Larry Johnson is an ex-CIA career professional who has been an excellent source of realistic an relevant information about anything related to the CIA and government operations.

Go here to read Larry Johnson's blog.

Larry recently posted a lot of good points about why fighting "terrorism" with conventional military is wasteful and stupid, since it is more effectively attacked with law enforcement covert operations. Killing civilians and destroying cities (aka, Falluja) only create more terrorists.

But don't just listen to me. Go read Larry Johnson.

Steve Chapman over at the Chicago Tribune, has this to say: [ SOURCE]

Steve Chapman

Beyond the imperial presidency

Published December 25, 2005

President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.

He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but he insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the man at the helm of government.

His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the essential prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says the administration's secret eavesdropping program is justified because "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it."

But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.

Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."

He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.

But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit Court for permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the once- cooperative court flatly refused.

In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated like a common purse snatcher--a reversal that, they said, comes "at substantial cost to the government's credibility." The court's meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or you are lying to us now.

If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in Christmas.

This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn't need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him to the criminal justice system.

But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic: Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.

The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?

The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.

He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.

Oh shit.

More on the Randy Cunningham defense contractor scandal. You can read about it  here.

According to the LA Times, Schwasti-boy seems to be involved ( that's Schwartzeneger for those of you for whom my belligerent sarcasm is not immediately recognized .) According to Dan Morain, LA Times Staff Writer,[SOURCE ]

A businessman tied to the bribery scandal involving former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham donated more than $70,000 to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign committees and received two gubernatorial appointments.

At Schwarzenegger's behest, Brent Wilkes, founder of the government contractor ADCS Inc., resigned Nov. 29 from the Del Mar Fair Board and from another panel that oversees the leasing of state land for racetracks, said Margita Thompson, the governor's press secretary.

Schwarzenegger appointed Wilkes to the Del Mar board in April 2004 and to the State Race Track Leasing Commission last April. A seat on the Del Mar board is a sought-after post given the panel's association with the Del Mar racetrack, among the most successful tracks in the nation.

...Wilkes' company, ADCS, which is based in Poway, has received millions in federal contracts.

Keep your eye on the ball folks. The news will be pounding on the $80,000 donations. What is important here are the appointed positions, not the money. Look what this manipulator of federal contract laws gets appointed to,the Del Mar Fair Board and a panel that oversees the leasing of state land for racetracks.

Can you say, money laundering?

Why do you think the mob was always heavily involved in the development of gambling institutions, because you could shuffle a lot of cash and make them appear as winnings. I recall reading about how a certain mob racket out of Miami operated by hiring professional gamblers to sit around and "win" while they were really shuffling the money through. They would get a "cut" of the winnings but those "winnings" would be re-deposited elsewhere.

Of course you do realize that this is all uninformed speculation on my part, but I still hear an implosion.

Thanks to Kevin Drum [SOURCE]

...Last week Duke Cunningham pled guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes and evading more than $1 million in taxes. Government documents in the case also referred to a "co-conspirator No. 1," later identified as a military contractor named Brent Wilkes. But acording to the San Diego Union- Tribune, Cunningham wasn't the only guy Wilkes was associated with:

"Wilkes befriended other legislators, too. He ran a hospitality suite, with several bedrooms, in Washington — first in the Watergate Hotel and then in the Westin Grand near Capitol Hill."

Instead, here are today's front-page stories.

ON THE BORDER Civilian border patrols across the country have helped polarize political debate over immigration reform. As part of an occasional series, The Chronicle spends an evening on patrol with small group in California. - Tyche Hendricks

-- This is the next distraction from the real issues of health care, corruption, and movement of capital to low cost labor regions of the world (ie, China!!!). Blame everything on the Mexicans.

Quake survivors in a race with time As winter arrives, many ill-prepared for harsh conditions - Declan Walsh

-- Reminder to San Fran : be afraid, man-made disaster looms

THE LINE OF FIRE Some citizens fear for safety if courts uphold S.F.'s voter-approved ban on handguns - Cecilia M. Vega

-- the voters approve and "some" citizens get to have a story on the front page. Hey, can "some" of us other citizens get to have special stories like this too. Was it another slow news day today?

How about Cunningham scandal may link other legislators ?

-or-

DeLay's money laundering charges upheld

See what I mean. Note that it's not whether the 3 chosen stories were valid stories, but whether they were so important as to be on the front page. Why does the Pakistani earthquake victim story trump the Tom Delay money laundering charges?

At least the quake story is more valid than a day two discussion on whether or not Schwastikaniger can attract moderates with an appointment of Governor Davis's ex-cabinet member -- as if merely his appointment of a stereotype is worth more than the substance of his policy proposals.

But instead, what we read is the 2nd hand version of the real conversation. It's all about the show and the costumes, or the chosen morality drama, NOT about honesty, integrity, and the truth.

If Liberals do ... What?

Look at the pompous, over-blown kinship of those who call themselves news analysts and news anchors on the Fox news network. Hired propaganda agents? Zealots for the cause of 6 to 7 figure salaries? You be the judge, but "mendacious and biased" to the extreme is certainly what the Fox network is really all about. History has already deposited the relics of truth.

Another installment in an ongoing investigation : San Francisco Chronicle headlines today.

This was on page one, for the second day in a row.

We get the reaction to yesterday's story and the "analysis" on the front page? Was it a slow news day?

Notice how the "ANALYSIS" is just the cliff notes for the dupes called "moderates." With these two loaded sentences probably not even chosen by writer Carla Marinucci (the executive editors usually create headlines) we learn that Schwastikaniger is trying to re-package his "image." The "fact" that he's "riling" conservatives would certainly make him "attractive" to those on the fence "moderates" that really do want to vote for Scwasti-baby but are just too worried that the Gubernator is lock step with his "conservative" advisors.

Analysis is another word for "spin." They are dressing this proto-fascist up in "moderates" clothes so that they can re-install those "buggy" computer voting machines and make-believe that it was moderates to "attracted" the new Schwastikaniger who voted for him in 2006. These people don't play. Do. Not. Underestimate.

So I go read the article. It is filled with ambiguous words that are apparently the norm of political "analysis" and is chock-a-block with quotes from politicos and policy analysts. After a more fleshy 2 paragraphs which beef out the headlines, The first quote comes from Steve Frank, longtime political activist and publisher of the California Political News and Views, an influential conservative blog, who says "He can't run as a Republican, because his administration has hired some of the key people we recalled with Gray Davis in the first place."

Then we get Michael Spence, who heads the California Republican Assembly, a conservative grassroots organization, (astro-turf??) who "said that within hours of the news of Kennedy's appointment, the buzz from the right included talk of finding alternatives to the GOP governor who has "betrayed the loyalty of people who worked for him in the special election."

Next up, unnamed "political insiders in California -- still a year from the 2006 election for governor -- said no one should be writing Schwarzenegger's political obituary, despite the devastating defeat of all his measures in the Nov. 8 special election. "

Yet when Mrs. Marinucci makes her point that "Many Democrats agree," she chooses to quote one person alone in support of her plural form : Phil Trounstine (who??), the head of the San Jose State Survey and Policy Research Institute and former communications director for Davis who worked closely with Kennedy in the Democratic governor's inner circle. In other words, she asks ex-governor Davis's press manager who now works as top gun at an institute that "surveys" opinions and produces white papers rationalizing policy based on the surveys.

Okay, yea, and he's the only "Democrat" she quotes. Couldn't she try to get a quote from State Senate Majority leader Peralta, or oft-quoted Burton, or someone higher up in the Democratic food chain. Or at least someone else, I mean if Democrats agree, than certainly she could have found any number who could have been quoted. But hey, since he "worked closely" with the woman, I suppose that makes his quotes worth twice as much.

I'm onto you Madame Marinucci. You are the hand-maiden of Judith Miller, aren't you?

The piece ends with the establishment Republican voice, ex-Governor Pete Wilson. In fact, ex-Governor Wilson's quoting takes a full 33% of this "front page article." But hey, since "Democrats agree," why give 10% from Pete to get more than one source from the labeled Democratic side?

So what is this piece anyway, an outsourcing of 3 politicos and some unknown "Democrat" on the front page, calling itself "analysis" ?

This is what the Chronicle does? It puts this kind of speculative, inconsequetial political gossip borderline persuasion on the front page in lieu of actual factual based news. The story should not be on the front page, because there is not one smidgeon of analysis, just a bunch of presumptions and opinions by a few selected persons. There were no numbers to support the contentions of "the analysis," only hearsay and voices from people who have a very good reason to be biased.

It's political gossip, not analysis.

Paul Waldman writes a regular blog at the online blog-a-zine gadflyer.

President Bush gave the umpteenth version of his Iraq speech today, and as always we were told that this speech would really turn things around because Bush would define the issue and explain to people why IraqiscentraltothewaronterrorandtheterroristsareontherunandastheIraqisstandupwew ill standdownandwewillnotcutandrunandvictoryisaroundthecornerblahblahblah.

In fact, the speech included no fewer than fifteen repetitions of the word "victory." So this is my question:

Just what, exactly, is "victory" in Iraq?

After all, we won't have the insurgents signing an armistice. There are no generals to surrender. Zarqawi could be captured tomorrow and the insurgency would continue unabated. So how will we know when we've won? Bush keeps telling us that in order to honor the sacrifices of the brave men and women who have died there, we have to keep our soldiers there to keep dying, to finish the job, to achieve that glorious victory. So what is this victory supposed to consist of? And just as important, is there a single person in the administration who has a clue what the answer to that question is?

Copyright © Paul Waldman.

Thanks to Atrios on the scoop. This is from the LA Times. [ SOURCE ]

WASHINGTON -- As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. . The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents, and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

While the articles are basically truthful, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles -- with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism" -- since the effort began this year.

...

The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.

...

The storyboards, several of which were obtained by The Times, read more like press releases than news stories. They often contain anonymous quotes from U.S. military officials; it is unclear whether the quotes are authentic.

"Absolute truth was not an essential element of these stories," said the senior military official who spent this year in Iraq.

Surprise, surprise. This is what corporate news does here too. In fact,if it is on the front page, chances are that you are either reading something sensationalistically inconsequential or you are reading some "political- analyst" spinning the real news.

For instance, ex-San Diego Congressperson Randall Duke Cunningham has just been indited for

..receiving $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes.

Bribery charges involving a sitting member of Congress are relatively rare. The money involved makes Cunningham's the largest such case since several members of Congress were convicted of bribery in the early 1980s.

( -- Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times --SOURCE)

Makes you think this was front page news. Nope, the Chronicle put this story from the LA Times on page A-5. What was on the front page? Black hoodlums breaking into one Oakland liquor store, new attacks by insurgents in Iraq, and the new fishing season in the bay area. Cunningham got a close-up pic with just his hand over his face no background, but the story was on A-5. Adjacent to Cunningham was a picture of bad ole Saddam yelling at the court that is trying him in Iraq -- you get it, don't you, the bad guys are going to court. But the Iraqi court has been largely appointed by and orchestrated behind the scenes by U.S. Officials.

And today :

FRONT PAGE STORIES

A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit
Uh,oh -- politics in the court-room

Black Muslims arrested in store attacks 2 suspects surrender -- Oakland police urge 4 others to turn themselves in
Citizens alert, the bad guys are close to getting caught

Fighting over the soul of Oakland waterfront Vast housing plan raises issues of affordability, access
The soul of what? Oh, do you mean that soul-ful Shopping Mall at Jack London Square?

Governor taps ex-Davis aide as chief of staff First move in a shakeup
See, the governor can get his act together after all. Returning from China so he can look gubernatorial, the boss is out kicking butt. OOOOO- weeee. He looked so cute smiling on the front page with his anorexic wife last week.

Stem cell program wins key court ruling, poised to issue grants
Hey, hey, money is in the pipeline.

And todays paper breathes not one more word. Will there be a follow up story? Mind you that

According to documents filed in federal court, Cunningham began receiving bribes in 2000 as his seniority gave him political power to influence the awarding of defense contracts.

--[ SOURCE ]

Remember when Secretary of State Kevin Shelley was on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 2 straight months over a "scandal" in which a few $10,000 contribution checks came from owners of properties that were probably illegally benefiting from tax breaks. Rumor was the "deal" was quid pro quo. Shelley eventually resigned, but he was oddly never indited. The auditing board found minor discrepancies but nothing for which Shelley could be prosecuted.

By the way, it is the Secretary of State who has power over the contracts of voting machines and who is the final authority on all issues relating to voting. Shelley cancelled Diebold contracts after the 2003 recall farce when Diebold refused to answer legitimate questions over numerous "irregularities" and refused to allow the software to be inspected.

Shelley was also going around giving talks to various groups about banning the use of the machines. Go here

That's why Shelley was taken out, so they can put those corrupt machines in. That's why Shelley was a front-page reminder for damn near 2 months.

But Randall Cunningham,a sitting Congressional representative of San Diego indited for consistent bribery that aggregated into the millions gets one little bitty day on page 5.

Why wasn't this pic on the front page?

This happens all the time, week after week.

Can. It. Be. Any. More. Obvious.

Someone tell me the San Francisco Chronicle is not a front for the spin machine of the financial giants because I'm having a very difficult time believing otherwise.

I cannot support a mission that leads to corruption, human rights abuse, and liars.

I am sullied.

I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored.

Mr. Orrin Hatch, and various troglodytes in the Republican party have all stated that we can't bring the troops home until we finish the job.

What exactly is the job? To spend eight times the money so government contractors can make a bundle without doing "the job" they are supposed to be finishing. Most of the reconstruction funding has been eaten up by the high profit margins and sub-sub contracting processes of skimming funds -- Company A sub-contracts at 10% to company B who subcontracts at 10% to company C, which increases the cost by 1+.10 to the 3rd power ... an overall 33% increase just because C signed a paper that was routed through B and A.

This is not about government waste. This is about private firms being permitted to exploit the government by cronies and Bush administration officials AT THE EXPENSE OF THE INTEGRITY AND PURPOSE OF THE MISSION that was purported to be the reason for invading Iraq.

So for all you damn morons with concrete keeping your eyes closed, we were not invited by an Iraqi resistance movement to come save them from Saddam. The WMD reason was bullshit from the start. The damage created by our bombing alone nullifies whatever moral authority presumed by the United States because we were not invited nor attacked -- nor were we or anyone else threatened. So who was being intimidated by our big and bad "shock and awe" ferociousness? Women and children? Electric power plants and sewage treatment plants that have still not been rebuilt ?

I hear all those incredibly self-flattering talking points you offer, but how do you create a stable economy when the privatization process is importing workers and performing shabby service at high price? How do you create a stable democracy when the political process is completely corrupted by American bribery and intimidated by nationalist insurgents?

What a very different history our own nation would have had, if Spain had invaded the Colonies in lieu of "saving" us from the evil designs of King George? Recall that Spain owned Mexico during the 1760s. Would we call the rebels who formed roving bands "insurgents" ? Would we respect the constitution had it been written by a court appointed Spaniard who wrote various favorable codes into the document that favored Spanish merchants? Or if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had been on Spain's payroll -- like Chalabi and Allawi. What if Spain started importing Italians for labor instead of hiring colonists, or if colonial businesses had to compete with the large resource of invading Spain's corporations?

We have found the enemy. And the enemy is us.

It completely amazes me how arrogant and out-right presumptuous the idea that it was "our job" to invade Iraq in the name of freedom. Look at the history of the United States and the history of global military in general. How many times was there an unprovoked invasion which resulted in freedom? The United States "invaded" the Phillipines, Cuba, and Nicaragua in the early 20th Century, and all were followed by dictatorships and repressive regimes because of the priority of economic profit over the jargon of "liberty" that was uttered. We keep using the grand ole moral fervor of World War Two and D-Day as the prism through which all else is seen, but that was a reaction to the dangerous expansion of Japan and Germany.

This time it is us who is posturing before the world with militarist expansion. (The UN telling us what to do? HA! Phooey! "I don't care what you say. I'm gonna do it my way.") But the sad fact is we can't afford it, and yet there are some fools still trying proudly to justify themselves with chivalric episodes at the mighty expense of reality.