The Light: Hillary

It used to be, not so very long ago, that the first numbers assigned to each newborn were date and time of birth, weight, and Apgar test scores (ratings on muscle tone, respiration, reflex irritability, pulse, and skin color).

Now, the instant babies pop out their sweet heads (or butts, out of respect for those of us born breech), they are slapped with a bill. A really big bill.

Actually, $186,000 is what each and every one of us owe right now (add an extra 10 grand if you wait a year before paying) according to a new report out by Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The PGPF figures our debt a little differently by including projected governmental commitments, believing the actual total to be a mind-blowing $56.4 trillion.

We know that the federal government carries both publicly held debt and debt for money it has borrowed from itself. Together, these sums are closing in on $11 trillion. This is the figure most commonly cited as our “national debt,” but actually, that’s only the start of the REAL national debt.

How exactly does this $56.4 trillion bill add up? First, there are the federal government’s known liabilities that it is legally obliged to fulfill. These include publicly held debt, military and civilian pensions and retiree health benefits. As of September 30, 2008, these liabilities added up to $13.5 trillion.

Then there are various commitments and contingencies – i.e., contractual requirements that the government is expected to fulfill when, and if specified conditions are met. These include federal insurance payouts, loan guarantees, and leases. As of September 30, 2008, they added up to $1.4 trillion.

So where does the remaining $43 trillion or so come from? That’s what the government has promised to pay in Social Security and Medicare benefits in excess of related revenues. As of January 1, 2008, current and promised future Social Security benefits amounted to $6.6 trillion. And between Medicare’s three programs (hospital insurance, outpatient, and prescription drug), current and future promised Medicare benefits amounted to $36.3 trillion.

Unless we make major reforms soon, the PGPF reaches a sobering conclusion.

Making extraordinary commitments for the future before that future has arrived goes against the very nature of democracy. Each generation must have the flexibility to set their own priorities according to the opportunities and needs of their time.

What will this little baby’s life be like when she is my age? And yet how do we soften the future blow in a way that doesn’t starve us now or weaken our global position to the point where we will have little to offer our children and grandchildren?

Or is the Peterson Foundation messing unfairly with the numbers to further scare old people (or make them feel guilty)? For example, people will continually be paying into Social Security. And, Medicare is not free to its recipients. I’m not sure about the figures the foundation used, but I am pretty sure we are in a lot of trouble.

Host Paulie Abeles had to cancel her show “Sins of Omission” for 9:00 pm Monday, August 31st due to illness. Please join me in wishing her a speedy recovery.

You can link to archived shows with guests– CARL BERNSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, MICHAEL SHNAYERSON & AYELET WALDMAN — here.

Paulie has a great line up of guest for “Sins of Omission” in the coming weeks:

Sept 7: Josh Stearns of FreePress.org
Sept. 14: Dr. Steven Freeman (2004 Election)
Sept. 21: Anita MonCrief (ACORN whistleblower)
Sept. 28: unconfirmed
Oct. 5: Dr. Tim Wu “Who Controls the Internet?”

_______

NoQuarter Radio’s Sins of Omission with Paulie Abeles

Paulie’s weekly show is aimed at giving listeners insight into the topics of the day beyond the nightly news. To listen to more of Paulie’s recent shows, use our instructions in the far right column for how to retrieve all NoQuarter radio shows via iTunes.

This was a recent blurb at memeorandum.com regarding the big Cheney interview on Sunday by Chris Wallace of Fox News: Andrew Sullivan / The Daily Dish: Chris Wallace, A Teenage Girl Interviewing The Jonas Brothers — Here are the tough and penetrating questions asked by Chris Wallace of a man whose critics accuse of war crimes, and whose administration presided over the death of over a hundred prisoners in interrogation …

Now, you know I can’t abide Andrew Sullivan for a bunch of reasons. Hence my unwillingness to give him any traffic at all by even going to his site and re-posting his article here. But when I saw this blurb, and Sullivan’s arrogant, and sexist, title, I just couldn’t resist. I almost cracked up laughing that he, of all people, is getting his nose out of joint about the questions Cheney was asked in this interview. Apparently, he has forgotten just about every interview Obama has had since he began his campaign, and he was running for the highest office in the land! Cheney is not running for anything (and I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for Dick Cheney. I appreciate that he supports his daughter, her partner, and their child, but that’s about it).

Perhaps Sullivan forgot this interview by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, an outlet that uses OUR airwaves for FREE, of Obama during the campaign:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Oooooohhhhh - how di Obama withstand those WITHERING questions?

Or more recently, how about Brian Williams and his day at the White House, one that culminated in THIS moment:

Seriously?? He really wants to go down this road of how political interviewees are handled? How about this clip with George Stephanapoulous:

Heck, George even supplies the correct verbiage to Obama! And may I just say one more time - HOW was this man portrayed as being ELOQUENT??? Holy smokes.

Okay, one more to prove the point, if you can stomach watching Keith Olberman:

Oh, yes - that is some HARD-HITTING “journalism” there for Mr. Sullivan. Get one of the two most biased for Obama show hosts (I refuse to call Olberman a “journalist”) to lob softballs for Obama to trash the Republicans.

By the way, remember Obama’s appearance with McCain at Ground Zero? Yeah, so dignified:

I digress. Back to the whole hard-hitting journalism thing: At least Steve Kroft pointed out Obama’s inappropriate laughter here:

But he did so with a smile, and accepted that lame-ass excuse from Obama as to why he was laughing while indicating how he was going to use our money to bail out the UAW even though Americans were STRONGLY opposed to that idea.

Sullivan complains about the questions asked Cheney? Maybe he should have been so worried about the questions asked of Obama…

Taxpayers get your wallets out. It seems the government was so pleased with the success of their Cash-for-Clunker car program that it rushed through a $300 million spin off “Cash for Refrigerators” before leaving for the August recess. So just in case you missed out on the “free” Cash-for-Clunkers money, you can now get in on a little rebate from the taxpayers and help subsidize the manufacturers and retailers of household appliances by purchasing an Energy Star refrigerator, washing machine, and dishwasher, furnace or air-conditioning system.

From Business Week:

Beginning late this fall, the federal program will authorize rebates of roughly $50 to $200 for purchases of high-efficiency appliances that bear the Energy Star seal. The money is part of the broader economic stimulus bill passed earlier this year. Program details—such as which appliances are covered, the exact size of the rebates, and how they get processed—will vary according to each state’s proposals, and the Energy Dept. has set a deadline of Oct. 15 for states to file formal applications to participate. Washington expects to award the bulk of the money by the end of November.

_____

_____

Forget about the unemployment numbers and home foreclosure numbers and the forecasts for more of the same. Investing in a “big ticket” appliances will save you money and save our environment.

Jill Notini, spokeswoman for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers told CNBC.com that she is hopeful the program will spur sales, which are down about 15 percent from last year.

The organization also is touting the savings that can come from using more efficient appliances, reports CNBC.com. Notini said in the article that by replacing an eight-year-old washing machine with an energy-efficient one, consumers can typically save 5,000 gallons of water and 600 kilowatt hours of electricity per year, which is about $78 in annual savings.

And even if you can easily afford the purchase, we the taxpayers will help you upgrade to Energy Star appliances. The environment is that important.

From Popsci.com:

Energy Star is much less cut-and-dried [than miles per gallon]. First of all, the joint program between the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency is a voluntary one. Secondly, it’s not a graded scale — something is either Energy Star-compliant or it isn’t. Third, it’s purposefully not overly demanding. According to Karen Schneider of the EPA, the program’s bar is set exactly at the point where energy efficiency meets affordability. An Energy Star refrigerator is going to be more expensive than its non-Energy Star counterpart, but Energy Star wants you to be able to recoup that extra cost in five years with money saved on utility bills. “We don’t want to make a clothes washer so green that no one can afford to buy it,” Schneider says.

Then, there’s all that Energy Star doesn’t consider. …it does not consider the environmental impact of manufacturing processes, materials used, or what happens to a product at the end of its lifespan. Nor is there any Energy Star-equivalent government program that does. … (According to Schneider, this is something Energy Star is starting to discuss internally.)

So maybe there isn’t a compelling need on the part of homeowners for newer appliances and maybe the environmental impact may not be what it’s cracked up to be, but at least the industry will be happy.

More from Business Week:

Not surprisingly, appliance makers (and their investors) cheered the upcoming government handout. “Whatever gets the consumer back in the marketplace is good for us,” says J.B. Hoyt, director of government relations at Whirlpool, where shares are up 40% since the program was disclosed on July 14. Still, Hoyt allows that “our business has a long way to go in terms of recovery.” Electrolux Chief Executive Hans Straberg, meanwhile, told investors in July he doesn’t expect the market to improve “in the near future.” Electrolux says it is readying “aggressive” marketing programs that will amplify the rebates’ appeal, but is waiting for state plans before providing specifics. Over the next month, appliance makers will lobby state energy commissions to provide the highest possible rebates. “Twenty-five dollars does not get consumers’ attention on a $500 purchase,” Hoyt says.

Okay. Maybe happy is too strong a word. No doubt the home appliance manufacturers and retailers are feeling a little under-stimulated compared to the auto industry’s $3 billion windfall. Still, I have faith in corporate and industry power to work out a better deal before it is all over. And as a taxpayer, I know I’ll sleep better at night knowing someone got a good deal. After all it’s the American way.

So what industry do you think the governments should subsidize next?

_____
Related posts:

The End of Cash for Clunkers Leaves the Obama Administration With Its “Unders” Showing

George W. Bush faced and missed the historical opportunity presented by the attacks on September 11, 2001. We had the sympathy of the world and the unity of America and Bush simply pissed it away. Well, what does this have to do with Ted Kennedy?

Teddy also had the goodwill of the world in the aftermath of the murders of his brothers, John and Robert. He may have been saddled with unfair expectations but the world was his. And in an astounding display of hubris and arrogance, Teddy drowned his reputation in the waters of Chappaquiddick.

This is not a matter of not wanting to forgive a human being for making a mistake. Kennedy’s actions at Chappaquiddick went beyond mistakes. He engaged in criminal conduct. For much of his life Kennedy lived as a man not beholden to normal laws.

Do you recall what happened?

Maureen Callahan reminds us of Kennedy’s perfidy in today’s New York Post:

Once he broke free and swam to the surface, Kennedy said that he dove back down seven or eight times to rescue Kopechne. Failing, he swam back to shore and checked back into his hotel, and a short time later lodged a noise complaint with the desk clerk. The people in the room next to his were partying and it was interfering with his sleep. Then he asked the desk clerk for the time.

According to the Aug. 4, 1969 edition of Newsweek, that clerk, Russell E. Peachey, told Kennedy it was 2:25 a.m., then asked, “Is there anything else I can do for you?”

“No, thank you,” Kennedy replied.

He did not give a damn about a campaign worker. It is one thing to be exhausted from allegedly trying to rescue a drowning woman. But to then go back to your hotel and go to sleep? You make no phone calls to the police? You do not cry for help? Callousness on a level that takes self-destruction to new lows.

But this was not a one time misstep. Callahan also points us back to a previous GQ piece on Teddy:

In 1990, GQ magazine ran a devastating profile of Kennedy. Two 16-year-old girls near the Capitol startled by a limo rolling up, the door opening, Ted sitting in the back with a bottle of wine, asking one, then the other, to join. A former aide who acted as Ted’s “pimp.” His penchant for dating women so young that one did not know he was the subject of many books. Kennedy, at a swank DC restaurant with his drinking buddy Chris Dodd, throwing a petite waitress on his dinner table with such force that glass and flatware shatters and goes flying. Then Ted throws her on to Dodd’s lap and grinds against her. He is interrupted by other waitstaff. He is later caught in the same restaurant, in a semi-private area, having sex on the floor with a lobbyist.

I find it disgusting that people give Ted a pass on these incidents because he suffered family tragedies. It is the double standard on display. Teddy gets to do the illegal and immoral and suffer no serious consequence other than to be rejected by American voters as a presidential candidate.

So count me as one of the folks who did not get teary-eyed or maudlin at the passing of the so-called Lion of Liberalism. Ted Kennedy could of been a contender. While some try to portray him as a champion of the poor it is more clear that Kennedy was a champion of Kennedy and a self-indulgent politician who refused to live by the rules that apply to average folks. I won’t miss him.

The churning in the media and blogosphere about the CIA’s dastardly deeds is largely smokescreen. The Blackwater stuff, particularly the allegation that they were hired assassins to kill Al Qaeda (which, if it were true, would not be a bad thing) is a red herring. Blackwater is a convenient villain and they certainly made money out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when the truth comes out it will be evident that they were not hired assassins. Guarding a CIA installation or running a security detail for a dignitary is one thing (which they did).

The key point I think is that the CIA Inspector General’s report (John Helgerson) has been available to members of the intelligence committees on the Hill for at least 4 years, maybe five. The 2009 “discovery” that there was gambling in the casino strikes me as very self-serving, especially for members of Congress. The Democrats have now been in control of the Congress since 2006, so let’s start the clock at 2006 and ask why Congress has refused to press the Executive branch on these matters?

There were two types of abuses–1) abuses carried out with the permission/approval of Tenet and the DDO and 2) abuses carried out in the field with no clear guidance that were subsequently punished. Helgerson’s report makes it pretty clear that there were folks in position of responsibility who did try to blow the whistle and were appalled by some of the activities. I can understand why Bush and his Administration blocked the investigations and exposure of misdeeds but that still does not explain why the Democratic controlled Congress sat on its hands for three years.

Which brings me back to Pelosi. Feigned outrage about being “lied” to when she was too lazy to even ask questions and require answers earns her no sympathy in my book. And what about Rockefeller and Harmon? They knew and did nothing to press the issue.

I’m not arguing that we should ignore wrong doing by CIA officers. There is no excuse for such behavior. But most of the egregious behavior appears to have been carried out by contractors (non-blackwater) who had prior experience with military SERE training rather than career CIA officers. The CIA officers that should be under the magnifying glass–Tenet, McLaughlin, Pavitt, Black, Crumpton, etc.–don’t appear to be facing much heat. What bothers me is that Helgerson did his job and fulfilled the purpose of the IG but, when it came time for accountability, the system on both the Executive and Congressional branches of government brokedown and they did nothing with John’s info. Helgerson is one of the heroes of this sordid tale. It now appears that the scapegoat hunt is going after lower level functionaries rather than hold accountable those responsible for setting up and approving the violations that occurred.

I wrote this piece in a moment of prescience about six months ago, only a month after the Coronation Inauguration of our current White House Resident. Even then, while most of America still found him enchanting, which is to say “while they were still hypnotized,” I knew the day would come when the Obots would start waking up and wondering, “OMG! What the hell have we done?”

I imagined it would be that kind of feeling you get when the honeymoon is over, when you wake up next to the person you have just pledged your life to, and see a total stranger… and it’s someone you don’t like anymore. So I imagined what one might say to a friend or family-member when she realized she had made a fool of herself over some nogoodnik.

*********************************************

Awww. Poor baby. There, there. It’s going to be OK.

So the guy you thought was Mr. Wonderful turns out to be Mr. Disappointment. He’s let you down in so many ways. You thought he would change your life for the better, and now you wish you’d taken time to get to know him before making that big commitment. It’s called “vetting.”

After your previous long and painful relationship, you had a chance to do it right this time, and you blew it. You made a bad choice while you were on the rebound, and now you’re stuck with him.

We tried to warn you, but you wouldn’t listen.

Rebound relationships are usually doomed from the start. You’re so happy to be free of the old one, you rush into the next with your hair on fire.

You start thinking how all the happiness you’ve been missing is just around the corner, in the person of that attractive stranger you hope to meet real soon.

Before you know it, you’re making the rounds, asking friends for introductions, looking for love. Having just ended a bad relationship, you are a bit vulnerable, whether you realize it or not. You find yourself willing, even eager, to believe in magic again.

So, as it usually happens, along comes someone that sweeps you off your feet. Someone who seems really exciting and not at all like The Monster you just got out of your life. This person is different! This person could be The One! Your Savior!

It’s called “infatuation.” You are chemically ready to form a new partnership with a new love. It’s over-powering! It’s so fun! So exciting! So… insane!

You don’t even KNOW this person, and yet there you are, giving all you have to a virtual stranger, swept up in the “newness” of it. You keep saying, “it’s never felt like this before! This must be true love!”

“I feel like I’ve known you my whole life!” you exclaim passionately. Or perhaps it’s, “I feel like we were meant to be together! You are the one I’ve been waiting for!”

You are so excited, you can’t stop talking about your new love to all your friends. While they may share your happiness, inside they are trying to think how to tell you to slow the hell down!

They may know something about this person that you don’t, or maybe they just think you are not thinking clearly. They try to warn you to be careful. Slow down. Think it through. What do you really know about him?

And how do you respond to this caution from your friends? Not well!

You become defensive and paranoid. You think it’s ridiculous anyone would question your judgment.

“Why are you against me finally being happy? Why can’t you see how wonderful we are together?”

Your friends may ask if you have checked up on this person, if you have done any background investigating, or if you have some references to vouch for this stranger. The nerve of these people!!

You are willing to defend this stranger with your life. You are ready to dump lifetime friendships for this person who has bowled you over with giddy excitement. Whatever New Love says is the ultimate truth!

“And besides, all his friends are so cool! And they all think we are perfect together! So who needs fair-weather friends who can’t support my decisions and accept that I am now a better person and in a better place than before? Who needs you?!”

They try to reason with you, but to no avail. You are already over the edge. You are convinced this is it!

Now that you are committed to New Love, your Old Love is now The Enemy, along with all the old mutual friends! And the in-laws! And the people at your old hang-outs, and all your old friends who don’t enthusiastically support your new obsession. So you shut them out, every one of them.

Your new life now established, it’s time to settle down again and just be a couple.

Now for the first wavelets of doubt.

First, he disses your family and friends, more and more. He seems to care nothing about your life outside of him. He’s always needing money. You begin to wonder about the whole thing, and start to question him about a few things in particular.

Who was that on the phone? Why do you hide your email?

What happened to the money I had hidden in the cookie jar? What do you mean, “our” money?

Why can’t we go out this weekend? You have other plans? With who?

Are you lying to me? I can’t believe this! I gave up my whole life for you, and now you lie to me!

Is that even your real name? I feel like I don’t even know you anymore!

You told me when we met that you were going to do all these things, but now you’re saying something completely different! Whatever happened to our plans? Why are you turning away from me? Don’t you even care what I think anymore?

The Rebound Relationship everyone warned you about came into your life when you wanted someone different to change your life, to give you hope for something magical, to transform your life from the dreary to the new and exciting. And now, POOF! It’s over. And you are sadder, but wiser.

And your life has changed, all right. New Love has already maxed out your credit cards. Your bank account is empty. Mr. Wonderful is even bad-mouthing you while spending your money, and laughing at you because you were so gullible.

And your old friends, who tried so hard to warn you? Most of them will take you back, if you show a little remorse for treating them badly, and show that you have come back to your senses.

But for now, just have a good cry. There, there. It’ll be OK.

How does an entity sell a massive amount of assets? Individual sales are too time consuming. Personal negotiations would be too onerous. How about utilizing the internet and engaging a wider audience? That is, in fact, exactly what is happening as America goes on sale via auctions. That’s right, folks.

From the state of California to small banks and all points in between, there are and will be ongoing liquidations via auctions for the foreseeable future.

How does one receive a list of items for sale? Check out the following to start:

>> Great California Garage Sale held by the California Department of General Services.

>> Auctions for U.S. Treasury, FDIC, Personal Property, Real Estate, and Services by Rick Levin and Associates, Inc.

I have two rhetorical questions:

1. What will these auctions mean for consumer spending and retail sales going forward?

2. What will these auctions mean for the pace of inventory buildup?

All part of the new dynamic within the Uncle Sam economy.

Have fun shopping.

LD

When I saw this at The Onion, I thought this was mighty plausible. Make sure you read the crawl at the bottom - even as a die-hard Yankees fan, I thought the first one was funny:

White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase

See?? Doesn’t that make everything make more sense? It sure does for me…

But what isn’t a joke is this recent revelation: “Bill Would Give President Emergency Control Of Internet” (h/t to Mary Ellen, aka, Nunly, for this). Yep, you read that right - Obama wants to be able to control the “internets” when he deems it necessary. Oh, I WISH this was an Onion piece too, but no:

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

Isn’t this just such a comfort to you? Yeah, me, too:

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (”Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity (sic) perspective.”

Uh huh. Um, does it bother anyone else - besides us, that is - that Obama is the biggest micromanager on the face of the planet, especially since he is the most inexperienced leader on the face of the planet? Hey, I’m just asking here…

One last thing:

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shutdown or takeover of the Internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.

Unfortunately, I’m still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I’ll let you know if and when I get a response.

Oh, yippee!! Doesn’t the thought of Obama taking over the internet make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?? I know it does me. I just hope it doesn’t happen when he has one of his mood swings…

Editor: This op-ed was first published Aug. 29th at The Public Record, and is reprinted with the express permission of Mel Goodman.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was photographed shortly after his capture during a raid in Pakistan on March 1, 2003.

The lead story in today’s Washington Post, headlined “How a Detainee Became An Asset,” provides a one-sided and distorted account of the torture and abuse of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (KSM) and demonstrates the need for a blue ribbon bipartisan commission to create a comprehensive and authoritative narrative of the misgovernment of the Bush administration over the past eight years.

The prosecution of low-level CIA officials and government contractors for resorting to torture and abuse beyond the sordid guidelines of the Justice Department will allow the major players of the Bush administration as well as the lawyers of the Justice Department to escape retribution and judgment. Since President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would never be held accountable, the entire nation would be better served by a full understanding of the war crimes that they authorized in our name.

Today’s article argues that the techniques of torture and abuse turned KSM into the CIA’s “preeminent source” on al-Qaeda. Citing an intelligence assessment by the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, which was presumably prepared for Vice President Cheney, the Post article argues that waterboarding was the key to breaking KSM’s spirit and eliciting valuable intelligence on the “inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group’s plans, ideology, and operatives.”

This view contradicts the findings of the authoritative 2004 report on detainees and interrogations of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as well as the personal views of the Inspector General (IG) himself.

As the Post acknowledges, John Helgerson, the former IG who commissioned the 2004 study, said that the work of the OIG did not permit “definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods.” Helgerson acknowledged that waterboarding and sleep deprivation “elicited a lot of information,” but the OIG didn’t “do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out.”

As a result, Helgerson recommended (but the Post article chose to omit) the creation of an independent panel of experts to “systematically evaluate the quality of the intelligence gained as related to the specific techniques used, or not used, in particular cases. This would clarify the value of the information and the utility of various approaches.” This recommendation was one of ten recommendations in the 2004 IG report; unfortunately, the Justice Deparment (presumably due to the importuning of the CIA) chose to redact all ten IG recommendations from the declassified report.

There is ample testimony to challenge the view that torture and abuse worked. There were FBI agents at the site where KSM was held who testified that torture and abuse didn’t lead to eliciting valuable intelligence. And a CIA operative has noted that KSM was willing to talk before being tortured, noting that “tea and crumpets” were all that was needed. The former head of U.S. Army intelligence, Gen. John Kimmons, remarked in 2006 that “No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that.

I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that.” And more recently, several veteran FBI and military interrogators called for an investigation of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT),” because of their concerns about the legality, morality, and effectiveness of EITs.

It is important to remember that the 2004 IG report emphatically stated that the information elicited by torture and abuse “did not uncover any evidence that [any] plots were imminent.” Other CIA memoranda stated that information gained from detainees led to “arrests [that] disrupted attack plans in progress,” but did not attribute this information to the use of torture and abuse.

The IG study could not even determine if the 83 waterboardings given to Abu Zubaydah were the reason for his increased willingness to talk. The study noted, moreover, that torture was contrary to the Eighth Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishments;” the 1984 UN Torture Convention, which the United States took the lead in drafting and ratifying; and domestic law.

Finally, it is more important to remember that torture and abuse are evil. Illegal, immoral, counter-productive, but most importantly evil. George Bush told a press conference in 2005 that “this country does not believe in torture,” but the fact is we conducted torture on those who were guilty and those who were innocent.

And Dick Cheney, who has fanatically been waging his own personal jihad in defense of torture and abuse, told Fox News in an interview that will air tomorrow that CIA interrogators were justified in exceeding even the broad authorizations provided by the Justice Department, suggesting that the ends justify the means. Perhaps the Washington Post could give front-page coverage to the 18-page memorandum that the CIA gave to the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2004, which provides extraordinary details of the interrogations in plain, but sordid and sadistic, language.

Two years ago, then CIA director Michael Hayden released a collection of long-secret documents compiled in 1974 that detailed domestic spying, assassination plots, and other CIA misdeeds in the 1960s and early 1970s. In releasing the documents, known as the “family jewels,” Hayden told a group of historians who had been pressing for greater disclosure from the Agency, that the documents provided a “glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency.” He also stated that, when the government withholds information, myth and misinformation “fill the vacuum like a gas.”

In order to prevent the Washington Post and others from adding to the myths and misinformation of torture and abuse, it is time to appoint a blue ribbon commission to study all aspects of the CIA’s detentions and interrogations policies.

Melvin A. Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University, is The Public Record’s National Security and Intelligence columnist. He spent 42 years with the CIA, the National War College, and the U.S. Army. His latest book is Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA.