw,” the publication concluded. So should America with no right to be there ethically, morally or legally, the war clearly in violation of US and international law like all others US forces waged since WW II.

On June 26, the UK Spectator, published since July 1828, was just as unequivocal, calling US and Kabul leadership “fractious, confused and contradictory, a sure sign that the war is being lost….Yes, the war in unwinnable. History and time are on the Afghans side.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Obama Administration, Afghanistan, Opinions, World Affairs, government | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Republicans starve the jobless, Democrats head for the hills

Posted by James O'Rourke on July 2, 2010

For OpEdNews: Brent Budowsky – Writer

What did American workers ever do to Republicans to deserve this?

First the Republicans oppose almost every major jobs program.

Then the Republicans use the obstructionist filibuster to destroy any hope of passing jobs programs.

Now the Republicans oppose and filibuster to death jobless benefits for American workers who have lost their jobs.

Disgrace.

Shame.

Outrage.

Extremism.

Even the racist senators of the segregationist South, who pioneered the filibuster, never abused the filibuster like this, and never used the filibuster to declare war against jobless American workers.

Make no mistake, I thought the president looked a little ridiculous yesterday with another campaign-style appearance out of Washington, when he should have been here fighting for jobs and jobless benefits.

And make no mistake, Democratic leaders did not look heroic, leaving town for their holiday and leaving more than a million jobless workers without benefits that expired June 2.

But the Republican performance is a work to behold. The Republican war against workers is an outrage against decency. The Republican economic philosophy is one of the great failures in American history, causing recession after recession, depression after depression, again and again, across decades of history. They never learn.

Today American workers are without jobs because Republicans opposed programs to create jobs and obstructed them with filibusters. Today jobless Americans are without benefits because Republicans opposed them and obstructed them with filibusters.

It is not enough for Republicans who cannot escape the ghost of Herbert Hoover to keep causing crashes with their failed economics. It is not enough for Republicans to oppose programs to create jobs and offer benefits to those without them. That is not enough for Republicans today; now they must destroy the essence of democracy, in a way never done in the history of our republic, by filibustering every bill to undo the damage they created or help those whose misery their policies caused.

Today more than 1 million jobless Americans are without benefits they lost a month ago. They will be huddled at home tonight, those who still have homes, fearing for where they will get their food to eat and how they will pay for the health of their children.

Here’s what I think:

The Democrats who failed to fight harder for them are surely not heroes, but the Republicans who made this happen sure are bums.

Posted in Politics As Usual | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Eight Keys To Addressing The Deficit jobs crisis debt crisis

Posted by James O'Rourke on July 1, 2010

Campaign for America’s Future

By Richard Trumka

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, I know my time is short, so I will limit my testimony to eight key points:

First, stabilizing the is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

This is an excerpt of testimony delivered before the White House National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform on June 30, 2010.

The goal of our national economic policy should be sustainable, broadly shared prosperity. To achieve that goal, there is no question that we need to stabilize the national debt as a share of our economy over the long term. But stabilizing the debt is simply a means to achieve our goal of sustainable, broadly shared prosperity, and we should reject approaches to debt stabilization that take us away from that goal.

Which approaches would help us achieve sustainable, broadly shared prosperity? I can think of a few: providing the economic stimulus necessary to erase our 10.4 million jobs deficit and avoid a double-dip recession; investing in the 21st century infrastructure necessary to support stronger economic growth in the long term; further reducing excess health care cost growth; asking Wall Street and the small minority of Americans who benefited most from the economic policies of the past 30 years to pay their fair share for rebuilding the economy; and avoiding austerity measures that increase economic inequality, which played a key role in precipitating the current economic crisis.

Second, let’s be honest about what the problem is.

We need to be clear that President Obama is not to blame for getting us into this mess. Two weeks before he took office, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion for 2009—and annual deficits averaging well over $1 trillion for the coming decade.

We should be honest about what’s causing deficits over the next ten years. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.” And “without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade.”

Although more than half of the 2009 deficit is due to the recession, Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer points out that “in the absence of [Bush administration policies that we failed to pay for], we could have had an economic downturn as severe as the current one and responded to it as aggressively as we have, all while keeping the budget roughly balanced over the next ten years [2010-2019].”

We should also be honest about what’s causing projected deficits over the long term. We do not face a crisis of entitlement spending generally, caused by the retirement of the Baby Boomers. In the long term, we face a crisis of public and private health care costs growing faster than GDP, especially after 2035. Social Security has its own source of dedicated funding and is not responsible for our unsustainable long-term debt, and spending on other entitlements is projected to fall as a share of the economy over the long term.

Third, premature withdrawal of economic stimulus threatens to throw the global economy into a double-dip recession, or worse.

Already we can see how exaggerated fears and misinformation about deficits are leading to premature withdrawal of the economic stimulus that so far has prevented another Great Depression.

The Recovery Act was necessary because of a massive shortfall of aggregate demand, which resulted from high levels of unemployment and the loss of $12 trillion in wealth from the collapse of the real estate and stock market bubbles.

The Recovery Act did exactly what it was supposed to do. It increased the number of people employed by up to 2.8 million in the first quarter of 2010, increased the number of full-time jobs by up to 4.1 million, and increased real GDP by up to 4.2%. But it wasn’t big enough to restore all the jobs that were lost or to make up for the massive shortfall of aggregate demand.

Without a significant reduction in the trade deficit, only economic stimulus in the form of deficit spending can make up for the remaining shortfall of aggregate demand until private sector demand regains its footing.

But instead, we are heading in the opposite direction. We are prematurely withdrawing economic stimulus, allowing the Recovery Act to phase out and standing by passively as state and local governments plan budget cuts that will cost us 900,000 jobs.

Last month’s jobs report sends a strong signal that private sector job growth remains exceedingly weak and may fall further as the stimulus provided by the Recovery Act tapers off this year.

By withdrawing economic stimulus, we run the risk not only of prolonging the jobs crisis for several more years, but also of bringing about a “double-dip” recession—or even what Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman calls “a third Depression.”

This is a monumental blunder of global economic policy that bears an uncomfortable similarity to mistakes made by the U.S. in 1937, when premature fiscal contraction deepened and prolonged the Great Depression, and by Japan in the 1990s, when premature fiscal contraction led to a lost decade of economic stagnation.

There is no good economic policy reason that requires fiscal contraction at this time—neither concerns about inflation (which is practically non-existent), nor about long-term interest rates (which are extremely low by historical standards), nor about the crowding out of private investment (because so much labor and capital is unemployed), nor about the long-term debt (on which short-term stimulus has a small impact).

In other words, we can do something about the jobs crisis if we choose to. But we do have to choose—between providing more stimulus, on the one hand; or causing more joblessness, more wage cuts, more poverty, more inequality, more foreclosures, more waste of human potential, and more suffering, on the other.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Economy | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Grow The Economy, Reduce The Deficit, Invest In The Future

Posted by James O'Rourke on July 1, 2010

Campaign for America’s Future

I support smart economic policies to reduce the structural deficit over time. However, I want to share three major concerns.

1. We are in danger of killing or weakening needed growth in the name of reducing deficits.

My organization is a member of the Jobs for America Now coalition, and we want to warn you that Americans are very concerned that premature deficit reduction could undermine the very fragile economic recovery. A focus on deficits is now causing senators to fail to pass needed jobs bills.

This is an excerpt of testimony delivered before the White House National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform on June 30, 2010. Watch the video below:

Forecasters predict that official unemployment rates will remain well above 9 percent for several years.This is simply unacceptable. We need new efforts to create jobs and send aid to the states.

Adopting spending cuts or tax increases to reduce deficits before the economy recovers will simply slow growth and undermine the tax revenues essential for solving deficits long term.

2. While deficits should be reduced over time, some deficit-reduction strategies are misguided.

My organization was also a leader of Americans United for Social Security. And the coalition, Health Care for America Now, which helped pass health reform.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Economy | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A MUST Read

Posted by James O'Rourke on June 25, 2010

washingtonpost.com

Nation building in Afghanistan? That’s Afghans’ job.

By Eugene Robinson

Friday, June 25, 2010

The good news? Nobody has to pretend anymore that Gen. Stanley McChrystal knew how to fix Afghanistan within a year. The bad news? Now we’re supposed to pretend that Gen. David Petraeus does.

President Obama was absolutely right to sack the preening McChrystal, whose inner circle, as portrayed in Rolling Stone magazine, had all the seriousness and decorum of a frat house keg party. And it was a brilliant political move to turn to Petraeus, who is made of purest Teflon. Critics who might have been tempted to blast the president for changing horses in midstream can hardly object when he has given the reins to the man who averted a humiliating U.S. defeat in Iraq.

Note that I didn’t credit Petraeus with “winning” in Iraq. He didn’t. What he managed to do was redeem the situation to the point where the United States could begin bringing home its combat troops. If the Obama administration’s aims in Afghanistan are recalibrated to accommodate objective reality, then Petraeus can succeed there, too. But this means that the general’s assignment should be a narrow one: Lay the groundwork for a U.S. withdrawal to begin next summer, as Obama has pledged.

After relieving McChrystal of his command Wednesday, Obama called in his national security team and read the riot act. No more bickering, sniping, backbiting or name-calling, the president ordered. Play nice.

But all the comity in the world doesn’t resolve the essential tension between those who believe our goal in Afghanistan should be defined as “victory” and those who believe it should be defined as “finding the exit.” Two thousand years of history are on the side of the “exit” camp, and the fact is that at some point we’re going to leave. The question is how much time will pass — and how many more young Americans will be killed or wounded — before that inevitable day comes.

McChrystal, who designed the counterinsurgency strategy being attempted in Afghanistan, didn’t disguise his opposition to administration officials such as Vice President Biden, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and special envoy Richard Holbrooke, who questioned whether the strategy could work. Petraeus is far too good a politician to fall into that trap. He won’t allow any daylight between himself and the civilian leadership.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Afghanistan, Opinions | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Abolish Unfair Tax Break For Investment Managers

Posted by James O'Rourke on June 24, 2010

boston.com

LETTING WEALTHY investors game the tax code does not promote a dynamic economy. Yet Massachusetts Senators John Kerry and Scott Brown have both accepted the dubious premise that future growth will suffer if managers of investment partnerships, including hedge funds, private equity, and venture-capital firms, have to pay taxes at the same rates as everyone else.

While the top federal income tax rate is 35 percent, capital gains — the money generated from successful longer-term investments — are generally taxed at only 15 percent. Lead partners in investment funds typically receive a management fee, which is taxed as ordinary income, but also take a portion of any increase in the value of the money they invest for other people. This cut is just another form of payment for the professional services managers provide to investors, but it’s still taxed at the lower capital gains rate. The benefit to some of the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers is enormous; the tax break costs the US Treasury $25 billion a year.

The loophole is an obvious target as Congress looks for ways to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits amid a continuing downturn. But investment partnerships have used that dynamic to their advantage, implying that Congress is arbitrarily sticking them up for money to fund its own priorities — and doing so in a way that will discourage investment in high-tech startups.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Taxes | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »