An executive order published without fanfare this month does away with a system for Pentagon succession instituted by former President George W. Bush, which played down the service secretaries and elevated positions held at the time by trusted aides to Donald H. Rumsfeld, who as defense secretary wanted it that way.

These plans governing Pentagon succession are intended to guarantee civilian control of the military during a doomsday situation, like a nuclear strike or a terrorist attack, when the defense secretary could be taken out of action at the moment when war-fighting decisions must be made. The Bush order, issued in December 2005, continued the traditional sequence of the deputy defense secretary as next in line. But it booted the Army secretary out of the No. 3 slot in the order of succession, in favor of the under secretary of defense for intelligence.

via Pentagon Memo – Obama Revises Bush Administration Succession Plan for the Pentagon – NYTimes.com.

Political crony-ism was the rationale for anything and everything during the Bush Administration. So in case Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense was unable to perform their duties, an under secretary of defense, who was  a Rumsfeld crony, was to be promoted before the Secretary of the Army.

President George W. Bush and his senior aides considered — and rejected — a military response to Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, according to a new history of the conflict and interviews with former officials in the Bush administration.

With desperate Georgians begging for American help in closing down the key route through which Russian soldiers were pouring into the country, Bush’s national security aides outlined possible responses, including “the bombardment and sealing of the Roki Tunnel” and other “surgical strikes,” according to a new history of the conflict and independent interviews with former senior officials.

“In that moment of desperation these issues came onto the table, and came to the principals committee” consisting of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and top Cabinet members, said Ron Asmus, a Clinton administration State Department official whose book, out this week, is called “The Little War That Shook the World.”

“There were people on [Vice President Dick] Cheney’s staff and [National Security Adviser Stephen] Hadley’s staff who said, ‘We can’t let Georgia go down like this.’”

via U.S. pondered military use in Georgia – Ben Smith – POLITICO.com.

Simply Unbelievable. If Cheney’s staffers and advisors thought  ”We can’t let Georgia go down like this” that means Cheney agreed and was probably the source of that hawkish opinion. Contrast that with how Cheney declined Bush’s request that he head up Katrina relief. (Wrap your head around that: the Vice President declined to fulfill a request to head up a domestic emergency relief mission from the President). You know, we are lucky the country wasn’t in worse shape when Obama took office.

For weeks, the right has heckled Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for his plans to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City and his handling of the Christmas bombing plot suspect. Now the left is going to be upset: an upcoming Justice Department report from its ethics-watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), clears the Bush administration lawyers who authored the “torture” memos of professional-misconduct allegations.

While the probe is sharply critical of the legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, NEWSWEEK has learned that a senior Justice official who did the final review of the report softened an earlier OPR finding. Previously, the report concluded that two key authors—Jay Bybee, now a federal appellate court judge, and John Yoo, now a law professor—violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving the use of harsh tactics, say two Justice sources who asked for anonymity discussing an internal matter. But the reviewer, career veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed “poor judgment,” say the sources. (Under department rules, poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct.) The shift is significant: the original finding would have triggered a referral to state bar associations for potential disciplinary action—which, in Bybee’s case, could have led to an impeachment inquiry.

via Justice Official Clears Bush Lawyers in Torture Memo Probe – Declassified Blog – Newsweek.com

If this is true and as plain as Bybee and Yoo being cleared, the Obama Administration has proven that it has no interest in curbing the frightening expansion of the unitary executive as defined by Bush White House and the Holder Justice Department has proven it has feigned independence all along.

In addition, the fact that a 59-41 Democratic majority in the Senate means that the Senators need that same President to be their daddy to tell them where to go, before they miss every deadline, weaken the effect of every bill they write for political expediency means that there is no hope that they will pass progressive legislation making administration attorneys professionally and legally responsible for the memos they write. Even when they break the law.

I guess my sense is that Gore opposed the Iraq war in part out of bitterness. If you look at Gore’s record – and at TNR, I was hardly unaware of it – it was full of extreme vigilance about Saddam, willingness to use military force for moral ends (as in Bosnia), and completely conventional neo-con views on the Middle East. I can absolutely see him going to war against Saddam if goaded sufficiently. Maybe he would have been persuaded by the intelligence that we didn’t actually have the goods on WMDs; maybe his hawkishness would have waned in office as it did in opposition. But knowing Gore, I stick with my point. In office, I suspect he would have been much closer to my position on invasion at the time than he was.

via Dissent Of The Day – The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan.

A truly baffling conclusion. Does Sullivan believe that a Gore Administration would have:

• trusted intelligence that even Bush’s Secretary of State called shaky at best
• ignored Ambassador Joe Wilson’s debunking of yellow cake sales
• sought to smear and expose Valerie Plame as a CIA operative
• deemed an occupation of Iraq as trustworthy
• told us a war in Iraq would be quick and inexpensive.
• reacted more favorable to gamed national security briefings with religious quotes
• adopted a neo-con centered “Gore doctrine”
• ignored the staggering diplomatic, human and financial costs of two perpetual, unilateral military occupations in two different countries
• disregarded a nation spiraling into debt as nations do when they fight wars
• made Vice President Joe Lieberman de facto Commander in Chief

I highly doubt it. And when Sullivan says a post 9/11 Gore would have sought to attackIraq, he ignores that all these things were done by the Bush Administration leading up to the Iraq war being engaged at the same time and detriment to the war in Afghanistan. The TNR characterization of Gore’s public opposition to the George W. Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq, in his own words on September 23, 2002.

The Course of Action: The War on Terrorism, First

To begin with – to put first things first – I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than was predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism.

via Event Archive: Al Gore – Commonwealth Club.

Gore, and President Clinton were constantly monitoring Saddam, but he wasn’t advocating prioritizing a unilateral invasion of Iraq over dealing with the terrorist group Al Qaeda. The “conventional neo-con view” was built around the central tenets of the Bush Doctrine: unitary executive, unilateral preemptive war and exporting democracy through military occupation. Gore’s remarks specifically speak out against these three things. This is not a disagreement based on bitterness.  He may have been sour grapes, but he was dead on with his substantive rejection of the Bush Doctrine plan for war. This is the position Sullivan was close to in 2002/2003.

The Gore is just sour grapes meme sounds like classic Bush White House messaging circa 2002. Many liberals as well as almost all conservatives ate it up. They were wrong. Gore is arguing from an executive “if I were in charge of this country” mindset. The main question Gore tried to answer “At What Cost”. TNR and Sullivan scoffed, Bolton style, at the worth of international opinion in determining our allies willingness to follow the Bush Doctrine.

But surely Gore also has an obligation to share his reasons for believing that war with Iraq will “severely damage” the war on terrorism. The argument, after all, is not self-evident: Germany, the U.S. ally most vocally opposed to attacking Iraq, has simultaneously intensified its assistance in the war on terrorism–signaling that it will take over the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. In fact, Gore provides no evidence to support his claim. And thus he fails the very evidentiary standard that he calls on Bush to meet.

via Speechless | The New Republic.

Its odd that these principled folks on the TNR editorial board and a true conservative like Sullivan all ignored the part of Gore’s speech where he outlined a key reason the war in Iraq would damage the war on terrorism. Its something a good executive would think about. Cost. Gore clearly outlined that in point four of five high key differences between the invasion of 1991 vs. Bush’s proposed invasion in 2002.

Fourth, the coalition assembled in 1991 paid all of the significant costs of the war, while this time, the American taxpayers will be asked to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own.

[...]

much as we manage to squander in one year’s time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits.

Gore shared a list of key reason with the TNR editors, Sullivan and anyone who would actually listen. Cost. Nothing costs a nation more money and blood than war. We were already in the middle of one war, albeit internationally supported. Gore made the simple case: if we actually go to war in Iraq, we will undergo that war on our own and may give European nations a way out of the war in Afghanistan.

What would have remained the same? Tony Blair would have supported an invasion of Iraq on the same cooked up, flimsy intelligence. He has said as much then and now, so I take him at his word. Sullivan voted Bush vs Gore on personality, he admits, while embracing a record of professional failures versus Gore’s career political record as a centrist Democratic legislator and Vice President. That’s fine. Sullivan was had. But he wasn’t had by Bush’s jocular rhetoric. He was had by his own personal bias against anything Clinton/Gore. TNR and Sullivan established a simple equation to justify thei: If a bad guy has a scent of WMD’s, we must go to war. This is a false choice.

Sullivan said that Gore’s address on 9/23/2002 speech proved Gore was just objecting out of bitterness:

[Gore] is a pure opportunist, with no consistency in his political views on foreign or domestic policy. He’ll say whatever he thinks will get him power or attention or votes. How else to explain his sudden U-turn on Iraq? Two years ago, he was demanding that “Saddam must go“. Seven months ago, he was calling for a “final reckoning” with Iraq, a state that was a “virulent threat in a class by itself.” Now, with Saddam far closer to weapons of mass destruction, Gore is happy to see Saddam stay in place.

via www.AndrewSullivan.com – Daily Dish.

When did Gore say a “final reckoning”? Before the CFR, seven months earlier with the following caveats regarding attacking Iraq.

So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.

But still, the question remains – what next? Is Iran under the hard-liners less of a proliferation threat than Iraq? Or less involved with terrorism? If anything, Iran is at this moment a much more dangerous challenge in each area than Iraq. Iran is flight-testing longer range rockets. Iran has loaded up at least one merchant ship with a cargo of death for Israel.

The vast majority of the Iranian people seem to disagree with the policies and actions of the small group of mullahs now in control of their military and intelligence apparatus. We have to deal with that nation’s actions as they take place. In the process, however, we should find ways to encourage the majority who obviously wish to develop a more constructive relationship with us.

via A Commentary on the War Against Terror: Our Larger Tasks – Council on Foreign Relations.

Gore did say that “Saddam must go”. He regretted that Saddam was not removed from power during or after Desert Storm.  Gore was not happy to see Saddam stay in place. Gore even re-voiced his support for repeated bombing of Saddam’s military interests to cripple his war time capability. But to say he would have launched a full scale war while waging another war in Afghanistan is a dishonest oversimplification of his September 2002 position.  Gore wasn’t opposed to aggression against Saddam, he was opposed to a full invasion and occupation of Iraq while we fought a war in Afghanistan which required an executive to build an international coalition to support comprehensive anti-terrorism strategies.

He was opposed to launching headlong into a war in the circumstances of 2002. It became increasingly evident hearing the rhetoric coming from the Bush Administration they wanted war in Iraq regardless of how dangerous Saddam really was and how important it was to  keep our military and intelligence operations focused on Iraq Afghanistan.

Even as Sullivan cheers the Green Revolution today, he ignores the fact that Gore had some basic understanding of the nuanced and strained relationship between the Iranian Mullahs and its majority Shiite populace further support  2002 Gore having an understanding that there were dire consequences if we inserted the U.S. between Saddam, the Iranian Mullahs and their citizenries as the occupier of Iraq. The Bush Administration said it would be cheap and quick. Gore understood an Iraq invasion would necessarily mean more than just getting the bad guys. Bush and his Administration did not. The Bush Administration said we will win hearts and minds of Muslims throughout the world by bombing two predominantly Muslim countries.

Gore may have been bitter, but he laid out both his prerequisites for congressional approval of a full scale armed conflict with Iraq and later his case against the Bush Administrations invasion of Iraq in clear terms. He was right in standard and in opposition. It was the bitter taste from Gore’s public personality that led Sullivan and TNR to try and wash it down with a nice long drink of Crawford Cowboy Kool-Aid. They were wrong to support Iraq and were back patting each other in the middle of a massive political pro-Bush group think.

Sometimes a little bitterness is what we need.

He says Dobbs is responsible for anti-immigration sentiment (he’s complicit, not responsible). This is rich after Rivera works for Fox News whose pundits mostly disagree with him regarding immigration law and reform. Riveras colleagues and Dobbs all support the jail first law enforcement tactics employed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, vigilante Minutemen, useless border walls and unnecessarily restrictive INS policies regarding work visas that discourage law abiding foreign students and skilled professionals from attempting to come to the US. Rivera believes CNN has to answer for Dobb’s views when he works for the network where these dangerous views find a welcome home at any hour of the day.

CNN, predictably, has avoided addressing Dobbs’ role in the US anti-immigration debate in their Soledad O’Brien driven documentary Latinos In America and Howard Kurtz’s Reliable Sources.

Growth through immigration and diversity has been one of the strengths of the United States of America. Lou Dobbs support of heavy handed Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s abuses of federal ICE powers and others on the anti-immigration right are the best friend of any Democrat who needs to win votes in jurisdiction with high Latino American populations. He helps push any platform issues off the table by ascribing United State’s ills to the straw man of a fearsome undocumented immigrant from a Central or South American country. Rivera correctly notes that Dobbs’ over the top anti-Latino talk  is a wedge for media success, not electoral success. As Obama denies Fox News additional access opportunities and includes Univision and other Spanish language media outlets, makes steady modest steps towards normalizing US diplomacy with Cuba and revokes Sheriff Arpaio’s ICE powers, the Obama administration builds good will within a variety of Latino communities.

What Rivera neglects to mention in his screed against Dobbs is that Dobbs consistently ignores the link between illegal immigration and job opportunities given to them by US employers. The less jobs available for undocumented US residents, the less incentive to come to come here illegally. The Obama administration has replaced George W. Bush era swat style workplace raids with forced firings of undocumented workers from US companies. This is much closer to the correct way to deal with this issue, but still doesn’t affect the offending employers enough and doesn’t address undocumented immigrants who are already in the US. Immigration advocates are unhappy, but there does need to be some course of action for those who emigrated here illegally.

Professionally, Rivera would do best to temper his criticism of Dobbs. Criticism of Dobbs can easily be used to critique the anti-immigrant sentiment popular with Rivera’s own employer. As commentator Marc Lamont Hill found out recently, Fox News rewards opposing views on flash point issues like immigration or capital punishment by firing you while you are out of the office.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney (Fox News Channel)

Ali H. Soufan, F.B.I. special agent from 1997 to 2005, writes for the New York Times:

The inspector general’s report distinguishes between intelligence gained from regular interrogation and from the harsher methods, which culminate in waterboarding. While the former produces useful intelligence, according to the report, the latter “is a more subjective process and not without concern.” And the information in the two memos reinforces this differentiation.

They show that substantial intelligence was gained from pocket litter (materials found on detainees when they were captured), from playing detainees against one another and from detainees freely giving up information that they assumed their questioners already knew. A computer seized in March 2003 from a Qaeda operative for example, listed names of Qaeda members and money they were to receive.

via Op-Ed Contributor – What Torture Never Told Us – NYTimes.com.

Soufan and other experts keep asserting, with mounting proof, that conventional interrogation of terror suspects produced all intelligence needed to thwart terrorism and Bush Administration approved torture was a collection of brutal, criminal, non-productive methods used to personally destroy those suspected of being terrorists. The Cheney Daddy and Daughter team continue to lie and yet are never called to respond to facts. Even when they are, they lie or deflect. Just like the run up to Iraq war, talking heads sit idly by them and nod approvingly.

I don’t know if its just me getting old and lamenting the “good old days”, but its unfortunate that Reading Rainbow is being axed.

The show’s run is ending, Grant explains, because no one — not the station, not PBS, not the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — will put up the several hundred thousand dollars needed to renew the show’s broadcast rights.

Grant says the funding crunch is partially to blame, but the decision to end Reading Rainbow can also be traced to a shift in the philosophy of educational television programming. The change started with the Department of Education under the Bush administration, he explains, which wanted to see a much heavier focus on the basic tools of reading — like phonics and spelling.

Grant says that PBS, CPB and the Department of Education put significant funding toward programming that would teach kids how to read — but that’s not what Reading Rainbow was trying to do.

“Reading Rainbow taught kids why to read,” Grant says. “You know, the love of reading — [the show] encouraged kids to pick up a book and to read.”
via ‘Reading Rainbow’ Reaches Its Final Chapter : NPR.

The problem with TV that is supposed to help teach children how to read…it doesn’t really solve the problem. Richard Long, Director of Government Relations for the International Reading Association contends:

“[...] setting the table is different than the actual act of learning how to read,” says Richard Long, head of the International Reading Association. The group represents reading teachers and researchers.

He’s a fan of children’s programs that promote reading but says TV is not a tool to teach explicit reading skills. That’s a job for schools — with parents doing their part, too. If they’re not, Long says, children’s programs are better than nothing.

via Children’s TV Helps But Can’t Teach Reading Alone : NPR

Youth focused TV is a good way to market reading to children than it is to teach children to read, but who would expect the Bush administration to use facts as a basis for decisions.

Barrow Alaska: July 06 v July 07

Well, not secret. Just more evidence of global climate change.

Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world’s weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating

via Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide | Environment | The Observer .