Presidential Veto promised for PAA without telco immunity

The story on what the administration is doing with the Protect America Act now (just as they did in August) is long and involved. And the reason for this post is the President's recent threat to veto any bill that does not include immunity for the telecoms from lawsuits that are currently pending in the courts. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/02/veto_threat_for_proposed_spy_l.php

But I wanted to highlight the point made by Senator Kennedy at one of the previous veto threats made by the president (back in December 2007). He said:

"The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies."

US acknowledges using waterboarding

So previously, John Negroponte had acknowledged that the U.S. used waterboarding when he said in an interview that the technique "has not been used in years." http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/negroponte_confirms_use_of_wat.php
And now CIA Director Michael Hayden has stated that waterboarding has been used only 3 times - on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/cia_director_confirms_details.php

When the word of use of waterboarding began to seep into the news, the administration continued its mantra of saying it does not comment on specific interrogation techniques and also said that the U.S. DOES NOT torture. When Dana Perino was specifically asked, does that mean that the administration considers waterboarding to be legal, the answer was, again, that they don't comment on specific interrogation techniques. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/we_dont_discuss_interrogation.php
But now that a member of the administration (actually 2) have admitted that we used the technique, I wonder if Dana Perino's tune will change? I suspect not.

But here's the problem. I'm trying to find a link to the story, but I recall something from the fall where I think CIA Director Michael Hayden was giving testimony to Congress and he was asked would the U.S. consider waterboarding to be torture if it was done to U.S. citizens or military members and he couldn't answer. But one of the main reasons behind JAG Corps opposition to the use of waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" which many people would consider torture is the fact that the U.S. can no longer assume that other countries or entities will follow the Law and Rules on torture and treatment of prisoners. And how can the U.S. criticize, with any degree of credibility, any other country in the world that figures the use of waterboarding or any other interrogation technique is essential to ITS national security. Can you imagine the Iranians taking some wayward sailors prisoner and figuring they could waterboard them because they might have information on a pending U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. So should the U.S. expect any other country in the world to rally to our side in such a situation? Or do you think that many countries - even allies of ours - might actually say something along the lines of, you reap what you sow?

Troops support anti-war candidates

My own anecdotal experience backs this up. I've had discussions with officers and enlisted in the AF and other services on the subject and I've seen that we're hardly the monolithic "gung ho" group that Limbaugh would have you believe. Most people are in the military because of the opportunity to serve or because it can be a fine and fulfilling career choice. But those people are not in the military BECAUSE they agree with the current administration's policies. Maybe they also agree with the policies, but that's not why they're serving. And it shouldn't be a surprise that many people in the military support anti-war candidates. Yes, the military tends to be more conservative than the country, but that also means that military members are very likely to be family-oriented. This war has meant more and more separation for military families. Ending the war means less deployments, means less separation from loved ones.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/05/military-donations/

Defense Spending in the FY 2009 budget - UPDATED

So for the last several years, the Bush administration has issued its proposed budget for the coming fiscal year, the defense spending in which was consistently under-estimated, resulting in requests for supplemental funding once or even twice a year. Part of the criticism of this is that a budget is supposed to be an estimate of all foreseeable expenses for the year, which should be balanced against the country's income. Underreporting entirely foreseeable expenses makes a mockery of a budget process and prevented the Congress from adjusting other spending (or income through necessary tax increases?). This feeds into one of my biggest criticisms of the war - the fact that we're financing it with future income - in essence putting it on a credit card. If the Republicans wanted their war, they should have been paying for it all along. Of course, their answer to that is to somehow cut discretionary spending (even though there's not enough of that to make even a dent in the defense spending). Or even better let's just privatize Social Security and get rid of Medicare to pay for the war.

Anyway - now, we've got a new budget which is making headlines for the fact that the total amount is in excess of 3 trillion dollars. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/05/pay-it-forward/ I haven't seen it anywhere, but I'd be interested to see some analysis of whether the defense spending includes money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, unlike in years past. My guess is that it doesn't. FY 2009 only includes 3 months and 20 or so days under the current president, so I'm betting the amount "budgeted" only includes big ticket items. No reason for the Republicans to become responsible in their last year in office.

But it's a decent question to ask, because even with healthy Democratic majorities in Congress and a President Obama or Clinton, the earliest troops are going to start coming out will be March-ish 2009. That's 6 months of the next FY.

UPDATE**Here's some analysis on the topic. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/04/war-budget-fy09/ Guess I should have waited and I would have come across it eventually. And it looks like the estimate of funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan only includes the first quarter of FY 2009. So the point about Republicans being responsible stewards of the country's money has been answered in the negative.

US ROE in Iraq

Here's an article, which includes a link to the leaked (classified) document. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/todays_must_read_268.php

Interesting to think how they got this document. Also interesting to note how the ROE have changed since then (as compared to what's followed now over there).

Big Oil Profits

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/02/big-oils-shame/

Is the fact this happens with 2 ex-oil men in charge of the administration a coincidence?

The Cost of the War...

In 2007 dollars. (via Daily Kos)

Iraq and Afghanistan To Date - $695.7 billion

Compare to other wars...
World War II - $3.2 trillion
Vietnam War - $670 billion
World War I - $364 billion
Korean War - $295 billion
Persian Gulf War - $94 billion
Civil War (both Union and Confederate costs) - $81 billion
Spanish-American War - $7 billion
American Revolution - $4 billion
Mexican War - $2 billion
War of 1812 - $1 billion

Source: Congressional Research Service and Office of Management and Budget data.