SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Win Smith who wrote (5113)8/19/2001 8:38:09 AM
From: PoetRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 6089
 
This is a riot. I've bolded some of the funniest parts.:

August 19, 2001

POLITICAL NOTEBOOK

At Night, Bush-Speak Goes Into Overdrive

By FRANK BRUNI

CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 18 —
President Bush has always preferred
giving speeches earlier rather than later in the
day, and this week the reason was clear.

Nighttime is when the vampires come out.

They haunted Mr. Bush in Denver on
Tuesday when he spoke at a fund- raising
dinner for Colorado Republicans and
suddenly, in the middle of his remarks,
began talking about his interest in
"vampire-busting devices." For a fleeting
moment, it seemed as if he might propose
federal subsidies for garlic and holy water.

He was at it again the next evening in Albuquerque, N.M., where he talked,
in slightly revised terms, about "vampire-defeating devices." Stakes?
Crucifixes? Buffy?


Alas, Mr. Bush was simply trying to prove how committed to energy
conservation he was. And the vampires in question were cell-phone chargers
that continue to drain electricity even when the phone is not in the cradle. Mr.
Bush has ordered that federal agencies correct the problem with new
energy-saving gadgets.

But his slightly herky-jerky introduction and explanation of the topic
demonstrated again something that was more apparent during his presidential
campaign, when his days were longer and his evening events more frequent.

Bush at night is entirely different from Bush in the day.

Bush at night is more likely to indulge odd digressions and unleash twisty,
stuttering, imprecise sentences.

"A vampire is a — a — cell deal you can plug in the wall to charge your cell
phone," he said in Denver. It was an inauspicious first step toward
technological Transylvania.


Bush at night hatches quizzical new phrases. In Denver and Albuquerque, he
talked about the "so- called surplus," making it sound as if he doubted the
existence of the very money he deemed so bountiful that a tax cut was
necessary.


And Bush at night latches onto adjectives and doesn't let go. Eight times in
about one minute, he called Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New
Mexico, for whom he was raising money at the Albuquerque event,
"passionate," and Mr. Domenici's passions knew no bounds.


"Pete is passionate about the budget," the president said. He then erased
more than two months of Congressional history, traveling back to a time
before Democrats took control of the Senate, and put Mr. Domenici in
charge of the Senate budget committee once again.

"I can assure you, Mr. Chairman," Mr. Bush said to him, hurriedly adding:
"Or I wish would be Mr. Chairman — should be Mr. Chairman, and will be
Mr. Chairman after next 2002." Not to be confused with last 2002.


An Opportunity Not Lost

It begins with the goody bags. A White House reporter settling into his or her
hotel room in Waco, the city closest to Mr. Bush's ranch near Crawford,
finds that the local chamber of commerce has planted a little paper satchel of
Snickers and Skittles (there's a candy plant in town) and Dr Pepper (it
originated here).

It continues with barge cruises on Lake Waco. The chamber of commerce
has already arranged two cruises for the Washington press corps and has a
third in the works, in the hopes of attracting more than the sum total of two
journalists who have shown up to date.

And it includes the "Texas White House Update," a weekly newsletter that
the chamber distributes to the visiting press corps, guiding them to the best
happy hours, the fastest laundry services and a 24-hour concierge who will
help them with anything, anytime.

Waco, a sun-scorched plain as notable for what it doesn't have (a coast, a
mountain, a Four Seasons hotel) as what it does (the Dr Pepper Museum,
heat), is not about to squander the opportunity to sell itself to the dozens of
reporters monitoring the president's vacation.

And so it has started an intense marketing campaign-cum-seduction,
complete with welcoming parties, brightly colored fliers and free T- shirts
that say "43's neighbor," the number referring to Mr. Bush, the country's
43rd president.

"What size are you?" said Steve Smith, the chamber of commerce's vice
president for special events, upon learning that a reporter had not yet seen
one.

It is hospitality — mixed with profiteering — as big and warm as Texas itself,
and the chamber of commerce is not alone in the endeavor. Stacked high on
a table in the news media center in the Crawford Elementary School are
entreaties from local businesses and organizations.

Bosque Real Estate advertises a three-bedroom frame house with central
air-conditioning (a must) for $33,500. The burg of Clifton serves notice of
the Clifton Lutheran Sunset Home Quilt Auction. Five churches in Crawford,
which doesn't seem big enough to support one, invite visitors to "Come
Worship with Us."

And it is easily explained. Mr. Smith concedes that the last time this many
national news organizations sent so many people to Waco, a certain Branch
Davidian complex was under siege.

A Swing State Swing

President Bush's August vacation in Crawford is affording him plenty of time
for relaxation and visits with Texas friends, all of which he casts as an
essential antidote to the never- ending politicking in Washington.

And yet Mr. Bush's schedule for his occasional travel from Texas this month
seems plenty political. It is as prevalent with swing states as the final stretch
of a presidential campaign.

This week he visited New Mexico, which he lost to Vice President Al Gore
in 2000 by fewer than 400 votes.

Next week, he visits Wisconsin, which he lost, and Missouri, which he won.
The following week, he heads to Pennsylvania, which he lost.

Wisconsin, Missouri and Pennsylvania are all battleground states that were
fiercely contested in 2000 and probably will be again in 2004.

It is, in the words of Yogi Berra, déja vu all over again.

But there is one difference. Laura Bush, who often accompanied Mr. Bush
last October and November, has opted out this time around, staying in
Crawford while Mr. Bush, in his trips out of town, tells audiences what a
terrific job she is doing as first lady.

It is yet another indication of how conspicuously inconspicuous Mrs. Bush
has been, a decision that family friends say is deliberate.

"She's keeping house, cleaning, enjoying herself," said one. "I think her
profile suits her just fine, and I think she's smart enough to know that in 2003
and especially 2004, she's not going to be able to do this."



To: Win Smith who wrote (5113)8/22/2001 9:12:16 AM
From: PoetRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 6089
 
Hi Win,

Have you seen this Op-Ed piece about the attempt to tighten up the secret-keeping abilities of the government?

August 22, 2001

Keeping Secrets at Too High a Price

By THOMAS S. BLANTON

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Intelligence Committee, foiled last
year only by President Bill Clinton's veto, is again putting together a
bill that would establish the country's first-ever official secrets act. It is a
remarkable post-cold war paradox: At a time when the rest of the world is
looking to America for leadership on openness, Congress would make it
harder for Americans to know what their government is doing and would
give aid and comfort to every tin-pot dictator who wants to claim "national
security" as the reason to keep his citizens in the dark.

Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the principal sponsor, has scheduled a
perfunctory hearing on Sept. 5; after that he wants to begin pushing a bill
through the committee that would criminalize the unauthorized disclosure of
any type of classified information by federal employees. It is unclear whether
Bob Graham of Florida, the committee chairman and a supporter of last
year's bill, intends to slow Mr. Shelby down. It does seem clear, however,
that President Bush would be unlikely to veto such a measure.

The committee's staff members seem confident and have told critics, in effect:
Go ahead and file your statements of opposition next month, but don't expect
to convince our senators. The committee members have been spoon-fed the
Central Intelligence Agency's self-interested damage assessments — all
highly classified, of course.

What the senators and their staff have never told us is why, exactly, we need
such a law. Is there really any foreign intelligence threat even remotely
comparable today to the sophistication of the K.G.B. during the cold war?
Are there really more leaks in the White House and State Department today
than there were, say, during the glory days of Henry Kissinger's tenure?

The staff members insist that the need is more urgent than ever, but they can't
give us any details — that's classified. I'm skeptical — after all, my
organization has spent the last two years in court fighting a C.I.A. claim that
release of biographical sketches of dead Communist leaders in Eastern
Europe would somehow jeopardize the agency's sources and methods.

Whenever in the past Congress has considered making it a felony to leak
classified information, it has always stepped back from this sort of
broad-gauge approach, choosing instead to criminalize only leaks of specific
and narrowly defined data — like the capabilities of technology designed to
intercept communications — where there was identifiable damage to national
security.

In 1982, for example, Congress made it a felony to divulge the identities of
C.I.A. officers and "assets." This met the constitutional test because, as
Antonin Scalia, then a law professor, testified to Congress at the time, "the
necessity of this particular, narrow category of disclosure to the free and
open political debate which the first amendment is intended primarily to
assure" is "negligible."

Some Intelligence Committee staff members say that the current proposal
meets this criteria of narrowness, too, because it would apply only to a small
segment of the population — government employees with security
clearances. Well, the last time I checked, this amounted to about three
million people, not counting former employees!

Supporters of the proposal also bristle at the appellation "official secrets act"
and try to draw a contrast with the British law of that name, which allows the
prosecution of journalists who publish secrets. They say the proposal could
not be used to prosecute journalists, especially in light of current Justice
Department guidelines that prevent such action. But when the government
prosecutes employees who leak information, who will be called, under
penalty of perjury, as the only witnesses to the crime? Journalists. Where will
they find the evidence of the crime? In the press.

To this argument, some of the proposal's supporters have given an unusual
answer: No, they say, there won't be any prosecutions of leakers under such
a law, because the government never actually catches leakers. As one
Intelligence Committee lawyer told me, the purpose is to chill potential
leakers, who "won't think it's so cool to leak when it's a felony."

By covering all classified information, however, the bill would chill much
more than just leaks. James Woolsey, a former director of central
intelligence, and Kenneth Bacon, a former Pentagon spokesman, each
argued against last year's bill, pointing out that such laws would discourage
legitimate interactions between government officials and the public on matters
of national security.

The fact is, the government already has plenty of power to punish those who
disclose classified information — it can pull their security clearances, fire
them, even keep them from ever working again in the national security
apparatus.

As Philip Heymann, a former deputy attorney general, argued last year, a
blanket secrecy law is an invitation to selective prosecution and retribution,
even if is tempered with protections for leaks about waste, fraud and abuse.
It's also true that such a law could become a free pass to every national
security bureaucrat trying to cover his mistakes, as well as the ultimate
enforcement mechanism for the government's spin machine, compelling
everyone in national security offices to stay "on message" under threat of
prosecution.

Such a law would also rob the Intelligence Committee itself of many of the
tools — media exposure, the expertise of former officials, input from
academic experts and nongovernmental organizations on classified matters
— that Congress depends on for checks and balances on the executive
branch.

Yet some committee members now seem to be saying: "Trust us; the damage
from leaks is so great that we should restrict our First Amendment rights and
chill the public debate over core issues of national security." That was a
questionable argument during the cold war; it's an unsupportable one now.

Thomas S. Blanton is director of the National Security Archive, a
research institute and documentation center at George Washington
University.