Slashdot Mirror

....everyone knows you can't get a fair trial in your homeland when the people and families you are accused of committing acts against are the ones charged with carrying out your trial! He should have been brought to the ICC. This verdict carries no weight with me whatsoever. His execution will be a travesty... think of the treasure trove of information we could get from him about our own crooks and their past crimes!

Oh the humanity! Saddam being tried and hung by the survivors of the atrocities he ordered, and it doesn't meet your approval! Where is the justice!? Why!? Why do those peasants put their 20 year thirst for justice for the mass murder, mutilation, and rape ahead of your political axe? Why does your approval matter so little to them!!?? That is so unfair!

I know what you mean about spending too. After all, spending $419.3 billion on defense out of a budget of $2.57 trillion seems so "reckless", especially since defense is a federal responsibility under the Constitution, as opposed to education and social security.

Well, at least your body count is, well..... founded.... or somthing.....

Although Bush has done much to harm the environment, denying anthropogenic global warming is not in his toolbox. I mean, as much as I hate to defend the man, we should be clear about the few things he hasn't done wrong. :)

...one crimes-against-humanity-committing dictator down, one to go.

"Lazy people on social programs", geez, I hope you are being sarcastic and do not honestly believe that "lazy people on social programs" are bogeymen for why we have to pay taxes...at most, Welfare, food stamps, housing assistance take up 8% of the budget, about 80 billion... see here table S-4, under Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (about half goes to education) and see this which breaks down the 2004 budget in a nice little pie chart...

I tire of hearing this "blame the poor" for taxes, when it is not the poor who are busting the budget... plus, the assumption that all poor people are lazy is absurd and groundless. Social programs help this country... it helps people that need it... granted, there those that probably are lazy, but those are few and far between...

If you want to bitch about taxes and be angry, why not take umbrage at the deductions for mortgages on 2nd homes and boats and cap the mortgage deduction, which cost the taxpayers some 70 billion a year, hell, I am all for eliminating the mortgage deduction all together. If home ownership is really THAT important and compelling as Bush pontificates in his "ownership society" babbling, then there does not need to be a mortgage deduction incentive... also, get rid of deductions for state and local taxes which cost taxpayers 50 Billion a year, which in addition to saving the taxpayers money, I figure this will make the Rep and Senators in high tax states more accountable to their constituents in cutting government spending since those constituents in high tax states will not be able to deduct their state taxes... hell, I would even get rid of the child tax credit...if you want kids, then pay for them yourself and not make the rest of us without kids subsidize those with, or those of us that waited until we were financially secure so that we could afford to take care of our kids before we had them... and for heavans sakes, lets not Jettison the estate tax, since it would cost about 90 billion a year if it was eliminated. As the estate tax stands today, it only affects some 2% of the population

Anyway, the whole point is to look else where when bitching about taxes... don't always blame the poor... there are plenty of more substantive ways to cut taxes than simply projecting one's anger on the poor.

Incorrect on both counts. NASA and especially education have both seen overall successive budget increases with the current administration. NASA's budget was cut 5 out of the 8 years of the previous administration.

Budget of the United States Government
Fiscal Year 2007

HISTORICAL TABLES
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/sheets /hist04z1.xls

I don't get that behavior at all. Typing "Jon Stewart" took me to http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/ index.jhtml. "White House" took me to http://www.whitehouse.gov/ "star garf log par" took me to the Google search results page. It seems better at disambiguation than before... I think something may be broken in your Firefox. Good luck!

Who specifically are we at war with? That is to say, other than "the terrorists." Who do we have to kill or who has to surrender to end this war, bin Laden, the Taliban?

Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and the Taliban at present. Hezbollah is operating in the US, and has threatened the US, so its time may come. Hamas, also operating in the US might get there too.

The fact is, we are not at war in any meaningful sense of the word. We are at war only in the same sense that we are at war with drugs and poverty.

Here is a useful guide to figure out when you are in a literal versus figurative war: When you are expending M1 tank main gun rounds, 500 lb or larger bombs, and artillery, to kill people, it is very likely to be a real war.

Al Qaeda in Iraq admits that the US has killed at least 4,000 foreign fighters who came to Iraq to fight in what Bin Laden refers to as, "...the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era".

Now, if you are killing thousands of enemy fighters with tank main gun rounds, big bombs, and artillery, and your enemy says that they are in, "the greatest battle of Islam in this era," and trying to kill you in large numbers, take the hint: you are in a war.

The metaphorical "war on drugs" generally only uses pistols or shotguns, education, and prison cells. The metaphorical "war on poverty" generally only uses government aid checks and programs.

The Cold War lasted about 45 years, don't be surprised if the war against the Islamist extremists lasts as long. Right after 9/11, President Bush referred to the War a ... a long struggle.

It isn't so hard to figure out if you try just a little.

The President should not be able to call out the guard of a state; that is a governor's job.

One of the biggest problems encountered by Louisiana's National Guard in the aftermath of Katrina was that their specialised equipment, designed to operate in flooded urban areas was being torn up in an unecessary war's desert environment, instead of being close to home to do what it was designed to do.

Bush should be criticised for getting a guitar lesson in Crawford after the levees had been breeched, for trying to put blame on anything other than his own self, and for promising to rebuild Trent Lott's Gulf vacation home before he'd even seen the devastation on the ground.

"We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)"

White House Press release, "President Arrives in Alabama, Briefed on Hurricane Katrina", Mobile Regional Airport, Mobile, Alabama, September 2, 2005

Here is the official Presidential statement on the signing:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20 061017-9.html

Could somebody translate please?

Here's the official White House signing statement, which also comes with a nice picture attached, showing Dick Cheney, a California congressional equivocator of torture, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John 'Count Vlad' Warner, and General Peter Pace.

-------------{begin release}-------------

• For Immediate Release
• Office of the Press Secretary
• October 17, 2006

President's Statement on H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007"

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" (the "Act"). The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.

President George W. Bush signs into law H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006, in the Oval Office. Joining him are from left: Vice President Dick Cheney, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, and General Peter Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. White House photo by Eric Draper Several provisions of the Act call for executive branch officials to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislation, or purport to regulate the manner in which the President formulates recommendations to the Congress for legislation. These provisions include sections 516(h), 575(g), 603(b), 705(d), 719(b), 721(e), 741(e), 813, 1008, 1016(d), 1035(b)(3), 1047(b), and 1102 of the Act, section 118(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 1031 of the Act, section 2773b of title 10 as amended by section 1053 of the Act, and section 403 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 403 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President deems necessary and expedient.

The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act, which purport to make consultation with specified Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandating such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.

A number of provisions in the Act call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other entities on various subjects. These provisions include sections 219, 313, 360, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1227, 1402, and 3116 of the Act, section 427 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 932 of the Act, and section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 1061 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe as advisory section 1011(b)(2) of the Act, which purports to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from retiring a specified warship from operational status unless, among other things, a treaty organization established by the U.S. and foreign nations gives formal notice that it does not desire t

Here's the official White House signing statement, which also comes with a nice picture attached, showing Dick Cheney, a California congressional equivocator of torture, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John 'Count Vlad' Warner, and General Peter Pace.

-------------{begin release}-------------

• For Immediate Release
• Office of the Press Secretary
• October 17, 2006

President's Statement on H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007"

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" (the "Act"). The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.

President George W. Bush signs into law H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006, in the Oval Office. Joining him are from left: Vice President Dick Cheney, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, and General Peter Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. White House photo by Eric Draper Several provisions of the Act call for executive branch officials to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislation, or purport to regulate the manner in which the President formulates recommendations to the Congress for legislation. These provisions include sections 516(h), 575(g), 603(b), 705(d), 719(b), 721(e), 741(e), 813, 1008, 1016(d), 1035(b)(3), 1047(b), and 1102 of the Act, section 118(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 1031 of the Act, section 2773b of title 10 as amended by section 1053 of the Act, and section 403 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 403 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President deems necessary and expedient.

The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act, which purport to make consultation with specified Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandating such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.

A number of provisions in the Act call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other entities on various subjects. These provisions include sections 219, 313, 360, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1227, 1402, and 3116 of the Act, section 427 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 932 of the Act, and section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 1061 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe as advisory section 1011(b)(2) of the Act, which purports to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from retiring a specified warship from operational status unless, among other things, a treaty organization established by the U.S. and foreign nations gives formal notice that it does not desire t

The spreadsheet for the federal budget is here. I've never really looked at it before, interesting. It looks to me like the iraq war really is a small part of the picture.

Military spending is currently 20% of the budget, up from 16% in 1998. However, looking back through the history, it looks like the late 90s have it exceptionally low: It is consistently around 25% from 1975 to 1990, then 20% through to 1995. (and a whopping 50% to 70% in the 50s and 60s). So really Bush just brought it back to early 90s levels. The 2008+ esimates say it should go back down to 16% again by then.

Overall, it looks like the Bush administration has increased spending in all areas (since the late 90s) except 'net interest' which has been halved from 15% to 7%. I assume 'net interest' spending means paying back loans/bonds/debts. The overally size of the budged as %gdp is ~20%, as it has been since 1950, so nothing unusual there.

Everyone knew that Osama was connected to 9/11, so when Bush connected Osama to Saddam, he was able to just let the public believe what he wanted them to believe. Do I need to find the statements where Bush made those connections, or do you remember them yourself?

Furthermore, it was fairly strongly implied in his March 18th, 2003 letter to Congress:

acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

As for Rush Limbaugh, it was actually a little less subtle. Funny, until you challenged me, I has assumed it was only implied and not out-right stated! Granted, this is by another author, but it's on a web-site apparently run by loyal fans. Ironically, a few months later he claimed that nobody ever said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11.

If I'm allowed to bring the Veep into it, there's also this:

In making the false claim, Limbaugh overlooked Vice President Dick Cheney's suggestions of a connection between Iraq and 9-11. On the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, moderator Tim Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe[s] there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" The vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. On the September 14, 2003, edition of Meet the Press, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

So, we have a letter from Bush to Congress directly stating that Iraq is connected to 9/11. Cheney saying the same thing. Rush supporters claiming the same, but Rush denying that anyone's made that claim. Well, to Rush's credit, at least it appears that he never made that claim.

The No Child Left Behind act was largely based on the No Child Left Behind proposals from the Whitehouse: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-le ft-behind.html . It *is* a bi-partisan bill, and both parties need to take responsibility for the Act.

Bush and the Republican-led senate also decided to only fund part of the Act, which neuters the Act's effectiveness. Schools must spend more money to comply with the Act, but they do not have the appropriate funding which was promised in the bill.

Google's algorithm is interesting because after a large number of sites google bombed the Miserable Failure then Bush soon beat out 300 million pages for the top spot for just "failure". As a side note, how important is a search engine? Apparently the most popular term leading to whitehouse.gov is failure.

If you use the search term "failure," then our current president's biography will be the first result you see. I know this isn't the same as searching for "George W. Bush" (which brings up whitehouse.gov up as the first result), but it still shows that this sort of tactic has probably been performed in the past many times. It's just finally coming to light now.

People have been google-bombing phrases like litigious bastards, miserable failure, french military victories, and so on for years. But these are all going about it backwards. If someone isn't looking for "litigious bastards," they're not going to find out you think it applies to SCO .

I'm amazed it's taken people (outside of black-hat SEO and comment spammers) this long to start with the keywords end-users are likely to start with -- in this case, the names of the candidates -- and aim them at a site expressing the desired POV, rather than the other way around.

I very quickly summarized the commentary here on why one would move from the US to several flamewars based on a lack of understanding of the culture in various non-US countries to arguments about tax burdens and arguments about what constitutes an addictive drug.

These are side-issues.

The reson one might be interested in leaving the US relates to something that my father shocked me by saying just some weeks ago.

He referred to the current administration in the US, along with their supporters in Congress at fascists.

Now, I respect my father. I'm not just out of his house and I'm not still reacting to the "awful way he treated me" when I "turned insane" shortly after puberty. My father has consistently earned my respect by tending to be right and by letting go of a lot of his own personal garbage. I also know that he lived through a time in which fascism was considered a viable political system in three countries in Europe -- with other countries admiring the "benefits" of a totalitarian regime that gives itself a pass for criminal activity. This is a serious and very shocking statement from a man who watched as the entire world fought against fascism and managed to win.

The US government is fascist due to several factors:

The Military Commissions Act of 2006(PDF Alert), which was signed by Bush on October 17, 2006 suspends the writ of Habeus Corpus in a time that is definitely not a national emergency.

This preserves the "Law-Free Zone" set up in Guantanimo. These detainees are kept in isolation from US Courts who, if there is adequate proof would be all too happy to confirm that these people are dangerous. Camp X-Ray also serves as a zone where the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of Prisoners of War may be utterly ignored. We broke off relations with North Vietnam (and later, Vietnam) due to their treatment of US prisoners in a manner that ignored the Geneva Conventions.

The act also pardons everyone and anyone for all acts that violate the Geneva Conventions, including the procedure of Extraordinary Rendition and backdates that exemption from prosecution to September 11th, 2001.

The President and his Executive Branch are given full reign in defining what an "enemy combatant" is. I recall that Hitler regarded Jewish persons within Germany and the territories acquired by Germany, as well as allied countries as enemies of the state. Also, anyone giving material aid to any enemy was branded with the same. There was no Habeus Corpus in Germany and the courts were puppets of the state.

What I'm saying here is that we have a very serious situation in the US where civil rights have been nullified by a political party that considers self-examination wrong and unpatriotic (there have been no committees in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to examine the conduct of the "war on terror") and are fully prepared to negate the entire Bill of Rights in order to maintain their grip on political power.

Many Americans aren't aware of how their rights have been suspended. Those who are find it hard to continue to live here.

Countries who honor the rights of their citizens and who do not give their executive branch the right to run roughshod over the rights of minorities and persons who hold political beliefs that may differ may look a lot better than the US today for a citizen concerned with our present government.

Now what could he say to get the people and congress to go into Iraq....hmmmmm....what could he say - how about

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror..."

from here His Jan 2002 state of the Union speech.

But wasn't he just getting bad information? Well, no he wasn't getting bad info, it just wasn't the info he wanted.

So he went on the air and *lied* to the american people about Iraq's involement with terrorists. And if he would lie to start a war I have no trouble believing that he would lie about anything else. So, is that enough proff yet?

Sera

You obviously hate "religious fundies" because that is a deragotory term the way you used it, you "hate" folks because of their religion!

How about those "everything hispanic is just so damn cool" sites, the bronze warrior aztlan overlord la raza reconquista sites?(despite them all wanting to move here and theior own nations are cesspools)

The US attorney general is a member of a hispanic separatist organization!

You have to be 100% pro gay or be classed as a hater. You have to be 100% zionist and pro everything israel does or you are a "hater"

There are two ways to phrase that absolute, with greatly differing meaning.

Whoever is not against us is for us.

Either you're for us or against us.

You are either with us or you are against us.

For many, many years Muammar Gaddafi was seen as the ultimate bad guy, worse even than Saddam Hussain.

Although pressured for a years, Gaddafi only gave up on December 19, 2003 after seeing pictures of Saddam Hussein pulled out of his rathole by US troops on December 13, 2003. Correlation is not always the sign of causation, of course, but you just can not brush this one off as a mere "coincidence"...

If Iraq is a classic example of 'how not to do regime change' then Lybia is a classic example of 'how to do it right'.

False dichotomy... Enticing carrots require credibly threatening sticks to be effective... Bush's treatment of Saddam's regime (what Clinton should have done years earlier) put that credibility back into our threats.

Liberia's Charles Taylor is another example of how useful that credibility was, until undermined by setbacks in Iraq and anti-American backlash world-wide.

I'm getting a little tired of this, the US is NOT AT WAR, it takes an act of concress to declare a war and such an act did not take place.

And I'm tired of ignoramuses saying that.

No, those comments were made durring a presidential campain debate after the Iraq war had started. And they weren't lies, at that time even the news papers were reporting that we have him cornered and it was just a matter of time. We also got several near misses at that time wer eapearently Bin Ladin escape death by a matter of minutes.

Wrong. The comments were first made in March of 2002. Here's a link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20 020313-8.html

You make alot about a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S.". Have your read that document? If not go read it and then come back. Tell me what should have been done in a pre 9/11 enviroment by what that document actualy says. Please tell me because i have read it and it doesn't say anything about what happened on 9/11. It names a few buildings as potential targets but no were near 9/11. It mentions verry little about Bin Ladin, and draws no conclusion about an inement attack inside the US. In fact, the title is really misleading at best.

You keep saying things about what we knew pre-9/11. So the report didn't say anything about flying planes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. What did Bush do about the things the report did say?

Bush's mistake is still going and has taken thousands of American lives with no end in sight, countless numbers of Iraqi lives, and billions of dollars.

In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.

As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.

At Stanford, she was a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control from 1981-1986 (currently the Center for International Security And Cooperation), a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.

From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.

Then, the conversation fell silent. Kay thought that someone would ask questions about his work, but no one asked any questions.

Questions? Kind of like what you just stated that Clark said that Kay said had just happened... shown below? (Is that hear say?)

According to Kay, Bush asked, 'What do you need from me?' Kay answered, 'I need patience to allow me to finish my work.' Bush answered, 'I have all the patience in the world.'

Subordinate asks for time to do work..... and gets it. Wow.

Clark saying that Kay reported there were no WMDs in Iraq also leaves out a few facts, as you can see in Dr. Kay's testimoney before Congress in 2003. It is well worth reading. Just a sample:

What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

. .. New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

. .. A line of UAVs not f

The terrorists were already in place by then attacking us for Bill Clinton's policies during his term.

Bin Laden claims he got his first revelation in 1982, because of US support for Israeli involvement in Lebanon:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98 FB-4A1C-B21F-2

Please remind me, but I think it was the conservative hero Reagan running the show at that time. Bin Laden is also a bit upset about the first Iraqi war (which is kind of ironic considering he volunteered to help defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq in the same way he considers himself to have expelled the Soviets from Afghanistan), and none too happy about Israel.

You can say Clinton was ineffective at eliminating the terrorist threat, either by the Bush-style double strategy of war abroad and removing civil liberty at home, or by other means. But to say that the 9/11 terrorists attacked because of Clinton's policies is very, very close to being completely wrong.

At least you don't agree with Bush, who claims the attacks were because they hate our freedom:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html

We didn't offer habeus corpus to German POWs during WWII, either. They didn't get lawyers, they got tossed into a cage for the duration.

So, you think this so-called "War on Terror" will ever end? If so, I can only say that I think you
are being incredibly naive.

The Fascists have done something amazing... they've convinced the
American people that we are "at war," not with a specific state, but with an abstract concept.
As such, they can continue to maintain the illusion of being "at war" indefinitely, thereby
maintaining the support of people like yourself. It's actually pretty close to brilliant.

I was mistaken, the term 'criminal combatant' is not used officially by the Bush Administration, but your refutation is disingenuous, and even more error ridden than my misstatement.

Instead of 'criminal combatant' the Bush Administration seems to prefer "unlawful enemy combatant", which also carries the implication that these humans are held as criminal actors, does it not? They are certainly defined by more than your truncated "enemy combatant", because that would not in any way distinguish them from POWs, and the Administration created an unconstitutional third class, attempting to place these humans outside the reach of the rule of law.

On November 29, 2001, Mr. Bush, speaking at the U.S. Attorneys Conference, clearly stated that these individuals are criminal actors, and then posits that he, of and by himself, has the ability to abrogate their natural rights:

"They are unlawful combatants who seek to destroy our country and our way of life. And if I determine that it is in the national security interest of our great land to try by military commission those who make war on America, then we will do so."

Mr. Bush's sole legitimising force is the US Constitution, and he has now twice solemnly sworn to uphold and protect it, yet works to destroy it by claiming a President can lawfully act outside of its constraints. The American President is not above the Supreme Law of the land. Bush engages in tyranny when claiming this.

Ari Fleischer danced a situationalist jig during a White House Press Briefing on January 28, 2002:

"...the Geneva Convention was written in a very different era, following world war -- to apply to the war on terrorism, where people don't wear uniforms, they are unlawful combatants and they come from 30 different nations, not any one recognized nation with whom the United States is fighting a war."

It still does not matter if this is indeed a different era, or just a time of an incompetent executive, The US Constitution Article VI; clause 2 guides:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Clearly the Geneva Conventions are the Supreme Law of the Land, and since under the Conventions a High Contracting Party is restrained from withdrawing from them during a time of war, Bush violated the Constitution in his detainee determination. I will address that issue later.

The US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Pierre-Richard Prosper, speaking at Chatham House in London on February 20, 2002, clearly defined them as criminal actors, then went on to claim that Due Process of Law does not apply to them:

"The members of al Qaida fail to meet the criteria to be lawful combatants under the law of war. In choosing to violate these laws and customs of war and engage in hostilities, they become unlawful combatants. And their conduct, in intentionally targeting and killing civilians in a time of international armed conflict, constitute war crimes. As we have repeatedly stated, these were not ordinary domestic crimes, and the perpetrators cannot and should not be deemed to be ordinary 'common criminals.'

Unlawful combatants by their nature forfeit special benefits and privileges accorded by the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War. If captured, they are apprehended for their criminal activity and not as prisoners of war as envisioned by the Geneva Convention."

I was mistaken, the term 'criminal combatant' is not used officially by the Bush Administration, but your refutation is disingenuous, and even more error ridden than my misstatement.

Instead of 'criminal combatant' the Bush Administration seems to prefer "unlawful enemy combatant", which also carries the implication that these humans are held as criminal actors, does it not? They are certainly defined by more than your truncated "enemy combatant", because that would not in any way distinguish them from POWs, and the Administration created an unconstitutional third class, attempting to place these humans outside the reach of the rule of law.

On November 29, 2001, Mr. Bush, speaking at the U.S. Attorneys Conference, clearly stated that these individuals are criminal actors, and then posits that he, of and by himself, has the ability to abrogate their natural rights:

"They are unlawful combatants who seek to destroy our country and our way of life. And if I determine that it is in the national security interest of our great land to try by military commission those who make war on America, then we will do so."

Mr. Bush's sole legitimising force is the US Constitution, and he has now twice solemnly sworn to uphold and protect it, yet works to destroy it by claiming a President can lawfully act outside of its constraints. The American President is not above the Supreme Law of the land. Bush engages in tyranny when claiming this.

Ari Fleischer danced a situationalist jig during a White House Press Briefing on January 28, 2002:

"...the Geneva Convention was written in a very different era, following world war -- to apply to the war on terrorism, where people don't wear uniforms, they are unlawful combatants and they come from 30 different nations, not any one recognized nation with whom the United States is fighting a war."

It still does not matter if this is indeed a different era, or just a time of an incompetent executive, The US Constitution Article VI; clause 2 guides:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Clearly the Geneva Conventions are the Supreme Law of the Land, and since under the Conventions a High Contracting Party is restrained from withdrawing from them during a time of war, Bush violated the Constitution in his detainee determination. I will address that issue later.

The US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Pierre-Richard Prosper, speaking at Chatham House in London on February 20, 2002, clearly defined them as criminal actors, then went on to claim that Due Process of Law does not apply to them:

"The members of al Qaida fail to meet the criteria to be lawful combatants under the law of war. In choosing to violate these laws and customs of war and engage in hostilities, they become unlawful combatants. And their conduct, in intentionally targeting and killing civilians in a time of international armed conflict, constitute war crimes. As we have repeatedly stated, these were not ordinary domestic crimes, and the perpetrators cannot and should not be deemed to be ordinary 'common criminals.'

Unlawful combatants by their nature forfeit special benefits and privileges accorded by the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War. If captured, they are apprehended for their criminal activity and not as prisoners of war as envisioned by the Geneva Convention."

That happened about six years ago.

With his executive decrees, disregard for the law and the constitution, secret prisons, use of torture, and his blatant lying to the American public, I think it's fair to say Herr Bush fits the definition of dictator.

I think you have your political parties mixed up. Here is a list of programs cut or reduced this year.

They even keep Google from indexing this damning indictment of President Bush's tenure in office!

things the Govt DOES NOT WANT YOU TO GOOGLE?

p.s. why is that- think about it-
EVERYTHING under these pages is NOT going to be a result when you search on google.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt

When you said "GWB doing a U turn on energy policy", did you mean to imply that GWB is going to cancel his existing $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel cell initiative that he announced in February 2003?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20 030206-12.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

eg. "Our goal, and our mission, is to help Lebanese citizens and Lebanese businesses not only recover, but to flourish, because we believe strongly in the concept of a democracy in Lebanon."

I really dread reading the newspaper anymore. One morning I'm going find that someone has come out four-square for the concept of a democracy in the U.S.A.

This is incredibly useful and worthwhile research, but I fear it would be totally lost on DHS if it were left in their hands. Just the second-order effects of self-reference, not just exposing the Prez' badly parsed horse-puckey, they couldn't handle. Too much paperwork :-) No, this should be open-source, open standards, and distributed, not centalized. Only thing the State could do to help would be to waive copyright and database aggregation rights. Grant fair use license. Hell, abolish copyright and patents, but I digress. I wager "homeland security" would be much more assured, though.

jbdigriz

It's amusing to realize that the "Lincoln never let the world forget" line on the Turnitin site is copied from the Kid's Section on the White House web site.

Professional response:

Well for those particular I can't say what is on them... however moving forward everything should be encrpyted as per OMB Memoradum M-06-16 [whitehouse.gov]. But there is no guarantee for the timetable. Simply having the requirement sometimes does not ensure that it is done.

Personal response (warning not affiliated in any way with US Government or policies):

They were probably just password protected as I remember that being on the NBC news story this morning... and we all know that Windows passwords are a joke to break.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total US Federal Budget for 2006 was projected to be approximately $2,507 Billion. Of that, defense is $438 Billion, Social Security is $540 Billion, Medicare is $380 Billion, and Medicaid is $193 Billion. Social welfare dwarfs military spending now, and it will skyrocket over the next 30 years or so as the US baby boom generation is starting to retire.

Still, $438 Billion is all weapons, right? Well... no. Depending on the year, Defense spending, is about 23% for personnel (pay, benefits), 31% for operations and maintenance (fuel & parts), and 15% for R&D. Procurement is a stunning 18%. That is about 3% of the total Federal budget. But not even all of that 3% goes to buying weapons. A sizable chunk of it goes to ship building for the Navy, for example. Another chunk goes to buying ammo. There are plenty of other things, like fire fighting equipment, periscopes, and pollution control equipment, night vision gear, and construction equipment.

The Federal budget also doesn't include state income taxes for which an even smaller percentage is going to go for defense related expenses. City and county taxes don't contribute anything either.

Overall, a minute percentage of American taxes goes to new weapons.

(I guess protest signs wouldn't look so scary if they complained that the US spent 1.6% of its Federal budget on weapons.)

"Does the law really work in such a way where you can be supeonaed based on what link you clicked on? Shouldn't you arrest the person who created the link?

You do realise we're discussing the Bush Administration don't you? They consider "evidence" to be an obscene word, which is improper to use in a public discussion. They seem to be a primary source of the American Government's Rampant Intelligence Failures. It's not the first time they have been working ass backwards on a problem. Consider:

"We created the Terrorist Surveillance Program to monitor the communications between al Qaeda commanders abroad and terrorist operatives within our borders. If al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, we need to know why, in order to stop attacks"

GW Bush, "President Discusses Global War on Terror", Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C., September 5, 2006

"I need people in Washington, D.C. who are willing to give those who are responsible for protecting America all the tools they need -- tools such as the Patriot Act; tools such as programs that say if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to why, in order to protect the United States of America."

GW Bush, "Remarks by the President at Bob Corker for Senate and Tennessee Republican Party Dinner", Loews Vanderbilt Hotel, Nashville, Tennessee, August 30, 2006

"And if al Qaeda is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling."

BW Bush, "President Bush Meets with Economic Advisors", Camp David, August 18, 2006

"I've also been clear about the fact that we do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval, and that this government will continue to guard the privacy of the American people. But if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know, and we want to know why."

GW Bush, "President Bush and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia Participate in Joint Press Availability", East Room, White House, Washington DC, May 16, 2006

"It seemed to make sense to me that if somebody associated with the enemy is making a call inside the country, that it would be helpful to know why, in order to protect the American people. Lawyers came back and said, you got the authority, Mr. President.

I then went and said, well, gosh, if we do go forward, I know there's going to be some consternation in the halls of the United States Congress. So we briefed people responsible for intelligence and the leadership in both bodies, in both political parties. Just like my buddy in Texas said, if you're trying to pull one over on them, why are you briefing the Congress? (Laughter.) If you're doing something illegal, why did you call the Congress in and lay it for them to fully understand what we're doing to protect the American people?

I wanted to share that with you. I think it's important for you to know why I make decisions. I'm confident what I'm doing. The decision I made is the right decision. If al Qaeda is calling in the United States, we want to know why."

GW Bush, "President's Remarks at Chocola for Congress Reception", Bethel College Indiana, Mishawaka, Indiana, February 23, 2006

"The Congress passed the authorization to use military force against al Qaeda after September the 11th, and the Supreme Court, in a recent opinion, ruled that the President -- the Congress gave me the authority to use what's called the "fundamental incidents of war." In other words, Congress authorized me t

"Does the law really work in such a way where you can be supeonaed based on what link you clicked on? Shouldn't you arrest the person who created the link?

You do realise we're discussing the Bush Administration don't you? They consider "evidence" to be an obscene word, which is improper to use in a public discussion. They seem to be a primary source of the American Government's Rampant Intelligence Failures. It's not the first time they have been working ass backwards on a problem. Consider:

"We created the Terrorist Surveillance Program to monitor the communications between al Qaeda commanders abroad and terrorist operatives within our borders. If al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, we need to know why, in order to stop attacks"

GW Bush, "President Discusses Global War on Terror", Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C., September 5, 2006

"I need people in Washington, D.C. who are willing to give those who are responsible for protecting America all the tools they need -- tools such as the Patriot Act; tools such as programs that say if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to why, in order to protect the United States of America."

GW Bush, "Remarks by the President at Bob Corker for Senate and Tennessee Republican Party Dinner", Loews Vanderbilt Hotel, Nashville, Tennessee, August 30, 2006

"And if al Qaeda is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling."

BW Bush, "President Bush Meets with Economic Advisors", Camp David, August 18, 2006

"I've also been clear about the fact that we do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval, and that this government will continue to guard the privacy of the American people. But if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know, and we want to know why."

GW Bush, "President Bush and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia Participate in Joint Press Availability", East Room, White House, Washington DC, May 16, 2006

"It seemed to make sense to me that if somebody associated with the enemy is making a call inside the country, that it would be helpful to know why, in order to protect the American people. Lawyers came back and said, you got the authority, Mr. President.

I then went and said, well, gosh, if we do go forward, I know there's going to be some consternation in the halls of the United States Congress. So we briefed people responsible for intelligence and the leadership in both bodies, in both political parties. Just like my buddy in Texas said, if you're trying to pull one over on them, why are you briefing the Congress? (Laughter.) If you're doing something illegal, why did you call the Congress in and lay it for them to fully understand what we're doing to protect the American people?

I wanted to share that with you. I think it's important for you to know why I make decisions. I'm confident what I'm doing. The decision I made is the right decision. If al Qaeda is calling in the United States, we want to know why."

GW Bush, "President's Remarks at Chocola for Congress Reception", Bethel College Indiana, Mishawaka, Indiana, February 23, 2006

"The Congress passed the authorization to use military force against al Qaeda after September the 11th, and the Supreme Court, in a recent opinion, ruled that the President -- the Congress gave me the authority to use what's called the "fundamental incidents of war." In other words, Congress authorized me t

"Does the law really work in such a way where you can be supeonaed based on what link you clicked on? Shouldn't you arrest the person who created the link?

You do realise we're discussing the Bush Administration don't you? They consider "evidence" to be an obscene word, which is improper to use in a public discussion. They seem to be a primary source of the American Government's Rampant Intelligence Failures. It's not the first time they have been working ass backwards on a problem. Consider:

"We created the Terrorist Surveillance Program to monitor the communications between al Qaeda commanders abroad and terrorist operatives within our borders. If al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, we need to know why, in order to stop attacks"

GW Bush, "President Discusses Global War on Terror", Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C., September 5, 2006

"I need people in Washington, D.C. who are willing to give those who are responsible for protecting America all the tools they need -- tools such as the Patriot Act; tools such as programs that say if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to why, in order to protect the United States of America."

GW Bush, "Remarks by the President at Bob Corker for Senate and Tennessee Republican Party Dinner", Loews Vanderbilt Hotel, Nashville, Tennessee, August 30, 2006

"And if al Qaeda is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling."

BW Bush, "President Bush Meets with Economic Advisors", Camp David, August 18, 2006

"I've also been clear about the fact that we do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval, and that this government will continue to guard the privacy of the American people. But if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know, and we want to know why."

GW Bush, "President Bush and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia Participate in Joint Press Availability", East Room, White House, Washington DC, May 16, 2006

"It seemed to make sense to me that if somebody associated with the enemy is making a call inside the country, that it would be helpful to know why, in order to protect the American people. Lawyers came back and said, you got the authority, Mr. President.

I then went and said, well, gosh, if we do go forward, I know there's going to be some consternation in the halls of the United States Congress. So we briefed people responsible for intelligence and the leadership in both bodies, in both political parties. Just like my buddy in Texas said, if you're trying to pull one over on them, why are you briefing the Congress? (Laughter.) If you're doing something illegal, why did you call the Congress in and lay it for them to fully understand what we're doing to protect the American people?

I wanted to share that with you. I think it's important for you to know why I make decisions. I'm confident what I'm doing. The decision I made is the right decision. If al Qaeda is calling in the United States, we want to know why."

GW Bush, "President's Remarks at Chocola for Congress Reception", Bethel College Indiana, Mishawaka, Indiana, February 23, 2006

"The Congress passed the authorization to use military force against al Qaeda after September the 11th, and the Supreme Court, in a recent opinion, ruled that the President -- the Congress gave me the authority to use what's called the "fundamental incidents of war." In other words, Congress authorized me t

"Does the law really work in such a way where you can be supeonaed based on what link you clicked on? Shouldn't you arrest the person who created the link?

You do realise we're discussing the Bush Administration don't you? They consider "evidence" to be an obscene word, which is improper to use in a public discussion. They seem to be a primary source of the American Government's Rampant Intelligence Failures. It's not the first time they have been working ass backwards on a problem. Consider:

"We created the Terrorist Surveillance Program to monitor the communications between al Qaeda commanders abroad and terrorist operatives within our borders. If al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, we need to know why, in order to stop attacks"

GW Bush, "President Discusses Global War on Terror", Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C., September 5, 2006

"I need people in Washington, D.C. who are willing to give those who are responsible for protecting America all the tools they need -- tools such as the Patriot Act; tools such as programs that say if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to why, in order to protect the United States of America."

GW Bush, "Remarks by the President at Bob Corker for Senate and Tennessee Republican Party Dinner", Loews Vanderbilt Hotel, Nashville, Tennessee, August 30, 2006

"And if al Qaeda is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling."

BW Bush, "President Bush Meets with Economic Advisors", Camp David, August 18, 2006

"I've also been clear about the fact that we do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval, and that this government will continue to guard the privacy of the American people. But if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know, and we want to know why."

GW Bush, "President Bush and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia Participate in Joint Press Availability", East Room, White House, Washington DC, May 16, 2006

"It seemed to make sense to me that if somebody associated with the enemy is making a call inside the country, that it would be helpful to know why, in order to protect the American people. Lawyers came back and said, you got the authority, Mr. President.

I then went and said, well, gosh, if we do go forward, I know there's going to be some consternation in the halls of the United States Congress. So we briefed people responsible for intelligence and the leadership in both bodies, in both political parties. Just like my buddy in Texas said, if you're trying to pull one over on them, why are you briefing the Congress? (Laughter.) If you're doing something illegal, why did you call the Congress in and lay it for them to fully understand what we're doing to protect the American people?

I wanted to share that with you. I think it's important for you to know why I make decisions. I'm confident what I'm doing. The decision I made is the right decision. If al Qaeda is calling in the United States, we want to know why."

GW Bush, "President's Remarks at Chocola for Congress Reception", Bethel College Indiana, Mishawaka, Indiana, February 23, 2006

"The Congress passed the authorization to use military force against al Qaeda after September the 11th, and the Supreme Court, in a recent opinion, ruled that the President -- the Congress gave me the authority to use what's called the "fundamental incidents of war." In other words, Congress authorized me t

"Does the law really work in such a way where you can be supeonaed based on what link you clicked on? Shouldn't you arrest the person who created the link?

You do realise we're discussing the Bush Administration don't you? They consider "evidence" to be an obscene word, which is improper to use in a public discussion. They seem to be a primary source of the American Government's Rampant Intelligence Failures. It's not the first time they have been working ass backwards on a problem. Consider:

"We created the Terrorist Surveillance Program to monitor the communications between al Qaeda commanders abroad and terrorist operatives within our borders. If al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, we need to know why, in order to stop attacks"

GW Bush, "President Discusses Global War on Terror", Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C., September 5, 2006

"I need people in Washington, D.C. who are willing to give those who are responsible for protecting America all the tools they need -- tools such as the Patriot Act; tools such as programs that say if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to why, in order to protect the United States of America."

GW Bush, "Remarks by the President at Bob Corker for Senate and Tennessee Republican Party Dinner", Loews Vanderbilt Hotel, Nashville, Tennessee, August 30, 2006

"And if al Qaeda is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling."

BW Bush, "President Bush Meets with Economic Advisors", Camp David, August 18, 2006

"I've also been clear about the fact that we do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval, and that this government will continue to guard the privacy of the American people. But if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know, and we want to know why."

GW Bush, "President Bush and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia Participate in Joint Press Availability", East Room, White House, Washington DC, May 16, 2006

"It seemed to make sense to me that if somebody associated with the enemy is making a call inside the country, that it would be helpful to know why, in order to protect the American people. Lawyers came back and said, you got the authority, Mr. President.

I then went and said, well, gosh, if we do go forward, I know there's going to be some consternation in the halls of the United States Congress. So we briefed people responsible for intelligence and the leadership in both bodies, in both political parties. Just like my buddy in Texas said, if you're trying to pull one over on them, why are you briefing the Congress? (Laughter.) If you're doing something illegal, why did you call the Congress in and lay it for them to fully understand what we're doing to protect the American people?

I wanted to share that with you. I think it's important for you to know why I make decisions. I'm confident what I'm doing. The decision I made is the right decision. If al Qaeda is calling in the United States, we want to know why."

GW Bush, "President's Remarks at Chocola for Congress Reception", Bethel College Indiana, Mishawaka, Indiana, February 23, 2006

"The Congress passed the authorization to use military force against al Qaeda after September the 11th, and the Supreme Court, in a recent opinion, ruled that the President -- the Congress gave me the authority to use what's called the "fundamental incidents of war." In other words, Congress authorized me t

Own Criminal Acts.

Hamdi v Rumsfeld calls for a need for 'Military Tribunals' so as to ensure that when they 'goof' it's under strictest cover, and no-one will ever know what happened.

Is it any accident the CIA is CIA (Covering Its Ass)?

Gonzales is looking to legitimize the fact that the .gov has already been caught with it's hands in the til...

The abuses of The Constitution are being watched by everyone, everywhere. What was once the beacon of hope and bastion of freedom for the whole world is being trashed by criminals and oligarchs who seek to douse its light once and for all. The abuses against the American public must be arrested at the earliest possible juncture.

The truly frightening thing is that you can't even trust your democratic process anymore. So who's the terrorist? Where does he live?

Even Republicans can't deny the fact that it's getting out of hand.

Just today: On Tuesday, President Bush said, "Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen. From Beirut to Baghdad , people are making the choice for freedom.

Some choice.

So believe the borehole measurements where contemporary instruments examine ground temperatures from the past. Or compare the size of the error bars to the size of the effects. Wikipedia has some charts that show both.

>all scientists agree to in order to receive more funding

The way to get funding would be to have a major disagreement to compel more research.

>right-wing common sense

"First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. " -- George W. Bush, June 2001.
"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem." -- George W. Bush, June 2006

If you don't believe scientists, isn't it right-wing common sense to believe someone who speaks for God?

Now, If you're on the public sector side and attempting to protect national interests and understand the global scope of the infrastructure involved, how do you go about that? I would argue that it's hard even under the best conspiracy-theory/tinfoil-hat environment. You have to first get people to show up and without legislation forcing people to show up (read: industry regulation), it is hard to be completely effective.

I think he'll do the best job he can under the circumstances, which is challenging to say the least. These people who work in DC doing these jobs have incredible stamina to put up with challenges that i suspect 99% of people reading this would be unwilling to stand at their job. To get simple things done sometimes can literally take an act of congress. And you thought your boss was slow and intrusive, think about having the GAO coming in and interviewing you every few weeks about how your job is going and what you've done recently on topics X, Y and Z.

While there are those people that I think are truly "evil" in this space, people who take public sector jobs like this are rarely the type. Just think, next virus outbreak or internet worm everyone is gonna be clammoring at you for what's going on. Starting from the tech savvy Senator Stevens(R-AK) asking about his e-mail to those that actually "get-it". I don't envy him this job/work but I do wish him the best of luck. I will point him to this discussion and conversation just to make everyone here happy though ;)

a President who has never vetoed anything..

He has vetoed one thing. H.R. 810, which is also known as the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005."

From:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/idtheft .htm

"Under federal criminal law, identity theft takes place when someone knowingly transfers, possesses or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable state or local law."

Bush speaks!...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20 040715-3.html

"This law also raises the standard of conduct for people who have access to personal records through their work at banks, government agencies, insurance companies, and other storehouses of financial data. The law directs the United States Sentencing Commission to make sure those convicted of abusing and stealing from their customers serve a sentence equal to their crimes." - George Bush.

Funny how they are all silent now.

Condoleeza Rice: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]
FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]

Rhetoric? You cite Rice's reassurance that her gang won't postpone elections as reason to "cool the rhetoric"? Why wouldn't she lie, especially if it got people off our guard?