30
Aug
You know, I honestly have thought this was a good idea for a movie. Musical? I dunno about that. Something about hearing an aria of Monica with Bill and the cigar just doesn’t make for something I really need to hear.
I did check the show dates just to be objective. Unfortunately they apparently have no intentions of bringing the show to rural Kentucky. If anyone does catch in New York, I would be interested in a review.
Hat tip to Polipundit. The general consensus on Polipundit seems to be most people think it will suck. ( huh, huh, huh! )
30
Aug
I have often made reference to "the wall". Some people really don’t believe that wall existed. This is important to me because IMO, this "wall" led directly to the events of 9/11. On June 4, 2002, I made a post on The Motley Fool that addressed the creation of the wall. I am posting it here so I don’t have to look it up all the time ( TMF, FIX YOUR SEARCH ENGINE! )
- A National Counterintelligence Policy Board (Policy Board) is hereby established and directed to report to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The existing CI policy and coordination structure, the National Advisory Group for Counterintelligence, is hereby abolished and its CI functions transferred to the Policy Board.
- The Policy Board will consist of one senior executive representative each from DCI/CIA; the FBI; the Departments of Defense, State, and Justice; a Military Department CI component; and the NSC, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs.
- The Chairman of the Policy Board will be designated by the DCI in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman will serve for a period of two years. The position of Chairman of the Policy Board will be rotated among the CIA, FBI, and Department of Defense.
- The Policy Board will consider, develop and recommend for implementation to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs policy and planning directives for U.S. counterintelligence. The Policy Board will be the principal mechanism for reviewing and proposing to the NSC staff legislative initiatives and executive orders pertaining to U.S. counterintelligence. This Board will coordinate the development of interagency agreements and resolve conflicts that may arise over the terms and implementation of these agreements.
- A National Counterintelligence Operations Board (Operations Board) will be established under the Policy Board with senior CI representatives from CIA, FBI, DOD, the Military Department CI components, NSA, State, Justice, and Chief of the National CI Center established below.
- The Chairman of the Operations Board will be appointed by the Policy Board from among the CIA, FBI, or DOD, and rotated every two years. The Chairmanship of the Policy Board and the Operations Board will not be held by the same agency at any one time. The Operations Board will discuss and develop from an operational perspective matters to be considered or already under consideration by the Policy Board. It will oversee all coordinating subgroups, resolve specific conflicts concerning CI operations and investigations and identify potential CI policy conflicts for referral to the Policy Board.
Counterintelligence Integration and Cooperation
- The Policy Board, with the assistance of the DCI and the cooperation of the Director of the FBI, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State, will establish a National Counterintelligence Center within 90 days of this directive.
- A senior FBI executive with CI operational and management experience will serve as the Chief of the National CI Center and a senior Military Department CI component executive will serve as the Deputy Chief of the National CI Center. These agencies will hold these positions for an initial period of 4 years, afterwhich, with the approval of the National CI Policy Board and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the leadership positions will rotate, for 2 year terms, among the FBI, DOD and CIA. At all such times that the FBI does not hold the position of Chief, it will hold the position of Deputy Chief.
- The National Counterintelligence Center will be located, staffed and initially structured as recommended in PRD-44.
- The National Counterintelligence Center will implement interagency CI activities as described in PRD-44 and report to the Policy Board.
- The National Counterintelligence Center will serve as the interagency forum for complementary activities among CI agencies. The CIA’s Counterintelligence Center will serve as the CI component for the CIA and execute on behalf of the DCI his authorities to coordinate all U.S. counterintelligence activities overseas.
- The Chief of the CIA’s Counterintelligence Center Counterespionage Group will be permanently staffed by a senior executive from the FBI.
- CIA counterintelligence officers will permanently staff appropriate management positions in the FBI’s National Security Division and/or FBI Field Offices.
May 4, 1994, the ever diligent policy wonk of a president signed into effect by executive order, ergo by-passing Congress, the "U. S. Counterintelligence Effectiveness Executive Order 12333".
OK, so now let’s figure out who the National Security Council is that governs that policy making board:
The National Security Council is chaired by the President. Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of Central Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.
Clinton’s order, basically gave power to the NSC that it had since 1947 when Truman enacted it, however, expanded it to include just about anybody he wanted on the council. ( What does the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy have to offer in regards to counterintelligence and national security? ). However, he also gave policy making authority to the NSC whereas it had been done inside the various departments in the past.
This is the current structure of the NSC. I would quote the line that coordinates policy, but if you read it, there were a myriad of sub-committees that had policy making authority. I can see where this is confusing as hell. At the bottom of that link you will see how Bush re-organized it once again, stripping the policy making authority into very streamlined lines of authority. This looks like a very good move to me. However, I digress…..
Clinton’s first act as President was to appoint members to the NSC.
On January 21, 1993, in PDD 2, President Clinton approved an NSC decision-making system that enlarged the membership of the National Security Council and included a much greater emphasis on economic issues in the formulation of national security policy..
The National Security Council framework in the Clinton administration included an NSC Principals Committee, a forum available to Cabinet-level officials to discuss and resolve issues not requiring the President’s participation…
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a longtime foreign policy adviser to Clinton…. became National Security Adviser in March 1997…. Berger initiated a review of principles that would guide the foreign policy of Clinton’s second term. These included the integration of Eastern and Western Europe without provoking tensions with Russia; promoting more open trade; improving defenses against such transnational threats as terrorism and narcotics; and promoting a strong and stable Asian-Pacific community by seeking trade cooperation with China and avoiding confrontation on human rights issues. In the spring and summer of 1997, the National Security Council became occupied with such issues as the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Treaty, NATO enlargement, the Middle East peace process, the U.S-Russian Summit at Helsinki, and the Denver Economic Summit.
OK, let’s look at Sandy Berger:
From an interview with Margaret Warner shortly after being appointed:
I don’t need to know everything, nor should I–should they feel compelled to pass everything up the line.
This part just blows me away:
MARGARET WARNER: Attorney General Reno today defended the FBI’s decision to refuse your NSC’s request for some counter-intelligence information about China’s alleged attempts to subvert the U.S. election, and this was information you’re asking for, for Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State, before her first trip to China. Now, are you–are you comfortable with that? How do you feel about that, that the FBI would not give you the information?
SAMUEL (SANDY) BERGER: Well, the FBI is in a difficult position. Obviously, it has a law enforcement responsibility and a need to preserve the integrity of that law enforcement process. I would hope when there are matters touching on national security that there would be a willingness to share that information to the extent they deem appropriate.
OK, so Sandy Berger is the Director of the National Security Council, which coordinates information and policy of the FBI, the FBI immediately refuses to give the NSC information it has requested, and Janet Reno says that’s ok. Along the same lines, I never knew the FBI was law "enforcement", I was always under the impression they simply investigated. I know how the political process works, and how subordinates think and work. Janet Reno’s act right there gutted the authority of the NSC, which is the entity that is supposed to coordinate the FBI and CIA. If the NSC is unable to enforce its authority, then neither agency will feel compelled to respond to it. Therefore, there really is no policy authority for those agencies. Since Clinton placed a stop-gap between himself and the policy making board, and Berger did not feel compelled to stay on top of issues, and Janet Reno felt she had more authority over the FBI than the FBI’s policy making board, I can see how things got to where they did. Reno had already had a history of enforcing rights over the law ( see Gonzalez for a good example ), so I can see where a director within the FBI, who having no support from his policy making board, would not allow the potential violation of a person’s rights even though they were a foreign national and Clinton had signed a previous executive order allowing it. They were being directed by Janet Reno, not the President or the Director of the National Security Council, and Janet reno was not their supervisor. That’s screwed.
And to beat it all, the lawsuit that emasculated the NSC was over Albright’s efforts to normalize relations with China, at Diane Feinstein’s insistance. And now Feinstein wants to know what went wrong. Give me a break. I hope she finds out. If Congress can’t figure it out for her, I’ll give her a call myself.
I may have gotten some parts of this wrong, but I can’t see how anyone can get it right.
Here’s the headline:
Fletcher Pardons Those Involved In Merit Probe
Governor Denies Knowingly Making Mistakes
Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher pardoned all current and former members of his administration involved in the ongoing investigation of state hiring practices.
"I’m ready to stand up to this misguided display of prosecutorial misconduct," Fletcher said at a news conference Monday. "I will not be intimidated."
Now, what that was all about was Kentucky elected its first Republican governor in 35 years or so. However, it continued its tradition by electing a Democrat Attorney general. Now, that wouldn’t be so bad, but:
Now, the key word there is "Majority Leader". That implies that Stumbo was the golden boy of the majority party. That party is not the party the Governor is a member of. The second I found out those results came in election day, I predicted this would happen.
Now, some background. About 10 years or so I invested in the construction of a hotel. As part of the franchise, we had to have a stoplight in front of the building. We took a bag of cash to Frankfort, dropped it on a desk, and THEN got to see the majority party’s point man. We got our stoplight. Who was in charge of the legislature that paid for that light during all that? Why, Greg Stumbo of course. Where was his outcry and concern then? For him to target Fletcher exclusively for what he himself has participated in is nothing but political hypocrisy and surely is an abuse of the attorney general’s office. Stumbo should have called in the FBI and recused himself as this could very well point back to him. As it stands now, it just looks like politics as usual in Frankfort. And, trust me, it is.
What Fletcher needs to do is call for a non-governmental committee to investigate the hiring process of the state of Kentucky for the last 50 years and see what can be done to fix it. And, Fletcher needs to ask the FBI to investigate Stumbo for abusing his office for political gain. Stumbo knows better than Fletcher about how the political process has worked in Frankfort since 1985. Since 1985, you’ve either had to be a prominent Democrat or carrying a bag of cash to get anything done.
I would love to see those committees in action. I’ll testify on both. I’ll name names. I think it would be a RIOT!
Stumbo’s opening a can of worms that if Fletcher had any political sense at all would be able to bite Stumbo’s behind in a major way. However, I’ve always felt Fletcher is somewhat too naive to be able to play the game as it’s been played my entire adult lifetime.
Now, this has been the cause celebre of the Lexington Herald. They convicted Fletcher the second Stumbo told them to. They even went so far as to tell the governor not to use the pardons. They have crucified Fletcher for months. What they have never done, not once, is ask the question of whether Stumbo has done this very deed himself. They cite some quotes that say this is practice as usual, but they refuse to take it any farther than that. This IS practice as usual. Stumbo knows that. The Herald Leader knows that. Why won’t the Herald Leader point out the OBVIOUS hypocrisy of this situation? Huh? Why is that? The true question of all this is whether or not Stumbo’s using the powers of the Attorney General for political gain. That’s the scary part IMO. The even scarier part is The Herald Leader doesn’t care and/or is abetting in the crime.
Fletcher needs to bring the FBI in. Stumbo WILL do it. Fletcher is just fodder for Stumbo if he doesn’t figure out how to play this game real fast.
( email me Ernie if you have to. )
Foxnews is running this headline:
And then, about ten paragraphs into the story, actually mentions the extradition.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Monday that Venezuela does not appear to have a sound legal basis for seeking Robertson’s extradition.
That’s it.
There are 643 words in that article.55 words are related to the front page headline. 92% of the article is about other things besides the headline. What other things you ask? Well, let’s look and see, shall we?
The Rev. Jesse Jackson met with President Hugo Chavez in hopes of reducing tensions between the United States and Venezuela after a religious broadcaster called for the leftist president’s assassination.
There are two paragraphs that mention the headline teaser. There are seven paragraphs that mention Jesse Jackson by name.
Why didn’t Fox just give the teaser the name it was, "Jesse Jackson seeks to extradite Pat Robertson to Venezuela?".
To be serious, there are three major points that need to be realized here:
- Being as Robertson does not represent the US government in any way, there is nothing Chavez can do about his right to say what he wants in the US. It was tasteless, it was inappropriate. But all it was was Robertson shooting his mouth off. That’s a basic right in the US. If it were in Venezuela, Chavez wouldn’t be in the boat he’s in now with Bush.
- As much as a lot of the US would like to, we can not make Robertson go to Venezuela. Jackson is dangling no carrot to Chavez that a good part of the US was not already contemplating. This is not the first time Robertson has said something inane and offensive. And it won’t be the last. But, alas, this is the US. We have to suffer his ridiculous opinions. We can not ship him off to Venezuela. And honestly, I think Chavez’s extradition "thoughts" were just yanking Robertson’s chain. I seriously doubt he wants Robertson in Venezuela.
- Jesse Jackson does not represent the United States government in any capacity and once again has shown he has no class by "negotiating" on behalf of MY country. I didn’t ask Jesse Jackson to deal with Chavez. I didn’t tell my representatives to send Jackson to deal on my behalf. I don’t know what Jackson has committed to Chavez. I do know that the US is not obligated by any stretch of the imagination to honor anything Jackson might have promised Chavez and that does nothing but put Bush in a bad light if he also refuses to acknowledge Jackson’s negotiations.
- If Jackson does something like this again, he needs to answer in court what his intent is for subverting the US government.
I’m really getting sick and tired of all these unofficial diplomats running around subverting the US government’s foreign policies ( Jackson’s not the only one doing it lately ). Can anyone name one single good thing that has resulted from these people doing that? ( Promises don’t count. )
29
Aug
A lot of people have been criticizing Bush for his rather stern stand regarding Chavez. They cite how important Venezuela’s oil is, and totally dismiss the issues regarding Bush’s problems with Chavez. Most of it’s just the usual over-the-top rhetoric, but relations have been to say the least, strained. So, imagine my surprise reading this headline:
Now, they’ve got some things we want, and, we’ve got some things they want. It’s not just an oil for cash situation. One of the prevailing social problems in the US for some time has been the easy access to narcotics. And, Venezuela has been rather proficient in exporting that good. It does the US no good at all if they’re going to sell us oil at the same price as OPEC and undermine our social fabric at the same time. So, IMO, oil is just a business. Narcotics cost this country billions in income every year in lost taxation, medical expenses, and crime. Buying oil for the same price we can get from Mexico and Canada doesn’t save this country one red cent. If they want our cash, they’ve got to be a good partner. Same goes for Mexico and Canada and OPEC as well. What the soaring cost of oil has done is make non-OPEC providers more viable. We’re not stuck with the two or three sources as we were five years ago. If Venezuela wants more of our money than some of our other neighbors, they’re going to have give us a reason to not want to shop it out. I think Chavez has finally realized that. I hope so anyway. I prefer buying oil closer to home. But, that doesn’t mean I’m going to sell out and look the other way if that oil comes with narcotic strings attached.
( That still doesn’t justify Robertson’s comments. )
29
Aug
Appalachian Regional Healthcare President and Chief Executive Officer Jerry W. Haynes said in a statement that the company has created or relocated 90 jobs in Hazard over the past four years and is committed to providing medical services to the region.
Haynes met with Gorman and Perry County Judge-Executive Denny Ray Noble last week to discuss the issue. Noble said Monday he will no longer push for the move. Gorman said it seems clear that the company’s top executives don’t want to live in Appalachia.
This is so typical. People like Cornett, Haynes, and the top executives of Appalachian Regional Healthcare are more than happy to profit off of Appalachia, but other than making money from Appalachia, don’t want any part of it. The reason Appalachia continues to struggle economically is totally exemplified by the attitudes that Jerry Haynes, Melissa Cornett, and the "top executives" have. I would just like to know how in the hell Melissa Cornett can justify the statement that spending all that administrative payroll, rent, and supplies in Appalachia "would simply not be in the best interest of the communities it serves". That is just stupid.
There is no law compelling the communities Appalachian Regional Healthcare serves to have to deal with ARH. They need to re-bid their CON’s with a string attached that the administrative offices have to be IN Appalachia, or deal with a company sincere enough that they won’t insult Appalachia by capitolizing from the name.
The hypocrisy and gall of Appalachian Regional Healthcare makes me just about nauseous. Jerry Haynes and his bunch of cronies only prove that having the legal status of not-for-profit only means that shareholders don’t get the profit, the executives do.
Galloway’s new book is "Mr. Galloway Goes to Washington," which will be published next month by The New Press.
Galloway’s 12-day tour is scheduled to begin in Boston on Sept. 13 before moving to New York, Madison, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.
Tickets for the event, which is sponsored locally by The Havens Center, The Progressive and The Capital Times, are available for $20 and $10 for students through the Memorial Union Theater Box Office. Tickets go on sale Sept. 6 at 11:30 a.m. for the theatre’s 1,300 seats.
Jane Fonda’s on tour promoting her book. George Galloway is on tour promoting his book. They both oppose the war. They are both trying to profit from that opposition. That juxtoposition just makes them both look shallow to me.
28
Aug
I have been asked to guest host on Independent Sources blog this week. I plan on contributing posts that I would have posted here. Hopefully spelll checking a little better. Rather than duplicating all the posts, I am simply going to allow Independent Sources trackbacks to this one post to keep things simple. I like their style, it should be fun.
26
Aug
Well, the polls for 2008 are already coming in. According to Patrick Ruffini’s poll, Giuliani has big leads in some states, small leads in most states that he’s winning. However, that’s not really how the process works. The nominating process works exactly the same as the Presidential election does. Namely, electoral votes. It doesn’t matter if a candidate is barely ahead or enjoying a complete romp. All EV’s usually ( and should ) go to the winner of the state. Using that logic, and only that logic, here’s how it looks at this time:
| State | EV | Allen | Brownback | Giuliani | Huckabee | Romney |
| AK | 9 | - | - | 9 | - | - |
| AL | 3 | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| AR | 10 | - | - | - | 10 | - |
| AZ | 6 | - | - | 6 | - | - |
| CA | 55 | - | - | 55 | - | - |
| CO | 9 | - | - | 9 | - | - |
| CT | 7 | - | - | 7 | - | - |
| DC | 3 | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| DE | 3 | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| FL | 27 | - | - | 27 | - | - |
| GA | 15 | - | - | 15 | - | - |
| HI | 4 | - | - | 4 | - | - |
| IA | 4 | - | - | 4 | - | - |
| ID | 21 | - | - | 21 | - | - |
| IL | 11 | - | - | 11 | - | - |
| IN | 7 | 7 | - | 7 | - | - |
| KS | 6 | - | 6 | - | - | - |
| KY | 8 | 8 | - | - | - | - |
| LA | 9 | - | - | 9 | - | - |
| MA | 4 | - | - | 4 | - | - |
| MD | 10 | 10 | - | - | - | - |
| ME | 12 | - | - | 12 | - | - |
| MI | 17 | - | - | 17 | - | - |
| MN | 10 | - | - | 10 | - | - |
| MO | 6 | - | - | 6 | - | - |
| MS | 11 | - | - | 11 | - | - |
| MT | 3 | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| NC | 5 | - | - | 5 | - | - |
| ND | 5 | 5 | - | - | - | - |
| NE | 4 | - | - | 4 | - | - |
| NH | 15 | - | - | 15 | - | - |
| NJ | 5 | - | - | 5 | - | - |
| NM | 31 | - | - | 31 | - | - |
| NV | 15 | - | - | 15 | - | - |
| NY | 3 | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| OH | 20 | - | - | 20 | - | - |
| OK | 7 | - | - | 7 | - | - |
| OR | 7 | - | - | 7 | - | - |
| PA | 21 | - | - | 21 | - | - |
| RI | 4 | 4 | - | - | - | - |
| SC | 8 | - | - | 8 | - | - |
| SD | 3 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| TN | 11 | - | - | 11 | - | - |
| TX | 34 | - | - | 34 | - | - |
| UT | 5 | - | - | - | - | 5 |
| VA | 3 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| VT | 13 | - | - | 13 | - | - |
| WA | 11 | - | - | 11 | - | - |
| WI | 5 | - | - | 5 | - | - |
| WV | 10 | 10 | - | - | - | - |
| WY | 3 | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| 50 | 6 | 474 | 10 | 5 |
( Only candidates with any EV’s are listed due to space constraints )
What the RNC has to look at from these results is not whether or not a candidate such as Giuliani can blow out the competition everywhere, it’s whether or not he can win. From the looks of things from this one poll, Guiliani’s the only candidate who appears to be winnable across the country. And honestly, I can see why.
The only problem here is I still don’t think Rudy’s running.
25
Aug
I can remember the days when the face of the Republican Party looked like this:
Not too much to get excited about for a guy. Now, it’s looking more like this:
And this
And, this:
Â
And, most importantly, this:
Â
Shoot, that’s only a hand full of the winners of the Republican Babe of the Week Award!
