“[B]y definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”  Yes, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice pulled the Nixonian defense when asked whether waterboarding is torture.  Rice was caught up again when a fourth grader from Bethesda asked the following question during the former Secretary’s first public appearance since leaving office. 

What did Rice think about the things President Obama’s administration was saying about the methods the Bush administration had used to get information from detainees?  

This time however Rice had honed her story a bit.  She first expressed how terrified the administration was that America would be attacked again and then went on to say that she did not pull the Nixonian defense in her prior statement on this topic but had misspoke.  What she had meant to say was the president would never authorize an action that was in violation of the Convention Against Torture….yea right!  We’ll take the first honest, unprepared answer thank you.  Rice also claimed as her defense in the prior statement that she merely “conveyed the information” to the appropriate actors but played no part in the actual decision to waterboard detainees.  What we did find out is that Rice is clearly not an attorney nor is she informed as to what is considered a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture and the lack of defenses thereof.  We have included the relevant sections and non-defenses for her to study before her next press outing.

United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 

PART 1 -Article 1:    Definition of Torture

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

PART 1 – Article II:   No Defenses

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Dick Cheney and his daughter have been all over the networks cheerleading how the waterboarding interrogation methods condoned by the Bush administration worked and produced reliable intelligence that thwarted alleged subsequent attacks in the United States following 9/11.  There have been several easily verifiable facts that disprove the Cheney family conclusion.  In addition, Col. Steven Kleinman, an experienced military interrogator, disagrees with Cheney’s pronouncements that waterboarding works.  Col. Kleinman, an actual member of the military and experienced interrogator who fought in Iraq, says that enhanced interrogation techniques torture does not produce actionable intelligence.  See an excerpt of interview below.   Or listen to the entire interview here.

SIEGEL: SERE. Explain what that was.

KLEINMAN: SERE is an acronym for survival, evasion, resistance and escape, and specifically, what we’re talking about here is resistance-to-interrogation training, which is a very formal set of strategies and methods to resist hostile interrogation.

The origins of this as I understand it were during the Cold War — the U.S. trained its people in what might happen to them if they were taken hostage, say as POWs in Korea by the Chinese?

Precisely so. Even before the Korean War, during the Soviet show trials that occurred shortly after World War II, we as the U.S. government observed very odd and inexplicable behavior — people claiming to be CIA agents who weren’t on the CIA payroll. More intelligence came in to describe these … interrogation methods that were being used to compel people to produce what can be described as propaganda — a mixture of truth with a heavy overlay of falsehoods.

What you’re describing is taking techniques that U.S. military personnel had been trained to resist … [and] using those very techniques on the people the U.S. was detaining in Iraq?

Exactly, and I think a key point that your listeners need to understand, so they can grasp the gravity of the situation, is that the primary objective of that approach to interrogation was not truth … but somebody’s political truth. In the Korean War, they actually compelled some of our pilots to admit to dropping chemical weapons on cities and so forth, when in fact that didn’t happen. Now, that stands in stark contrast to intelligence interrogation, where the overriding objective is provide timely, accurate, reliable, comprehensive intelligence.

And these harsh interrogation methods had been used by the Soviets and the Chinese to get people to say things that weren’t true?

That’s true. And it’s not just harsh physically, but I think the element that was more persuasive was their ability to induce what is known as debility, depression and dread through emotional and psychological techniques that profoundly altered somebody’s ability to answer questions truthfully even if they wanted to. It truly undermined their ability to recall, so therefore it would call into question its efficacy in an intelligence-based interrogation.

I want you to describe the interrogation that’s included in the Senate report. You witnessed an Iraqi detainee in a room that has been completely darkened?

Yes, I walked into this room, and it was a small room with the walls painted black. There was an interrogator sitting in a chair. To his left was an interpreter. The detainee was kneeling with his wrists handcuffed behind his back before the interrogator. Standing behind the interrogator was a guard carrying a — I don’t recall now if it was wood or iron rod — and it was almost stereotypical, being patted into his hand like it was some B movie, gangster movie, if you will.

And the questions were posed to the detainee, interpreted. The detainee would answer, the answer was interpreted, and upon that interpretation, the interrogator would slap him across the face. For those who have read the report, they talk about in survival training, an “insult slap.” It’s very important to understand that those are affected in a very careful fashion, and to truly shock someone rather than hurt them. And this type of slap was much more forceful. The other difference is, it was being delivered systematically, and when I walked in, I asked how long it had been going on, and I was told “30 minutes.” So this individual had been slapped continuously while he was on his knees for 30 minutes.

What did you make of that interrogation?

In my mind, that was no longer an interrogation. You don’t obtain information of any value that way. It was punitive, precisely, so I quickly brought that to a stop.

I pulled the interrogator out and I explained why that was against the law. I tried to explain why it wasn’t operationally useful. He followed orders, because he had to, because I was a senior officer, but you could tell he didn’t buy into my rationale by any stretch.

Had you witnessed one rotten interrogation that had gone wrong or was it routine?

It didn’t take long to realize this was a systematic approach. And it wasn’t because there were bad apples or these people had some flaws in their character. It was just that there were operators out there on the ground who needed what we call “actionable intelligence” — reliable intelligence for them to run an operation within 24 hours, and they simply were not receiving that from their interrogators using the standard interrogation methodology, which was designed for a completely different war and a completely different time.

And so, people were reaching out to other methods, not understanding the subtle yet profound difference — using a method that was proven successful in obtaining propaganda, while on the surface it seems very effective, underneath it all it is very ineffective and counterproductive. … Any individual can force any other individual to admit to practically anything, but that’s not the purpose of interrogation. I could see these people had lost the bubble on that.

There’s a mention in the report of how you were received by some of these U.S. servicemen. To understate it, it was not well?

I think it would be a fair statement to say I was the most unpopular officer in that area, if not in the entire country of Iraq … There was one gentleman who was acting very odd toward me, and one time I walked by his tent, and it just happened to be the two of us, and he was sharpening a knife, and he looked up, and he said that “it wouldn’t be recommended that I sleep too lightly while I was at that camp.” It didn’t take me long to understand his meaning.

You were that unpopular. He was suggesting some harm might come to you?

And the reason I was unpopular is that people couldn’t understand why I had stopped an interrogation, and the rationale that I heard repeatedly was …”If I had been captured by al-Qaida or some of these insurgents, that’s how I would expect to be treated.” And my response was always … “Let us not let the adversary set the standard, especially if it causes us to lower our standard.”

The Senate report cites memos that confirmed your accounts of what happened, but the same memos say that you did not take your story further up the chain of command. Why not?

I came across that, and I was stunned … I was directed to write a report … and I described in great detail what happened and why those were violations of the Geneva Convention. But I was directed to send my report up my chain of command … and I was ordered to keep it within those channels — for classification, for security purposes … So I did everything, even beyond what was reasonable. I did make my chain of command very clear. I did make the Department of Defense inspector general’s office aware. It was classified. Had I spoken out at that time … I could have been charged with divulging classified information.

UPDATE:

Just in from the Washington Post, the the military’s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) two-page attachment, titled “Operational Issues Pertaining to the Use of Physical/Psychological Coercion in Interrogation,” was just obtained by WaPo and revealed a few interesting facts concerning the torture question.  See below.

The military agency that helped to devise harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as “torture” in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon’s chief lawyer and warned that it would produce “unreliable information.”

“The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel,” says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military’s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week. . . . . .

The JPRA attachment said the key deficiency of physical or psychological duress is the reliability and accuracy of the information gained. “A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop,” it said.

In conclusion, the document said, “the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information.” The word “extreme” is underlined.

Washington Post Story  hmmm.  So Bush lawyers were told by the people who actually devised the “enhanced interrogation” torture techniques that the information produced would be “unreliable” and they approved it anyway…hmmm

Apparently Condoleeza Rice verbally ok’d the use of waterboarding to interrogate alleged al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah in July 2002 when she was National Security Advisor.

According to the new narrative, which compiles legal advice provided by the Bush administration to the CIA, Rice personally conveyed the administration’s approval for waterboarding of Zubaydah, a so-called high-value detainee, to then-CIA Director George Tenet in July 2002.

Condoleeza Rice denied participating in torture as late as last year.

Last fall, Rice acknowledged to the Senate Armed Services Committee only that she had attended meetings where the CIA interrogation request was discussed. She said she did not recall details. Rice omitted her direct role in approving the program in her written statement to the committee.   .  .  .  .   .  .

The new timeline [released yesterday] shows that Rice played a greater role than she admitted last fall in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The narrative also shows that dissenting legal views about the severe interrogation methods were brushed aside repeatedly.

It appears that several senior officials endorsed the torturous practice and urged their continuance.

The Director of Central Intelligence in the spring of 2003 sought a reaffirmation of the legality of the interrogation methods. Cheney, Rice, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales were among those at a meeting where it was decided that the policies would continue. Rumsfeld and Powell weren’t.

And there is more

Days after Rice gave Tenet the nod, the Justice Department approved the use of waterboarding in a top secret Aug. 1 memo. Zubaydah underwent waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002.

In the years that followed, according to the narrative issued Wednesday, there were numerous internal legal reviews of the program, suggesting government attorneys raised concerns that the harsh methods, particularly waterboarding, might violate federal laws against torture and the U.S. Constitution.

But Bush administration lawyers continued to validate the program. The CIA voluntarily dropped the use of waterboarding, which has a long history as a torture tactic, from its arsenal of techniques after 2005.

If I were Rice, Cheney, Gonzalez, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld, I would not be traveling to any foreign country that recognizes international law any time in the near future.

The torturous history of waterboarding has sprouts in the United States and International law.  Following World War II, the United States prosecuted and hanged Japanese officers for war crimes such as waterboarding by way of the war crimes tribunal.  Such trials “elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators.” 

According to Politifact, a fact-checking project sponsored by the Pullitzer Prize winning St. Petersburg Times, the following is accurate:

“……..referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as ‘water cure,’ ‘water torture’ and ‘waterboarding,’ according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.” Politifact went on to report, “A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.” See full article here

Politifact interviewed R. John Pritchard, the author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. They also interviewed Yuma Totani, history professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and consulted the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, which published a law review article entitled, “Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts.”

A victim’s description of waterboarding:

The most detailed descriptions come from eyewitness accounts and court records from wars past. The following is a transcript of the 1947 court proceedings in the trial of a World War II Japanese war criminal: Chinsaku Yuki. He was accused of the torture and murder of Philippine civilians, and ultimately convicted and sentenced to life in prison. This exchange is between the American prosecutor, Col. Keeley, and Filipino lawyer Ramon Navarro, who was subjected to waterboarding.

Col. Keeley: And then did he take you back to your room?

Navarro: When Yuki could not get anything out of me, he wanted the interpreter to place me down below. And I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes, so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench, lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench, Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the faucet, they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.

You mean he brought water and poured water down your throat?

No sir, on my face, until I became unconscious. We were lying that way, with some cloth on my face, and then Yuki poured water on my face continuously.

And you couldn’t breathe?

No, I could not, and so I, for a time, lost consciousness. I found my consciousness came back again and found Yuki was sitting on my stomach. And then I vomited the water from my stomach, and the consciousness came back again for me.

Where did the water come out when he sat on your stomach?

From my mouth and all openings of my face … and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again.

How many times did that happen?

Around four or five times, from two o’clock up to four o’clock in the afternoon. When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received, I told a lie to Yuki … . I could not really show anything to Yuki, because I was really lying just to stop the torture.

Was it painful?

Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious — like drowning in the water.

Like you were drowning?

Drowning. You could hardly breathe.

Waterboarding Crime and Punishment

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government — whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community — has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: “I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure.” He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. “Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,” he replied, “just gasping between life and death.”

Nielsen’s experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan’s military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

More history of waterboarding in the U.S.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced “a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk.” The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

Throughout history the justifications for using waterboarding has not changed according to Stephen Rickard, Washington director of the Open Society Institute.  ”Almost every time this comes along, people say, ‘This is a new enemy, a new kind of war, and it requires new techniques,’” he says. “And there are always assurances that it is carefully regulated.”

What is he thinking? It’s shocking that Bush would go to Iraq with his GOP talking points thinking that he would be greeted as a liberator.  President George W. Bush also appears to have made history in this unprecedented election year.  Bush is the first President in history to have shoes thrown at him on foreign soil.  In Iraq, throwing a shoe at someone is a sign of contempt for the person.  The incident was followed by a declaration by Bush that “the war is not over.”  It really takes a special kind of arrogance to declare essentially to another sovereign nation, this war is not over until we say its over.  As an American, I find the Iraqi journalist actions deplorable and unseemly.  However, Iraqi’s have a different way of protesting than Americans do so the next time the President holds a press conference in a Muslim nation, perhaps secret service should make sure that all journalists remove their shoes before entering the press room.   The irony is that if the journalist would have done such a thing under a Saddam Hussein regime….well the journalist would have suffered unimaginable consequences.   See full story below.

BAGHDAD (AP) — His legacy forever linked to an unpopular war, President George W. Bush flew under intense security to Iraq on Sunday where he called the nearly six-year conflict hard but necessary to protect the United States and give Iraqis hope. “The war is not over,” he declared.

Bush was reminded of the intense opposition to his policies when a man threw two shoes at him — one after another — during a news conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bush ducked both throws, and neither man was hit.

“This is a farewell kiss, you dog!” shouted the protester in Arabic, later identified as Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt.

“All I can report is a size 10,” Bush joked. See full story here.

Here he goes again.  This is George Bush’s last attempt before he leaves the White House to chip away at a woman’s right to choose.  Is this what he means by trying to clear the path for a smooth transition for the Obama administration?   See full story below.

Reporting from Washington — The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new “right of conscience” rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.

It also seeks to cover more employees. For example, in addition to a surgeon and a nurse in an operating room, the rule would extend to “an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments,” the draft rule said.

The “conscience” rule could set the stage for an abortion controversy in the early months of Barack Obama’s administration. Read remainder of article here.

Take a look…talk about the unpopular kid in class.

Per the Associated Press

McALLEN, Texas — A South Texas grand jury has indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County’s federal detention centers.

The indictment criticizes Cheney’s investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and “at least misdemeanor assaults” on detainees by working through the prison companies.

Gonzales is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation into abuses at the federal detention centers.

Link

According to KRGV-TV the indictments are not yet public.

WILLACY COUNTY – A Willacy County grand jury has indicted a number of political figures, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

Indictments have not yet been made public and we’re told a district judge still has to sign the indictments. Two state district judges are also indicted along with Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr.

NEWSCHANNEL 5 is digging to find out more. Senator Lucio has already issued a statement in response to the indictment. It says a motion will be filed to quash Senator Lucio’s indictment this week.

NEWSCHANNEL 5 is working in Willacy County right now and will bring you the latest when it becomes available.

Another indictment charges state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. with profiting from his public office by accepting honoraria from prison management companies.

The indictments were first reported by KRGV-TV.

Former National Security Council counter-terrorism adviser and Obama supporter, Richard Clarke, spoke yesterday about the judgment of John McCain.  Clark monikers the Arizona senator “quick draw McCain” due to his eagerness to go to war with Iraq after 9/11.  Apparently, McCain was pushing for war with Iraq while the Bush administration was merely thinking about the possibility.  Clarke went on to say that McCain and other neocons are one of the reasons that Bush went to war with Iraq in the first place.  This is why McCain has the reputation as a war monger.  And there is a strong possibility that McCain plans to staff these wars of his……….by reinstating the draft.  When asked about the draft yesterday, McCain indicated that he would be open to the idea.  Last September when asked about the draft, McCain said “I might consider it, I don’t think it’s necessary, but I might consider it if you could design a draft where everybody equally could serve.”  I guess you would have to consider it if war is your first line of defense in dealing with conflict.  One wonders how many wars American can be involved in at one time.  Lets see, we’re in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Russia may be possibilities (depending on who wins the White House)……..after all when McCain looks in Putin’s eyes he “sees a K…a G..and a B,” nice way to approach the negotiation table.  It is statements like the former that are telling when it comes to the judgement McCain would provide in the White House.  It appears that if McCain had his way he would take us back to the Cold War.  The Arizona senator has also promised that “there will be more wars.”  Personally the idea of another President who uses military might as a first line of defense is very scary given our current national security situation and the state of our economy.  The military does not like wars and there is a reason why the majority of such military support Sen. Obama for president.  We already have China paying for the wars that we are currently fighting.  Our military is already overstretched.  This is a new global environment that is constantly changing, we need a leader who is capable of adapting.  Does anyone see McCain as an adaptable kind of guy?  I didn’t think so.  We also must use other ways to get along with the world community.  We are all for a strong defense but our defense and our nation is weakened if we continue to engage in useless wars.  We found out with the Bush administration that a President can enter us into a war under false pretences, so we must make sure that we have a person with a global perspective holding that position.  Sen. McCain has demonstrated that he has a penchant for war.  We have just had seven and a half years of cowboy diplomacy………and………….this past year, Sen. John McCain has voted with Pres. Bush 100% of the time……..100%!  By McCain’s own admission, he has voted with Bush 95% of the time throughout Bush’s tenure in office. Do we really want someone in the White House that voted with George Bush 95% of the time?  How is that not a continuation of the policies of the Bush administration?  In what universe does that represent change?  We have to ask if the person has the intellectual capacity and temperament to be the leader of the free world?  We need to rebuild our moral standing through our willingness to engage and work with leaders, adversaries and friends, of other nations.  We cannot do that with a hair-trigger finger on the war gun.

Is Bush/Cheney about to be impeached?  Congressman John Conyers may be ready to do just that. The Bush presidency is just bad precedent for future presidents.  Imagine if all presidents entered the White House thinking that could get away with what this administration has attempted to get away with.  Accountability is essential to any democracy.  

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers has taken the highly unusual step of calling his committee back from summer recess in order to investigate allegations by Ron Suskind that the Bush administration forged a letter to buttress the links made between Saddam and 9/11, and Saddam and WMD. The congressional Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq, the “”War Resolution” which, as far short as it fell of a congressional declaration of war, gave the invasion its constitutional legal cover, and gave Bush the authorization to invade only after he had certified to congress the existence of these two critical links. If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and if he did not possess WMD, the war was off.

Yesterday, George W Bush held a press conference urging Congress to take up a vote on off-shore exploration thereby lifting its ban on off-shore oil drilling.  Even though his administration has done absolutely nothing, for seven years, toward energy independence.  But when it comes to drilling for more oil, this administration and McCain has concluded that it is the only way we can become more energy independent.  McCain voted against a bill that would have increased fuel economy standards in 2006 while Obama voted for the bill.  An increase in fuel economy standards would require that automobile manufacturers increase the number of miles per gallon of gas on all newly manufactured cars.  In China, because of a mandate by the Chinese government, cars get 43 miles per gallon.  Such a bill would have made a significant difference in today’s gas prices had it been adopted in 2006 when it was proposed.

Something else that this writer finds a little disturbing is a Washington Post report that campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain increased dramatically at the end of June, right after McCain made a high-profile split with environmentalists and flipped from his orginal position against off-shore drilling.  As for the Bush administration’s hand in the oil well, the Wall Street Journal reported that influential former Pentagon official Richard Perle is going into the oil business in Iraq and Kazakhstan according to sources close to the deals.  Perle was one of the security experts helping to make the case to the Bush Administration for taking down Saddam Hussein. 

Therefore, when the current President and John McCain continually push the idea that off-shore drilling is the best solution for the American people, I tend to suspect their motives.  I would trust their motives more if they at least had a past record of working toward energy independence and were not so inextricably linked to the oil industry.

Sen. John McCain made a major foreign policy shift with respect to Afghanistan yesterday when he said that we should transfer US troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.  Prior to yesterday’s change in strategy, McCain had been pushing for NATO to send troops to Afghanistan rather than the US troop transfer that Obama has been proposing for almost a year now.  But wait, Obama’s position has always been to send at least TWO brigades from Iraq to Afghanistan.  Months and months later McCain all of sudden has an epiphany and says, lets send, “THREE brigades from Iraq to Afghanistan.”  McCain changed his policy yesterday after Obama wrote an Op-Ed last Sunday highlighting this approach.  As for who makes the better Commander-in-Chief, it looks like McCain is doing more following than leading in his approach to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Judgment.

There was also another interesting development that occurred last night.  The Bush administration announced that it will be making a major policy direction shift and following Obama’s “naive” foreign policy strategy.  After a year of criticizing Obama for his willingness to meet with our enemies, the Bush administration has decided to do just that…..again!  First, with Korea and now with Iran. Our third highest ranking diplomat, William Burns, will meet with Iran’s top nuclear negotiator.  Up until this point, the Bush administration has refused to even sit down with Iran.  Obama hates to say I told you so.  But he did tell you so.  The disastrous foreign policy of the current administration has resulted in severe consequences to our nation.  It’s nice to see that they are following a sound foreign policy approach for a CHANGE.  Judgment

George W. Bush has decided to lift the Executive off-shore drilling ban in an effort to goad Congress into lifting its ban.  I guess he forgot that the oil companies already have 1000′s of leases for millions of acres of oilfields that they have not bothered to drill on.  Fortunately, the President also needs Congress to lift its legislative ban in order to begin exploration.  As we have mentioned here before, off-shore drilling will produce zero short term benefits to our oil crisis but would have long term repercussions to our coastlines.  The negligible affect that drilling would have on gas prices would not accur until 2030. The ten year timeline being pushed by the GOP  is the timeline for pumping the oil.  Any consumer benefit would not be felt until twelve or thirteen years following.  By then we will have alternative energy mechanisms in place so that the drilling and its minor benefit will be moot.  Sen. Barack Obama proposes giving a $1000 middle class tax cut that would go to 95 percent of all families and off-set the burden that such skyrocketing gas prices have presented.  In addition, Obama proposes investing in renewable energy sources for the long term.  While the Bush-McCain solution would only worsen our addiction to oil by increasing our dependence.  McCain claims that he would like to employ a cocktail of solutions to solve the energy crisis, but including off-shore drilling in his mixture is unnecessary and meaningless.  We have the technology and supply on hand today (wind, solar, biomass, strategic petroleum reserves) to affect the price of gas, so giving oil companies more oilfields to hoard in their reserve is just greed and completely pointless.  This solution does nothing more than increase the value of the stock of oil companies.  One other possible piece of legislation affecting gas and oil prices that Congress plans to address next week is to the Enron loophole.  The democrats in Congress plan to introduce a Speculation bill next week that will address the loophole.

As for the Bush-McCain plan, exactly the type of sensible solution that would be utilized by a drug addict. 

Our airline and trucking industries are collapsing as a result of  skyrocketing gas prices.  Our president went to Saudi Arabia and begged them to produce more oil…Saudi’s response?  Tell you what Mr. Bush, we will THINK about producing more oil if you sell us nuclear technology and materials.  President Bush and Condoleeza Rice’s response…sounds good, lets do it.  Okay, so we are selling nuclear technology and power plants to Saudi Arabia in exchange for a mere promise from Saudi Arabia to THINK about producing more oil.  When asked if he thinks that this deal will compromise U.S. security, Bush responded that he trusts the King of Saudi Arabia.  I am by no means a foreign policy expert but that leaves this writer a little uneasy.  There is a consensus among those who are experts in this area that any domestic drilling will not produce a drop of oil for at least ten years.  However, listening to Bush, McCain, and the republican party, you would think that domestic off-shore drilling is the panacea for our energy crisis.  So their answer to our “oil addiction” is to drill more oil to feed our habit?  Hmmm………the crack addict strategy…….works for me!  Even Ruper Murdoch’s conservative Wall Street Journal agrees that if domestic drilling were to take place, the American people would not see any oil for seven to ten years. This seems to be a last minute grab from the two oil men before they leave office.  Oil companies or republicans never seem to mention that U.S. oil companies already have over 400 oil leases that allows them to drill domestically and are only drilling on 20% of those leases.  So, although 68 million acres are already leased to the oil companies for domestic drilling, they are not drilling.  Reason claims said oil companies…..a lack of the necessary equipment or not enough acres to make drilling profitable.  Yea right!  It seems that they and the republican party have decided to obtain and hoard as many leases as possible while the gettin is good, i.e., before the oil men administration leaves office.  McCain has also decided to flip-flop and jump on the bandwagon by changing his position regarding off-shore drilling.  Originally, McCain’s position was no off-shore drilling domestically.  Interesting tidbit….Wall Street values oil companies based on their reserves.  The more reserves the oil company claims that it has, the greater the value of said oil company.

Off-Shore Drilling

The moratorium on off-shore drilling was put in place two decades ago in an effort to preserve the environment (routine leaks, spills, pollution from rigs, affect on climate change when burning the end product, tar bogs on the beach) and to prevent damage to oceanlife that off-shore drilling would cause.  Further, residents of coastal communities do not want to see parts of their coastline industrialized nor do they want view eyesore oil riggs from their coastlines.  Also, business and residential communities of such coastlines do not want the on-shore development of support facilities and refineries that come along with off-shore drilling.  For these communities, the coastlines are huge economic engines that drive business to their localities.  Side point: Even if the ban is lifted, there is a shortage of ships available to oil companies to do the off-shore drilling.  Back to my main point.  The U.S. is the third largest producer of oil in the world. We cannot produce enough oil to meet our huge demand.  Better solution, drive down demand in the U.S. and become much more fuel-efficient and energy independent.  We cannot produce enough oil domestically to meet our demand.  Fuel efficiency will have a much greater effect on our dependence than any negligible effect achieved by increased domestic drilling.  Even though McCain has been quoted to say that domestic oil “resources will take years to develop,”  he is now pushing for us to become more fuel dependent by agreeing with Bush in his proposal to increase off-shore drilling.  Funny thing, Jeb Bush is Against lifting the ban. However, current Florida governor and vice presidential hopeful Charlie Crist supports lifting the ban.  Another interesting tidbit is that John McCain has received $800, 000 in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry.  Though Sen. McCain is advocating otherwise, less drilling and renewable energy such as wind and solar seems to be the quickest and more preferable methods. After all, experts confirm that it will take 20 or 30 years before consumers will actually see cheaper gas as a result of domestic off-shore drilling.  Sen. Barack Obama supports maintaining the ban.   

Will not make a difference in gas Prices 

Claiming otherwise is political pandering.  Selling more domestic drilling leases to oil companies will not make a difference in the price of gas. This is a world market and individual fields do not have a big influence on how the price of oil is set. Further, the U.S. has only 2% of the worlds proven oil reserves yet we consume 21% of global oil demand.  We import 60 percent of our oil.  We will never be able to drill enough oil to make us energy independent simply with domestic off-shore drilling.  Fuel efficiency and alternative forms of energy are our best options.  Off-shore drilling is a red herring that will not come anywhere near solving our current energy crisis

Speculators  (Enron loophole)

Speculators have also been cited as the reason for high gas prices by way of the Enron loophole.  The Enron loophole, proposed by then Sen. Phil Gramm(TX) now McCain’s Chief  Financial advisor, is a provision in the Commodities Futures Modernization Act that exempts electronic trading of energy (oil) from oversight of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.  In 2000, Gramm and former CEO of Enron, Kenneth Lay, convinced Congress that the energy market would be much more “efficient” without federal oversight.   Actually, Gramm slipped the Enron, backed and drafted, provision into the CFM Act.  Also, at the time, Wendy Gramm, Phil Gramm’s wife, was on the board of directors of Enron.  Nothing like keeping it in the family.  The Enron provision allows for energy trading in unregulated markets, also referred to as “dark markets.” American investors and hedge funds can purchase an unlimited number of energy contracts on foreign exchanges.  This practice artificially inflates oil demand.  Because of the lack of federal oversight with respect to foreign exchanges, traders are able to avoid the ”position limits” set by the Commodities Futures Trade Commission for American markets resulting in ”price distortion and supply squeezes.”  Trading in such unregulated markets have soared in the last three years.  Speculation appears to be playing a significant role in driving up the price of oil.  Oil is being used as a hedge against the dollar.  As the dollar falls foreign investors buy oil using dollars because it is perceived as discounted.  This then increases the demand for oil in the energy market.  Further, to purchase stocks on margin in regulated markets, investors must put down at least 50 percent of their own money.  However, in the unregulated energy (oil) market, investors need only put down seven percent of their own money and hedge funds need only put down 1 percent or less. This allows speculators/investors to take huge bets with tiny amounts of money.  Raising the margins for such speculators would make this type of trading less profitable by decreasing the demand for energy contracts.  Some say that the Enron loophole can account for as much as $80 of the $140 cost of  a barrel of oil.  Such speculation has also been estimated to account for as much as 60 percent of the price for a gallon of gasoline.  Lack of policing by the government allows traders to manipulate, if not outright control, the market.  Legislators took a small step towards reform in the farm bill legislation but they need to go much further and close this loophole altogether.  McCain opposed the farm bill and defended the Enron loophole.  The Arizona senator claimed to oppose the bill because he did not want to reward lobbyists.  However, a McCain aide speaking on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that McCain opposed the bill after being advised by Gramm to resist it because of the regulatory language affecting the energy futures market.  Speak to you congressman about closing this loophole and increasing margin requirements.

Supply and Demand 

Many claim that the increased demand for oil by developing countries China and India is the reason for the high oil prices.  “World demand for oil is projected to increase 37% over 2006 levels by 2030, according to the US-based Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) annual report.” India and China are becoming big oil consumers as a result of urbanization, development, and pursuit of higher living standards.  China’s oil consumption doubled from 1996 -2006. It also imported over 50 percent of its oil in 2005.  India’s oil imports are expected to triple by 2020.  The increase demand for cars and trucks in India and China will be the primary cause of 75 percent increase of oil consumption.  This number will only increase as more and more countries develop.  The price of oil has risen 400 percent in the last six years. Yet the demand for crude oil has has only risen a little over nine percent in the last six years.  In 2002, the price of oil per barrel was $20.  Last week a barrel of oil reached an all time high of $142 a barrel.  Though oil production has outpaced demand 9.87 to 9.38, the price of oil has increased spectacularly.  The way market forces usually work is when supply is less than demand, the price of oil increases.  When supply is greater than demand, the price of oil should go down.  Deductive reasoning dictate that because oil production exceeded oil demand and the price of oil still increased 400 percent within the last six years, China and India are probably not the reason for the meteoric rise in oil prices.

Gas Tax Holiday

A gimmick.  Nough said.

What We can Do

America needs to become more energy independent.  What can we the consumers do?  We can do our part.  We are already parking our cars, driving less, and moving more towards mass transit.  Driving 60 mph will eliminate 2 million barrels of oil a day and will significantly affect our demand thereby impacting the price of gasoline in the U.S.  We do not need politicians to tell us this.  These are things that we can do as consumers.  What can Washington, DC do with pressure from us the consumers?  Renewable energy and heightened fuel economy standards can have a substantial impact.  Fuel economy standards were only recently increased after being frozen since the Reagan era.   Congress is finally telling Detroit that its cars must be much more fuel efficient.  For goodness sake…..cars in Japan get 50 miles per gallon of gas.  Trucks in Japan get 40 mile per gallon of gas.  Ninety percent of the new cars sold in Brazil this year will be flexible-fuel vehicles operating on a mixture of sugar based ethanol and gas.  Why are we so far behind this trend?  Complacency.  America is fully capable of jumping on this bandwagon but has not had the incentive up until this point…..well circumstances have changed dramatically and the US is forced to move toward the gasoline alternative direction.  With respect to Detroit making these large fuel-inefficient vehicles, Detroit posits that its predicament of having to pay pensions and high healthcare cost necessitate that they make larger cars because the profit margin on such cars is much greater than that on small vehicles.  Now however, the demand for compact, fuel efficient cars is imperative and Detroit needs to adjust its business model.  Many suspect that we need $8 dollar a gallon gas to incentivise Americans to use less gas.  I don’t think so.  As previously mentioned, we have already begun to take big steps in this direction by driving less and moving to mass transit as our primary mode of transportation.  Mass transit ridership is up15 percent in some metropolitan cities.  The demand for hybrid cars is enormous, so much so that the length of time that a hybrid car stays on the sales lot after delivery from the manufacturer is 17 hours.  Mercedes Benz, maker of the SmartForTwo, says it will stop producing  gasoline cars altogether in 7 years.  The company is now testing their SmartForTwo as an Electric Vehicle in LA using lithium batteries.  Nissan plans to roll out its electric car in significant quantities to the American market by 2010 and mass market the electric vehicle by 2012.  The cars release zero emissions.  We sent a man to the moon for goodness sake, I do not buy the excuse that it is impossible to become less oil dependent.  Denmark and Israel have already moved in this direction.  Denmark especially are using wind energy to power their electric cars.  One mid-size two mega watt windmill can supply the energy needed for 3000 cars.  700 mid-size two mega watt windmills can power two million passenger cars.  Given that our reliance on foreign oil undermines our national security and defense capabilities, a move in this direction makes sense.   We have the science and technology to go all electric today.  We just need the car companies to begin the process.  If you think about the evolution of mail from letters (snail mail), to fax, to email; the evolution of the electric car is on the same path.  First we have the gas vehicle, then we have the hybrid, the next logical step is an all electric vehicle.  Electric cars are inevitable, call your congressman and express your backing of putting in place incentives to Detroit and other car companies to begin producing them in large quantities. 

Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com.

President Bush announced this morning that the United States has moved closer to its goal of ridding the world of North Korea as a nuclear threat and dismantling the socialist state’s nuclear programs.  North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006 and has the capability to produce more.  Therefore, the fact that North Korea has handed over documents regarding its nuclear activities is a big step towards the larger goal of nuclear disarmament.  The United States intends to lift sanctions and its designation of North Korea as a terrorist state in 45 days if North Korea follows through with its promises.  Bush says that if North Korea does not follow through with its promises more restrictions will be placed.  Noteworthy Comment:  It is only because Bush changed his policy about direct talks with our enemies that this development took place.  Can you say thanks Sen. Obama.  Apparently the criticism of Obama as being naive is without merit.  This is the third time Bush has changed his position to that of the Illinois senator regarding foreign policy and received successful results.  FYI:  John McCain takes an even harder line against and regarding talking to our enemies than President Bush.  Sen. MCain has called Obama’s policy in this regard inexperienced.  Obama has said that he has better judgement and that experience in Washington does not substitute for such judgement.  Todays development seem to ram forward that point.  Ding, ding, ding,…..another round for Obama.

Under mounting pressure from Israel, CBS is reporting that President Bush is actually considering leaving office with a BANG!  Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen left Tuesday night on an overseas trip to Israel where Israel is expected to beg the U.S. to strike Iran before Bush leaves office.  Israel does not want Iran to be nuclearized and it is counting on President Bush to strike in the next six months because they are unsure of the foreign policy of the next administration regarding Iran.  Welcome October surprise!  CBS reports that “[t]he Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize,” [CBS also reports] “Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran.” So they are in the process of  applying immense pressure on the current administration to complete a military strike before it leaves in January 2008.  The current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates opposes such a strike because he says that “it could touch off a third war in the region.”  Question: how could a President who has judgement, a conscience, or a semblance of intellect enter us into another war when our military is already completely overstretched and our country is facing a deficit unlike any in recent history?  The Answer: we are dealing with a President that does not seem to possess any of these things.  What we seem to have is a President who is trying to get his party re-elected by way of political expediency perhaps? Who we are dealing with is a president who believes in cowboy diplomacy regardless of the consequences to the American people.  Who we are dealing with is a president who does not seem to care what happens once he leaves office and figures that the aftermath of his actions will be President Obama’s problem.  Big surprise, vice President Cheney is also for striking Iran.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush on the floor of the House yesterday.  The Ohio Representative and former presidential  contender requested that the House consider impeaching President Bush for decieving the country and breached his oath of office by leading into the Iraq war.

The articles of impeachment named by Rep. Kucinich were violation of the Geneva conventions, misprison of a felony, torture, war criminal, and many more.  The Ohio representative also introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney last year.  The resolution didn’t go very far even though republicans voted to debate the measure.

Scott McClellan, former White House Secretary, has accepted the invitation from the Judiciary Committe to testify before Congress on the Bush Administration’s action regarding the Valerie Plame affair.

According to the Associated Press “President Bush’s former spokesman, Scott McClellan, will testify before a House committee next week about whether Vice President Dick Cheney ordered him to make misleading public statements about the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity.”  “McClellan will testify publicly and under oath before the House Judiciary Committee on June 20 about the White House’s role in the leak and its response, his attorneys, Michael and Jane Tigar, said on Monday.”

John McCain was all for talking with Hamas two years ago before he started running for president.  Now the Arizona senator has flip flopped on the double-talk express.  A pattern is developing here.  This was written in response to McCain’s outrageous statement yesterday in support of President Bush’s outrageous and unprecedented comments regarding “appeasement” that Bush made about Sen. Obama on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence.  Bush also violated 60 years of uninterrupted american foreign policy in that you do not criticize american foreign policy on foreign soil.  See interview with James Rubin:

RUBIN: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCAIN: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”