Author: Carnacki

Frequent liar and Republican ‘strategist’ Gary Abernathy, who took the trouble to delete the entire Aug. 8 edition of the Republican Gazette after he was caught in a blatant lie, still doesn’t get it when it comes to casualties of the Iraq war.

Today Abernathy, the former executive director of the WV GOP, wrote in response to my earlier blog posts:

And while we’re on the subject of casualties…

A reader sends in a reminder that not only have the casualties in Iraq been far fewer than any other major U.S. war, but many individual battles have cost more lives than the entire Iraq war. For example:

Okinawa: 5,000 US Navy dead, 8,000 Army and Marines; Iwo Jima:  6,800 US dead; Battle of the Bulge: 80,000 US dead, wounded, captured; Anzio:  Allied VI Corps suffered 4,400 dead.

http://www.worldwar2…)

The Civil War also resulted in high casualty battles, (www.civilwarhome.com), including:  

Wilderness 17,666; Spotsylvania 10,920; Gettysburg 23,079; Second Manassas/Bull Run: 16,054; Stone’s River: 24,645. And Valley Forge winter deaths alone killed over 2,500.

(Incidentally, a couple of far left websites have become obsessed with drawing a response from me on this issue. I have little interest in engaging in a silly blog war, and no  interest at all in responding to bloggers who can hurl insults at me by name because I identify myself, while they do not have the courage to do the same.)

I guess there must have been a straw sale because he built a bunch of straw men to knock down.

You see, what Abernathy doesn’t get is it’s not the number of casualties that have troubled the American people. It’s the fact that the deaths were completely unnecessary.

Incidentally, when it comes to courage, I tried to enlist in the Army and Marines after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. I was too old. Did Abernathy? Did he encourage fellow chickenhawks who are still young enough to enlist like Vic Sprouse and Chris Stirewalt to sign up? If the chickenhawks think the Iraq war is important enough for others to die for, why haven’t they put their lives on the line?

(As a brief aside, I want to point out Abernathy adds hypocrite to his other titles since he whines about being insulted when he throws insults at others with great frequency. We’d insult him even if he was just a blog handle.)

By the way, I’m taking the trouble to quote his post since he might get mad and delete AGAIN an entire edition of the Republican Gazette to try to hide from his own words.

We’re not obsessed with drawing him into a blog fight. We’re serious about the truth and calling liars on their lies.

For those who haven’t followed the earlier posts, here’s a summary.

On Aug. 7, Abernathy wrote:

Did you know there were more military deaths under Clinton than under Bush?

Facts are a disturbing thing sometimes, but they do help to separate reality from fiction. While the media breathlessly reports every death in Iraq, statistics from the Department of Defense help put things in perspective.

As we all know, more than 3,600 soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. But the total number of active duty deaths during the Clinton years, from 1993 through 2000, totaled 7,514, an average of 939 per year, even without a major extended war. Even adding up all active military deaths under President Bush, the total so far is just over 7,000.

When I read it, I knew that couldn’t be true and only the most gullible would believe it (they’re out there. They’re called ‘Bush’s base.’).

A quick google search showed this was a rightwing talking point that he had used (see details here.) So I followed the link to his source and saw it was a 2005 Federation of American Scientists report using 2004 numbers. Now that certainly didn’t seem right to use such out of date numbers. So I added up the numbers of total deaths in combat and noncombat under President Clinton and the number he used was the same. But when I added up the numbers under Bush, they were not the “just over 7,000” Abernathy claimed. They were actually lower, 5,194. So either he added wrongly or he just made up a number or he got it from another source than the source he credited for the information. But why would someone use an out of date report when it took three seconds to find a current report from the Department of Defense’s own web site.

The numbers for the eight years Clinton was in office 7,500 total military deaths from combat, accidents, illnesses, etc. But the number under Bush by the end of 2006 was significantly higher, 8,712. So even adding in all military deaths for 2007 and 2008 The number under Bush was already significantly higher. Keep in mind what Abernathy claimed:

Did you know there were more military deaths under Clinton than under Bush?

Facts are a disturbing thing sometimes, but they do help to separate reality from fiction.

I separated reality from his fiction, described other flaws in his thinking (you can read all of it here) and that could have been the end of that.

But instead of dropping the issue, Abernathy compounded his lie on Aug. 8 when he wrote this:

As a follow up to yesterday’s item about the fact that the number of active duty military casualties under President Bush has not been that different than under President Clinton (Larry Messina has more up to date numbers on his blog), the chart at left serves as a reminder that Iraq is no Vietnam, or even Korea. (emphasis mine)

Now it’s plain to see, that’s not what he wrote originally. He had never claimed total military deaths “has not been that different.” He had claimed they were higher under Clinton. He “breathlessly” made a big deal that the numbers under Clinton were higher.

So he lied about his original lie. After I called him on it here and here, the Aug. 8 edition of the Republican Gazette disappeared from his web site, purged into the memory hole.

So why is this important? There are many reasons, but I’ll name just a few (I do have to sleep sometimes).

1. Truth is important. It was Bush and Cheney’s lies that got us into the

Iraq debacle, but they were enabled by those willing to repeat their lies, and also those not willing to speak out enough for the truth.

2. Gary Abernathy himself. As I wrote the other day:

From an American standpoint, the most important one, I hope Abernathy wises up that the Iraq war is a losing proposition for all of us and that he would put the nation’s interests ahead of blind loyalty to Bush and that shrinking segment of his political party.

Elsewhere on his site, Abernathy posts, “What would Jesus do?”

Jesus would tell the truth. Also he’d tell you to work for peace not a war that is killing hundreds of thousands of his children. Then he’d tell you to go help the widows and the needy, to care for the poor and the sick, and for all of us to love one another.

As a Christian and a liberal I love Gary Abernathy. That doesn’t mean the s.o.b. doesn’t disappoint me as a human being though.

.

Abernathy complains he’s insulted because his name is known. Rubbish! We’d insult him if he were just known by an online handle. He’s the one who chose to blog under his name to give his blog the cachet of coming from the former executive director of the West Virginia GOP. That is similar to all of the Michael O’Hanlons and Ken Pollacks and Bill Kristols who are well-known names who are able to spout inanities and some people believe them because they are well known people. But many of us choose to blog anonymously because not only is there a proud tradition of writing political views under assumed names (Ben Franklin being the most famous and best), but also because when we write anonymously our work has to be judged not by who we are, but on the strength of our own writing and research. Anonymity allows garbage collectors to compete with academics on an equal footing in the marketplace of ideas and have their work judged on its own merits and not by the fanciness of the titles possessed. As so many inhabitants of think tanks have shown, titles and academic degrees do not guarantee intelligence nor wisdom.

3. The most important point is this: the numbers are not merely numbers. There are actual human beings behind them. Abernathy touts the low number of deaths from the Iraq war compared to those killed in other wars and other battles as if the dead are merely points on a scorecard.

But Abernathy is comparing the number of casualties from World War II and the Civil War as if that is relevant to the Iraq debacle. He is completely wrong for doing that. The American people did not turn against World War II despite the high number of casualties because the people determined the cost was worth it. The American people turned against the Iraq debacle not just because of the casualty figures, but because they have come to the conclusion that all of the deaths have been so unnecessary. I am convinced that if the nation was suffering the same level of casualties in Afghanistan going after Osama bin Laden, the American people would still be supporting Bush. But he invaded Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, did not possess WMDs and diverted valuable resources from the hunt for bin Laden.

It is not just a question of the numbers by themselves. It is the context in which the deaths occurred. While I do not mean to be too “insulting,” I find it hard to believe Abernathy is that stupid not to realize that which leads me to believe his motive is to deceive his own readers.

But they are not just statistics. He may call me “obsessed,” but I will not allow the honored dead to be turned into points on his war scorecard. These are human beings. They are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, even grandfathers being lost. They are neighbors and best friends.

Perhaps if Abernathy spent more time reading about their lives and less time trying to defend the indefensible, he would realize that. Perhaps he would take a step like many decent Republicans like decorated Vietnam War Army veteran Rep. Wayne Gilchrest have taken and oppose the endless occupation.

You see, Abernathy would like to think this is about a blog war. No, it’s about a real war where real lives are lost.

Their lives are remembered each night on one of those “far left sites” (that happen to holds the same view on issues from reproductive rights to the Iraq war as the majority of the American people).

On Aug. 7, when Abernathy wrote about the total military deaths, here were the soldiers featured by my “far left” blog mate monkeybiz:

Look at this face. When I look at Pfc. Jaron Holliday, I see some mother’s son, and what he might have looked like through years of pictures taken at Christmas and birthday parties. A paratrooper, yes, but also a brother and a friend:

(Alec Atchison) got the news of Holliday’s death in an e-mail over the weekend. And ever since he says, snippets of memories of mission trips with the church have been popping into his mind, a conversation here or a practical joke there.

(snip)

“I’m sure the biggest way he’d want to be remembered, first and foremost as far as the type of person he was, is how much he cared about his family and loved his family. He was really great with his little brothers and sister,” Atchison said.

For those who weep tonight for the fallen — Tech. Sgt. Joey D. Link; Lance Cpl. Cristian Vasquez; Sgt. Dustin S. Wakeman; Cpl. Jason K. Lafleur; and Pfc. Jaron D. Holliday – may there be some measure of healing and peace, soon. May they see the memories of their loved ones clearly through their tears. May we all remember.

Abernathy made his point not just about the war dead, but total military deaths, those who die in accidents and from illness.

Yesterday, Jeff Latas wrote about his hero, his son on another “far left” site.

I first wrote about Jesse 22 months ago in a diary, My Hero is Coming Home.

Nearly a week has passed since the funeral and nearly two weeks since Jesse’s death. I know what people mean when they say that they can’t imagine losing a child, but it happened to me. The door to Jesse’s physical life has now been shut, forever. The door to Jesse’s emotional life I choose to keep slightly open. I keep it open because I know part of him is with me and part of me died with him. I know he will never be here with me physically. Emotionally, it is another story

Jesse was just starting to develop his outlook as an adult on the world. He was very courageous fighting off leukemia as a 17-year-old, building his health to achieve his young adult goal of joining the Army. He had to join the Reserve because the regular military services would not allow him to join until after five years of remission. He joined the 208th Transportation Company only one year after he had completed his chemotherapy. Our then-18-year-old son assured us that the recruiter had promised that as long as Jesse attended college, he would not be deployed. I knew better. After over twenty years in the military, and seeing the condition in which this administration had left our forces, I knew that Jesse was “red meat” for deployment after he completed training. And that’s exactly what happened. Jesse shipped out the summer of 2005 for Iraq and three months later, after enduring the stresses of combat, heat, poor nutrition, and bad water, he relapsed.

Because he had no white blood cells and was susceptible to infection, his doctors had wanted him to be flown out by himself. But that morning, a convoy came under attack, and Jesse shared the med-evac flight to Germany with 52 severely wounded American soldiers.

When he got to Germany, I was able to speak with him for the first time, and I asked him how he felt, and he said, “Lucky. Those other guys are a lot worse off than I am.”

snip

His wonderful doctors could never completely fix this problem, and were about to reverse the transplant when Jesse succumbed to pneumonia 21 months after his relapse and 16 months after the transplant. He was put in intensive care, heavily sedated and never recovered after three weeks of fighting infections that attacked his lungs, liver, bone marrow, and kidneys. Salette, our daughter, Virginia, and I were with him when he died.

I keep looking through that emotional door that remains ajar. I see a rich life experience that many of our fellow countrymen have never had and will never have. Not many can have the same outlook on our foreign policy in the Middle East as he had. Jesse was never in favor of the actions taken by Bush in invading Iraq and after he witnessed the carnage, he knew there was something drastically wrong. He was with me during my campaign for U.S. Congress and when he could join us on the trail, he would. He loved the debates and forums and always gave me feedback from a point of view of a young war veteran.

Through this door I can see the special love Jesse had. He never complained about his personal pain and suffering. He never asked, “Why me?”  Through his experience, he made me a better person. He showed unbelievable courage through this test of his life. But he showed much more compassion, something I didn’t see until near the end. He loved life, but he loved others more.

Abernathy is treating them like points on a war scorecard. They are not. They are the honored dead.

May they rest in peace and may God bless their families and hold them close while we fight like hell for those still living.

Crossposted from West Virginia Blue.

Frequent liar and Republican “strategist” Gary Abernathy, who sadly is becoming even less connected to the truth than when he was executive director of the WV GOP, still hasn’t posted a correction to this post where he clearly made up numbers comparing military deaths under President Bill Clinton to under Mr. George W. Bush and President Dick Cheney.

Abernathy can’t even claim that he remains ignorant or mistaken about the correct number because he links to Lawrence Messina’s post which does have the correct numbers.

(Strangely Abernathy does not link to my post which was the first to point out falseness of his numbers even though he awarded West Virginia Blue a “Thinking Blogger” award not so long ago.)

The only acknowledgement he obliquely makes to the numbers is:

As a follow up to yesterday’s item about the fact that the number of active duty military casualties under President Bush has not been that different than under President Clinton (Larry Messina has more up to date numbers on his blog), the chart at left serves as a reminder that Iraq is no Vietnam, or even Korea.

Abernathy is lying once again. At least now he’s inadvertantly answered the question did he intentionally lie when he originally posted the false numbers or was he simply foolish when he claimed that total military deaths under Clinton were higher than under Bush. He got busted making up the number for Bush. Now he’s trying to claim that the numbers between the two “have not been different.” That’s not the point he made in his original post and there is a huge difference in the numbers.

Abernathy can include any number of casualties from other wars. That will not change the fact that the Iraq war was unnecessary. Bush never finished the job in Afghanistan before launching his illegal war. Bush never made a compelling and honest case to the American people about the Iraq war. He lied about the intelligence in 2002 and he continues to lie about it now.

Abernathy does not even bother trying to make a case that the casualties from the Iraq war are necessary because he’s smart enough to know that case cannot be made.

So instead he tries misdirection and writes:

One can only imagine how quickly we might have abandoned World War II if the country had been subjected then to today’s liberal network newscasts, or Democrat presidential candidates who worry mostly about whether the rest of the world likes us.

Liberal network newscasts? Have you seen any of the horrific images of the war on the nightly news casts? I certainly haven’t. More network news time is devoted to the bizarre behavior of Britney Spears (a Bush supporter, by the way) than to showing footage from Iraq. In World War II, a question arose of whether the military censors should allow Life magazine to publish gruesome photos of the American dead in the aftermath of combat on a Pacific island. President Franklin D. Roosevelt told them to print it. The American people deserved to see the sacrifices that our soldiers were being called upon to make. Yet Bush has ordered that the dead returning from Iraq to Dover Air Force Base must be kept hidden from the American people and the media has complied.

So what is Abernathy really calling for, a complete news blackout from Iraq? Is he for hiding the war and hoping voters will forget what is occurring there? Because the American people turned against this war even when Fox News and other networks were acting as the administration’s cheerleaders.

The American people concluded on their own the Iraq war has not been worth the price in lives lost, soldiers maimed and money spent.

I believe that the American people would have accepted much higher casualties than the 3,600 lost in Iraq if the cause were just.

But we will never know because Bush took his eye off Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and diverted the vast majority of the nation’s armed might against a nation that had not attacked us on Sept. 11.

Perhaps the American people would have accepted the same level of losses as in World War II if necessary to get bin Laden when he was in Afghanistan.

We don’t know. But the majority of the American people have concluded that the lives lost in Iraq have not been worth it. Abernathy can make up any numbers he wants — but he can’t change the facts.

Anyone who knows my blog probably could guess I loved reading the Weekly World News in the supermarket checkout line (admittedly I’m too cheap to buy it). (See here and here on the late WWN editor Leskie Pinson, whose widow emailed me afterwards her appreciation).

With the announced closing of it later this month, mainstream newspapers are writing about the demise of it with a blindspot more obvious than Bigfoot riding atop a UFO piloted by Elvis Presley.

From the Washington   Post:

“12 U.S. SENATORS ARE SPACE ALIENS!”

In 1999, somebody taped that WWN story to a wall in the Senate press gallery, where it amused the press corps, although some scribes griped that the paper had underestimated the number of aliens in the Senate by at least three or four. Reporters loved the Weekly World News. Many fantasized about working for it and casting aside the tired old conventions of journalism, such as printing facts.

Hahaha. Peter Carlson can write that without tongue in cheek in the same newspaper where Fred Hiatt is the editorial page editor?!? Talk about irony!

The Hartford Courant publishes an appreciation of the Weekly World News.

Like every newspaper, the WWN has been covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As usual, it has had some exclusives, such as “VAMPIRES ATTACK U.S. TROOPS: Army of undead taking over mountains of Afghanistan!” and “SATAN CAPTURED BY GIs IN IRAQ!”

Where will we get stories like these after the WWN is gone?

Oh I don’t know. Many editorial pages such as The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, the National Review and the New York Times regularly publish accounts of the certainty of WMDs in Iraq and now upbeat accounts from there so while more deadly and less entertaining, fictional stories in newspapers and cable news will continue long after the Weekly World News is gone.

Crossposted from West Virginia Blue.

I made it to the West Virginia United town hall meeting last night in Charles Town.

About 50 people (48 to be exact) were there from Berkeley and Jefferson counties, including a representative from Senator Robert C. Byrd’s office (I meant to get his card and forgot) and Ryan Unger, State Sen. John Unger’s brother, who was representing him. A lot of familiar, friendly faces, Bill, John, Demetri, Lynn, Judy and Liz.

The speakers were Larry Matheney of the WV AFL-CIO, Gary Zuckett of West Virginia Citizens Action and The Rev. Jim Lewis of West Virginia Patriots for Peace. I fear I offended Rev. Lewis when he mentioned how Rubberstamp Rep. Shelley Moore Capito had met with other Republicans with Mr. George W. Bush at the White House to express her “concerns” about the Iraq war.

“Oh please,” I said loudly from the back of the room, not meaning to say anything aloud, but caught off guard by his remark. He should know better than to believe anything she says.

After all, we’ve had this same song and dance routine from Capito in November 2006 and December 2006 and January 2007 and February 2007. Capito says one thing, expressing “concern” about the war. Then she’ll vote to keep the troops there as long as necessary to avoid embarrassing Bush. Even as she expresses her “concerns,” she’ll criticize anyone who says anything negative about the endless occupation and that any discussion of pulling the troops out or even shortening their rotations only emboldens the “terrorists,” who apparently are the same people we’re training and arming one day and fighting the next. So Rev. Lewis can think I’m cynical if he likes, but it’s just being realistic about Capito based on her past behavior.

Ted Boettner of the Mountain State Education & Research was on the agenda as a speaker but didn’t attend. I was disappointed because I was hoping to meet him.

Also met a smart young man from the Student Environmental Action Coalition. I’m hoping he posts some environmental diaries.

Overall the meeting was on social justice and healthcare, but many of the issues overlap considerably and the activists, including Rev. Lewis, recognize how they are interconnected. For instance, getting out of Iraq, where we’ve already spent $1.2 billion just of West Virginia tax payer dollars alone on an unnecessary war would free up funding to pay for health coverage for all Americans.

Many of these issues lend themselves to natural alliances from different interest groups and it’s good West Virginia United is holding these townhall meetings to bring people together.

Nearly 50 people at a meeting to discuss policy issues on a Monday night in a Charles Town firehall is a not insignificant number. Not surprisingly, no one from the Martinsburg Journal was there so this, as with many news events that happen in the area, will be news to them.

One has to wonder if Republican “strategist” Gary Abernathy is really stupid or a liar.

To be honest, it’s hard to tell. Probably a combination of both.

In one of his latest entries, Abernathy plagarizes an old Republican talking point that’s already been debunked.

Did you know there were more military deaths under Clinton than under Bush?

Facts are a disturbing thing sometimes, but they do help to separate reality from fiction. While the media breathlessly reports every death in Iraq, statistics from the Department of Defense help put things in perspective.

As we all know, more than 3,600 soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. But the total number of active duty deaths during the Clinton years, from 1993 through 2000, totaled 7,514, an average of 939 per year, even without a major extended war. Even adding up all active military deaths under President Bush, the total so far is just over 7,000.

Where to begin with Abernathy?

First off, he’s plagarizing and passing off a lie as original. No where does he mention the point has been raised before, most noteably by the New York Sun’s Alicia Colon, who raised this in February.

But maybe he doesn’t mention his argument’s lack of originality because it’s a talking point already debunked.

From Salon:

“The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens,” Colon wrote. “Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That’s 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who’s counting?”

With a tip of the hat to Andrew Sullivan, who has already done some of the legwork on this, we’d like to point out the irrelevance of the statistics Colon cites. In fact, when you look at the data provided by the Defense Department, you’ll notice that almost none of the deaths during the Clinton administration — just 76 over an eight-year period — were from hostile action or terrorism. The rest were the result of accident, homicide, illness or suicide or were of an as-yet-undetermined nature.

These noncombat deaths have not simply stopped happening. There are still noncombat deaths going on in the military, and they are, for the most part, kept as a separate tally from the deaths in Iraq. (To be fair, some of the deaths — about 16 percent — that have occurred in Iraq are similarly not the result of hostile action.) The absolute number of deaths that have happened as a result of our invasion of Iraq may not be astoundingly high, but they are still deaths entirely above and beyond those that would happen in the course of normal peacetime military business, and that’s not something Colon factors into her argument at all. Military deaths have spiked upward from the final years of the Clinton administration. In 1999, there were 796 total military deaths; in 2000, there were 758; in 2003, there were 1,410; and in 2004, there were 1,887.

So he’s using a debunked talking point.

But it’s worse than that. Abernathy is using different numbers. Although he lists the Federation of American Scientists’ web site as his source, those numbers don’t say what he claims they say if a reader actually follows his link. The site he lists ends military deaths under Bush in 2004. Add them up and the answer comes to 5,194 since it just includes 2001 to 2004 under Bush – not “just over 7,000.” He’d have to answer why he linked to that site since the numbers don’t say what he claims.

So where did he get his numbers? I don’t know. So let’s go straight to the Department of Defense. There’s the link so you can see where I got my numbers from to add them up and confirm this for yourself.

Total deaths – combat and noncombat – from 1993 to 2000: 7,500.

That’s an average of  937 deaths per year in President Clinton’s eight years. Most of those deaths as you can see from the Department of Defense chart were from accidents. In any given year with a population the size of the military’s there will be accidental deaths, particularly when such hazardous equipment and training is involved. But as you can see from the numbers, the number of deaths from accidents in the military actually declined each year, from 1,213 in 1993 to 758 in 2000. That last number isn’t an anomoly. You can see for yourself that all deaths had declined each year under President Clinton.

So let’s look at the number of all military deaths under Mr. George W. Bush, which Abernathy claims is “just over 7,000.”

(Of course, none of those deaths involve chickenhawk war supporter who won’t enlist in a war they claim to support.)

What does the Department of Defense say the number is?

Total deaths – combat and noncombat – from 2001 to 2006: 8,792.

That’s not me calling Gary Abernathy a liar or fool. That’s the Department of Defense proving he’s a liar or a fool.

That’s an average of 1,465 military deaths per year from 2001 to 2006.

That’s not even counting the deaths in 2007, which have increased significantly with the escalation of the occupation. That’s not counting the deaths – combat and noncombat – that will occur in 2008 to equal the eight years Abernathy compares to Clinton’s figures.

There’s an additional 576 combat and noncombat deaths in Iraq alone this year through June 30, not counting accidental deaths in the United States or casualties in Afghanistan and other nations.

Now, is Abernathy claiming 9,368 plus an unknown more is “just over 7,000” (note his lack of specifics) because he’s lying or just plain stupid? Only Abernathy can answer that. And considering his track record, I doubt if we should trust his answer.

Post script:
This isn’t the first time I’ve caught Abernathy making things up.

“Montani semper liberi.” Official West Virginia motto. (Mountaineers are always free.)

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin.

Too many Democrats capitulated to give the White House unprecedented extra-legal authority to spy on American citizens without even the thin veneer of oversight that the FISA court provides for such warrants.

Yet four out of five of the West Virginia caucus voted against the new wiretap bill.

Senator Robert C. Byrd. Senator Jay Rockefeller. Rep. Alan Mollohan. Rep. Nick Rahall.

None of them are on the Wall of Shame of Democrats who would give up a “little liberty to gain a little security.”

At West Virginia Blue, One Citizen and I are having a lively debate on whether Senator Rockefeller should have done more.

I’m in the unusual position of defending Senator Rockefeller – unusual because I’m normally the one calling for him to do more in regards to the torture issue.

Here’s what Senator Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, offered in his bill, which considering what was passed, now looks much better in hindsight:

“The Administration has offered a proposal that would instead permanently grant the Attorney General excessive surveillance powers by giving him sole authority to direct surveillance while completely removing the FISA Court from the process.  That is simply unacceptable.

“The FISA Court must continue to play an essential role in authorizing surveillance and overseeing its execution.  They are the trusted steward of FISA, and they can and must be a part of any new streamlined approach.  The proposal we put forward maintains the essential role of the FISA Court while also giving our intelligence officials additional tools to strengthen their hand against terrorists.  We need the Administration to act quickly if we are going to pass this critical piece of legislation in the next few days,” Rockefeller said.

The interim proposed by Senator Rockefeller and others seeks to:

Ø Reinforce that foreign-to-foreign collection is not covered by FISA, consistent with current law;

Ø Ensure that FISA Court, not solely the Attorney General, has oversight role where foreign target surveillance touches on individuals inside the U.S.;

Ø Grant FISA Court new authority for court orders covering certain aggregated foreign collection while protecting rights and privacy of U.S. persons;

Ø Ensure continued FISA Court approval of guidelines and procedures for minimizing U.S. identities and determining the point at which initial foreign collection transitions to cover U.S. persons of interest (thereby triggering individual probable cause warrant requirements);

Ø Maintain FISA Court authority to compel compliance from telecommunications companies; and

Ø Set forth a firm legislative sunset date to ensure continued action on more lasting comprehensive FISA reforms.

Earlier this year, the Senate Intelligence Committee began work on the issue of modernizing FISA with the overarching goal of improving foreign intelligence collection, protecting civil liberties, and preventing this or any future President from ever abusing surveillance laws again.

Unfortunately, the Committee has been hampered in its ability to address FISA modernization because the Administration has refused to provide key documents at the heart of the warrantless surveillance program: the Presidential orders authorizing the program and the Department of Justice opinions on the legality of the program. (emphasis mine)

All but one of the West Virginia Congressional delegation voted against the terrible legislation that passed.

That legislator, Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, not only voted for the bill but co-sponsored it.

She would rather crawl on her belly in terror than stand up for the U.S. Constitution.

From the Beckley Register-Herald:

Rather than protect Americans, Capito said, the law in reality is placing an unintended shield around terrorists.

“Our system should be protecting the rights of Americans, not those of overseas terrorists plotting to kill Americans,” she said.

She knows – and the stenographer “reporter” quoting her probably also knows – that nothing in the old law or in Rockefeller’s version, would have prevented the wiretapping of those overseas.

All the bill does that she support is to now allow the Bush-Cheney administration to wiretap the phonecalls of Americans now without a search warrant.

To quote Benjamin Franklin again, who knew what it was like to live in dangerous times, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Here is the worst of it. The Constitutional protection of requiring a search warrant was not a right that belonged to Capito and the Republicans and the shameful Democrats who went along with them to give up.

That was a right under our government that the Revolutionary soldiers fought for and suffered for. They knew what it was like to have government intrusion into their homes without a warrant. That right surrended to by Capito and other capitulators in Congress did not belong to them. It belonged by blood and death and sweat and toil to all of us.

Capito is going to be well-financed by the corporate interests because she rubberstamps their legislation. She is going to be backed by the Republican Party since she is a reliable rubberstamp to even their most extremist rightwing agenda.

But we can fight back. We have a Democratic challenger, State Sen. John Unger, who can side with the rest of the West Virginia delegation to Congress in standing up for us.

Are you mad at those who voted for capitulation? Send someone to Congress who won’t crawl in terror, but will stand up for the Constitution.

Help us elect John Unger to Congress so that Mountaineers will always be free.

Also in Orange.

Some of you know that about 2:30 a.m. on Saturday, I had a dreadful occurrance.

So when I last left you, I posted about my leg injury from Friday evening.

I spent the evening with my right leg elevated and on ice on the sofa. My leg was aching and I couldn’t sleep so I stayed up blogging and surfing web sites to distract myself. I was still up about 2:30 a.m. when Lucy, who was laying on the floor beside me, jumped up and barked and raced towards my oldest daughter’s room. A neighbor’s dog was barking off in the distance in that general direction and I didn’t think anything of it other than a brief moment of worry that Lucy would wake my daughter.

As I mentioned last week, we got Lucy at the shelter a week ago Saturday. She’s nearly 10 years old and 100 pounds. She’s a Lab-Shepherd mix with maybe some Collie as well. She’s black except for some gray around her muzzle and her eyes. She’s also the best. dog. ever.

She is the best because Saturday morning, Ms. Carnacki was helping my 9-year-old daughter straighten up her room when she noticed the screen window was up. It had been hot and my daughter had slept with the window open because the air conditioner in the other window is old and noisy and needs to be replaced. But the screen shouldn’t have been up and she asked the other children if they had raised it and they said they hadn’t so I came over to look and outside I saw the large red wagon had been pulled over to underneath the window.

As if someone had pulled it over so he could step on it to help climb in.

We know Lucy frightened off the person. We called the deputies and they came and took a report and left a message for the midnight crew to patrol the neighborhood.

But someone tried to enter my daughter’s room. A 9-year-old girl.

The next night, as I sat in the darkness of her room for hours hoping for the burglar’s return, one of the things that came to my mind was how the event was like a microcosm of national events which led me to this:

Carnacki vs. Bush

1. Early response to warnings
Bush: Richard Clarke, members of President Clinton’s national security team warned of impending danger, but Bush ignored the warnings. Counter-terrorism budget cuts planned and no high level administration meetings held by chair Dick Cheney.

Carnacki: Ignored Lucy’s initial bark. Assumed new dog was barking aimlessly at neighbor dog.

Advantage: wash.

2. Additional warnings
Bush: Aug. 6 PDB warned bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S. Bush tells briefer he covered his ass and then Bush went back to clearing brush on his brush farm.

Carnacki: Deputies advise moving daughters’ bedrooms upstairs and taking other security precautions. The suggestions are promptly followed and action taken in response to impending danger.

Advantage: Carnacki.

3. Reaction to danger
Bush: Tells American people to be frightened and to go shopping and he has to cut taxes for the wealthy to keep them safe. American people react in fear, most from terrorism threat, some from deficit threat. A few are frightened by nation’s excessive consumerism.

Carnacki: Tells children that deputies were there because of the window, but they had no reason to worry because parents and police would protect them. No suggestion of shopping. Children go back to playing and no signs of fear from them.

Advantage: Carnacki.

4. Response to attack
Bush: Tells the American people mastermind of the attack, Osama bin Laden, would be brought to justice. About six months later, Bush tells the American people Osama bin Laden is irrelevant and he does not know where he is and does not think about him that much.

Carnacki: Tells wife he’ll do all he can to bring resolution to the situation. Stays up the following night hoping for the intruder’s return and stays up much too late on following nights in effort to keep home safe and wife feeling secure and has not stopped thinking of ways to eliminate the threat of the intruder.

Advantage: Carnacki.

5. Action taken
Bush: Invades Afghanistan in effort to catch Osama bin Laden in October 2001 then the following month orders the general in charge of operation to kill or capture bin Laden to begin making plans for an invasion of Iraq, which had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attack, diverting more than $600 million and countless other resources intended for hunt for bin Laden. Invades a nation that had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attack, which inadvertantly becomes big recruiting boost for terrorist organization.

Carnacki: Guards the home, but does not invade neighbor’s house, killing him and turning his family into refugees, since they had nothing to do with the intrusion.
Advantage: Carnacki.

6. Treatment of allies
Bush: Angers other nations by insistance on unilateralism and disregard for international treaties, laws and human rights. Long-time ally France mocked, Britain treated as second-class partner.

Carnacki: Grills steak and chops it up and feeds pieces to Lucy, making her one very, very happy dog. Tells everyone she’s the best dog in the whole world and means it.

Advantage: Carnacki.

Crossposted at West Virginia Blue.
Osama spin Laden

Mr. George W. Bush, March 13, 2002:

Q  Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden.  Why is that?  Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?  Final part  —  deep in your heart, don’t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won’t really eliminate the threat of  —

THE PRESIDENT:  Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all.  Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time.  And the idea of focusing on one person is —  really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person.  And he’s just  —  he’s a person who’s now been marginalized.  His network, his host government has been destroyed.  He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.  He is  —  as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide  —  if, in fact, he’s hiding at all.

So I don’t know where he is.  You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.

snip

Q  But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him.  And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure.  And, again, I don’t know where he is.  I  —  I’ll repeat what I said.  I truly am not that concerned about him.

Mr. Bush, July 17, 2007:

These killers in Iraq, people who will kill innocent life to stop the advent of democracy, people who are trying to get on our TV screens on a daily basis to drive us have got ambitions and plans. These people have sworn allegiance to the very same man who ordered the attack on September the 11th, 2001, Osama bin Laden.

Crossposted at West Virginia Blue.

I’ve watched with bemusement at the effort by supporters of vulnerable Rep. Shelley Moore Capito to throw mud at State Sen. John Unger only to have it splash back on Capito.

The latest effort by Capito’s supporters to protect their vulnerable Rubberstamp Republican has been to criticize what Unger does for a living and make it sound like there is controversy where none exists.

Now considering how badly the last effort by the right worked, you would think they would learn.  Of course, they don’t. They’re rightwingers.

Jake Stump of the conservative-leaning Charleston Daily Mail does a good job debunking the latest smear effort by the rightwingers.

Unger acknowledges he has what some might consider a vague, confusing job title. He’s senior adviser of homeland security and economic development for the National Energy Technology Laboratory, part of the U.S. Department of Energy with offices in Morgantown.

But he is an employee of EG&G, a Gaithersburg, Md.-based national defense contractor that provides engineering and technical services. The company provides direct-labor employees who are paid based on their performance with contracted clients.

Now some of Unger’s critics are too stupid to understand the complexities of federal government contracting. But others are simply Republican political hacks who know they haven’t found any dirt to throw at Unger so they have to make it up through implication.

But like an earlier effort, see here for an example – their efforts end up unintentionally making Capito look bad.

Here’s Stump on how Unger got the job:

An employee at the National Energy Technology Laboratory recommended him for the EG&G job, Unger said.

“I’m not a federal employee, but I work with federal officials,” he said. “The reason I don’t talk much about the particulars of the job is because we’re dealing with sensitive materials and homeland security.”

The senator said he believes the company tapped him not because of his political background, but for his experiences overseas.

He has worked with Mother Teresa in India during monsoons and riots in 1990. There he coordinated the distribution of relief supplies.

Before that, he worked for the United States Refugee Program in Hong Kong and helped Vietnamese refugee children there.

He’s also aided in disaster relief efforts in Turkey and Iraq, where he has traveled twice.

Unger said those experiences provided him with knowledge concerning international relations and security.

“Part of our training in Iraq dealt with security,” Unger said. “When you’re working with government in the area of human relief, there’s a large component of security.”

In other words, the Rhodes scholar Unger not only can speak knowledgeably on homeland security issues, he already has experience at international issues. Plus he did missionary work which shows he cares compassionately about people.

Compare that experience to Capito’s, whose only qualification before her election in 2000 was she was former Gov. Arch Moore’s daughter and she has a pleasant smile.

In an earlier smear attempt, Republican strategist Gary Abernathy tried to put words in the mouth of Unger’s friend and WEPM cohost Chris Strovel to make up dirt on Unger even though Strovel had said nothing critical about Unger.

Just like before, there is nothing there.

You don’t  have to take my word for it. Thanks to Stump’s reporting you can hear it from Unger’s employer:

Brent Armstrong, vice president of the Energy, Environment and Health Services Department at EG&G, confirmed Unger’s employment with the company.

“He is earning a living,” Armstrong said. “I’m not sure what the confusion is.”

Two specific projects Unger is contracted to work on with the laboratory include the modern grid initiative, which updates the nation’s electricity system, and ensuring that infrastructure is in place for securing energy supplies.

Armstrong said he’s heard no complaints from the laboratory regarding Unger’s job performance. Unger is required to submit monthly progress reports on each project.

“I don’t care who they are,” Armstrong said. “If they’re not cutting the mustard, they won’t have a job. He’s been doing a job the client is very pleased with.”

Unger makes his employer happy. He’s knowledgeable and experienced at national security issues, energy issues, and international issues.

Capito has a pleasant smile. She’s probably quite personable to talk with. People say she’s quite devoted to her family. I’ve never questioned that.

But as a Rubberstamp Republican, she has shown poor judgement time after time and as a continued supporter of occupying Iraq in the midst of a complex sectarian civil war that is bankrupting the country and making us less secure, she has blood on her hands. She has failed to show the wisdom of our other Congressional representatives Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall on Iraq. She has floundered as a Congressional representative, allying herself with suspected criminals like Republicans Tom Delay (she was the largest recipient of his illegal PAC contributions) and Mark Foley (she formed a political action committee with him even while he cyberstalked underage male pages and she served on the Page Board that was to protect them). Did she intentionally ally herself with so many Republicans now caught up in criminal scandals? Real scandals unlike the ones the rightwingers keep trying to make up about Unger. I don’t know what is in her heart.

I do know that Unger is knowledgeable and makes his employer happy with the work he does and as a constituent of WV-02 I want to hire him to represent all of us in the District in Congress in 2008.

Crossposted from West Virginia Blue where we don’t hesitate to criticize our beloved Democrats, but we also point out when they were damn well right.

Before the invasion of Iraq and throughout the administration of Mr. George W. Bush and President Dick Cheney, Senator Robert C. Byrd did much to atone for his past and was one of the greatest advocates for wisdom and reasoned debate at a time when it was much needed and terribly lacking.

Now that the Iraq war is costing the United States $10 billion per month (plus an additional $2 billion per month for Afghanistan) when the neocons were testifying on Capitol Hill before the invasion the entire war would cost $10 billion, it is worth returning to the words of wisdom from Senator Byrd.

From his Feb. 26, 2003 speech:

A swift and simple military victory certainly is one possibility, but in our democratic-Republic the Administration also has a responsibility to inform the American people that much less pleasant scenarios are also possible and even likely.  The Congress has a responsibility to explore all possible scenarios with an eye to the eventual costs of this war.  We must not just accept the rosy projections so far offered by the Administration.  Frankly, I have seen little effort by either the Administration or the Congress to inform the taxpayer about the likely costs of this war.

In both dollars and human lives, the Administration has been ominously quiet about its internal calculations and estimates.  What is even worse is that the Congress has barely bothered to ask about them.

snip

This is a dangerous and damaging game the Administration is playing with the American public.  Glossing over the cost of a war with Iraq may make it easier to win short-term support.  But without any serious attention to costs, the American people cannot be engaged in a fulsome public discussion about the eventual wisdom of undertaking this war.  Public support cannot be sustained to accomplish our post-war goals in Iraq if the nation has been misled about the duration and difficulty of such a conflict.  We cannot treat the citizens of this nation as if they are children who must be fed a fairy tale about fighting a glorious war of “liberation” which will be cheap, short and bloodless.  If the President is going to force this nation to engage in this unwise, potentially disastrous, and alarmingly expensive commitment, he must lay out all of the costs and risks to the nation.

What is particularly worrisome is how naively the idea of establishing a perfect democracy in Iraq is being tossed around by this Administration.  If the Administration engages in such a massive undertaking without the American people understanding the real costs and long-term commitment that will be required to achieve this bucolic vision, our efforts in Iraq could end with chaos in the region.  Chaos, poverty, hopelessness, hatred – – that’s exactly the kind of  environment that becomes a fertile breeding ground for terrorists.

The Administration is asking the American public and the international community to support this war.  The Administration must also put all of its cards on the table.  A list of real risks and downsides do the nation no good locked in Donald Rumsfeld’s desk drawer.  They must be brought into the sunshine for the people to assess.

The American people are willing to embrace a cause when they judge it to be noble and both its risks and its benefits are explained honestly to them.  But if information is withheld, long-term political support can never be sustained.  Once the order is given and the bombs start falling, the lives of American troops and innocent civilians on the ground hang in the balance.  Once “boots are on the ground,” concerns about the monetary cost of war necessarily take a back seat.  This nation will not shortchange the safety of our fighting men and women once they are in harms way.

But our people and this Congress should not have to wait until our troops are sent to fight to know what we are facing, including the painful costs of this war in dollars, political turmoil, and blood.

In a democratic-Republic, secrecy has no place.  Hiding information from the public to rally support behind a war, at the very time when the government should be striving for maximum trust will eventually undermine our nation’s strength.  This conflict will be paid for with the people’s treasure and the people’s blood.  This is no time to affront that sacrifice with beltway spin and secrecy.

If only more people had listened to Senator Byrd.