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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (5043)8/14/2003 10:39:59 AM
From: MSI  Respond to of 793917
 
It can't be fixed. All 15 intelligence agencies must be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up. They're a playground for dirty politics worldwide and theft of the public's money.

Other than military secrets, of which there are almost none, FOIA releases suggest there's little they are protecting that needed classifying, and are often just smokescreen protection for embarassing or criminal actions.

It appears the intelligence agencies have been used basically to wage war on the American people and the occasional honest politician that might get in the way.

jmho



To: JohnM who wrote (5043)8/14/2003 11:57:22 AM
From: Rascal  Respond to of 793917
 
Troops in Iraq face pay cut
Pentagon says tough duty bonuses are budget-buster
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Thursday, August 14, 2003

Washington -- The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.

Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.

Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation.

Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250.

Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In its "appeals package" laying out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation, Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming months.

WHITE HOUSE DUCKS ISSUE
A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's view on the pay cut to the Pentagon report.

Military families have started hearing about the looming pay reductions, and many aren't happy.

They say duty in Iraq is dangerous -- 60 Americans have died in combat- related incidents since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1. Another 69 have been killed by disease, the heat or in accidents.

"Every person they see is a threat. They have no idea who is an enemy or who is a friend," said Larry Syverson, 54, of Richmond, Va., whose two sons, Brandon, 31, and Bryce, 25, are serving in Iraq. Syverson appeared with other military families at a Washington, D.C., news conference to publicize efforts to bring the troops home.

"You can get shot in the head when you go to buy a Coke," added Syverson, referring to an incident at a Baghdad University cafeteria on July 6 when an Army sergeant was shot and killed after buying a soda.

AFRAID FOR HER SON
Susan Schuman of Shelburne Falls, Mass., said her son, Army National Guard Sgt. Justin Schuman, had told her "it's really scary" serving in Samarra, a town about 20 miles from Saddam Hussein's ancestral hometown of Tikrit.

Schuman, who like Syverson has become active in a group of military families that want service personnel pulled out of Iraq, said the pay cut possibility didn't surprise her.

"It's all part of the lie of the Bush administration, that they say they support our troops," she said.

It's rare for the independent Army Times, which is distributed widely among Army personnel, to blast the Pentagon, the White House and the Congress. But in this instance, the paper has said in recent editorials that Congress was wrong to make the pay raises temporary, and the Pentagon is wrong to call for a rollback.

"The bottom line: If the Bush administration felt in April that conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan warranted increases in danger pay and family separation allowances, it cannot plausibly argue that the higher rates are not still warranted today," the paper said in an editorial in its current edition.

On Capitol Hill, members say the issue will be taken up quickly after the summer recess when a conference committee meets to negotiate conflicting versions of the $369 billion defense appropriations bill.

"You can't put a price tag on their service and sacrifice, but one of the priorities of this bill has got to be ensuring our servicemen and women in imminent danger are compensated for it," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

"Since President Bush declared 'mission accomplished' on May 1, 126 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and we are losing more every day," Tauscher said. "If that's not imminent danger, I don't know what is."

The Senate bill calls for making permanent the increases in combat pay -- the first in more than a decade -- for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House wants to pay more for service in those two countries than for such duties as peacekeeping in the Balkans. With the money saved, the House wants to increase the size of the active military by 6,200 troops.

What won't be clear until Congress returns is whether the Pentagon will lobby against keeping the increase.

The Pentagon reiterated Wednesday that its goal was for service personnel to rotate out of Iraq after a maximum of a year in that country. Units of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which played a major role in last March's invasion, have already come home.

By the numbers
U.S. troops in Iraq: 148,000

U.S. troops in Afghanistan: 9,000

Imminent danger pay: $225 per month, but is scheduled to drop to $150 a month

Family separation allowances: $250 per month, but scheduled to drop to $100
www.sfgate.com
Rascal @AndTheySaidTheMarchersWeren'tSupportingtheTroops.com



To: JohnM who wrote (5043)8/14/2003 3:37:38 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793917
 
Bureaucratically, the agency is being asked to undertake two incompatible responsibilities: law enforcement and intelligence work.

There is the key. The rest is a one sided history of the problem. The Left is anti-Police, and the Right is pro. Goes with the basic Philosophy. This leads the left to always distrust any security Agency. After all, it wasn't the right that that was constantly having to be investigated for spies during the cold war.



To: JohnM who wrote (5043)8/14/2003 3:54:32 PM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793917
 
John...interesting article, and one that most of should do some research on......The magazine you got the article is unabashedly liberal. --see below for their own clearly stated mission---

The article makes it seem that the Repubs were in control for years, and the poor Dems were just 'sitting there, in their collective chairs, collecting their checks and heafty benefits, and 'letting those drated Repubs run all over them'...for 20 or 30 years or so......oh whine!

Who was on the Intelligence Committees for BOTH the House and Senate for each election year cycle for the last 25 years?

I notice Josh Marshall's article didn't have a single footnote for proof. Wonder why? I wonder why.


The author is correct about one thing however....the FBI needs some serious attention and investigation from a top notch Blue Ribbon panel...BUT with the current politics of distruction, who would that be, and why would they put themselves though the agony?

Check with Chicago Judge David Schippers - Democrat---see what he said in his book 'Sellout'........

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888>>>.Their mission..their words...

Why Read The Washington Monthly?

Are you fed up with the imperial Bush White House? The timid Democrats? The spinnable national media? Well, now is the time to join people such as Warren Buffett, Paul Krugman, Garry Trudeau, Molly Ivins, Bill Clinton, and the producers of "60 Minutes" and "The West Wing" who turn to The Washington Monthly each month for journalism that isn't afraid to shake some sense into the system. If, like them, you're hungry for the inside scoop on what's really happening in Washington and what can be done about it, you need our incisive and original coverage.

We're not a subsidiary of some giant corporation, or a mouthpiece for ideologues. We're an independent voice, listened to by insiders and willing to take on sacred cows--liberal and conservative.

Recently, we revealed that President Bush, who claims he doesn't read polls, has a $1 million-a-year polling operation. We explained why Sen. John McCain, if he wants to be president, should switch parties and run as a Democrat. And we showed why the Bush administration is foolish to wage war on terrorism without enlisting our European allies in the fight.

The Washington Monthly ferrets out the important stories you won't find elsewhere--on politics, government, and culture, by some of the brightest writers and commentators in the business, including James Fallows, Nicholas Lemann, Michelle Cottle, Jeff Greenfield, Paul Begala, and Joseph Epstein. And we do it all with style and wit. No wonder The New York Times calls us "a must read," and presidential historian Michael Beschloss says the Monthly "holds up a deadly accurate mirror to the Washington political culture, exposing its hypocrisies, stupidities, and unexpected triumphs."

In the War of Ideas, We Have The Weapons.

Quite simply, The Washington Monthly is the most insightful magazine on politics and government in America. And these days, with war, elections, and a possible recession looming, our in-depth coverage has never been more important. We won't waste your time on tired partisan debate about the need for more government or less government--when what America really needs is better government.

Instead of cynically tearing down institutions and programs, we offer innovative solutions: how to get the best people to work for the government and how to get the best government for the people; how to get teachers who can teach and social workers who can make welfare reform work. We believe in the great American traditions of civic responsibility, caring for the down and out, and giving the average person a break. Bill Clinton says our editors have "a passion for ideas and policies that transcend party and ideology to focus on what works."

The Washington Monthly poses the big questions and tries to answer them. How to make capitalism work for everyone. How to achieve universal health care. How to provide for the baby boomers' retirement in a way that doesn't bankrupt their children. That's why The New York Observer says, "Anyone who gives a damn about this country must subscribe."

When you become a reader of The Washington Monthly, you'll no longer have to wait for the press pack to find the story--because we usually get there first:

Last June, we made the case against unilaterally invading Iraq and for confronting Saddam through the U.N.--four months before the Bush administration, and the rest of Washington, came to the same conclusion.
In October, when the press and both parties were predicting no substantial change in the upcoming midterms, we predicted an historic shift in the balance of power: total control by the GOP of all three branches of government for the first time since 1929.
Two months before September 11, we showed that the CIA lacked enough analysts with the imagination and language skills to spot looming threats.
Who writes for The Washington Monthly?

Brilliant minds and best-sellers, many of whom got their start at the magazine, including: Michael Kinsley, Jonathan Alter, Gregg Easterbrook, Timothy Noah, Taylor Branch, Mickey Kaus, Katherine Boo, James Bennet, Walter Shapiro, David Ignatius, Suzannah Lessard, and Jason DeParle. When The Chicago Tribune picked 11 all-stars of the "new New Journalism," eight had gotten their start at The Washington Monthly.

Other publications frown on journalists who work in government. We welcome them. After all, the best way to understand how the system works is to work there yourself.

Before starting the magazine, Monthly founder Charles Peters was a bureaucrat, a legislator, a lawyer, and a soldier. In the spirit of I.F. Stone, Peters uses that experience to point out what works and what doesn't in his column "Tilting at Windmills."

New editor-in-chief Paul Glastris has worked on both sides of the system. He covered national politics and foreign affairs for ten years at U.S. News & World Report, then served in the White House as President Bill Clinton's senior speechwriter.

We get the inside story by having insiders write the stories, including:

Bruce Reed, former Clinton domestic policy adviser, on how Bush is making the Clinton administration's biggest early mistake--listening to partisan supporters in Congress rather than the voters.
Sen. John McCain on the case for expanding national service.
Wesley Clark, the general who won America's last war, on how the Bush administration is bungling this one by ignoring a secret weapon: NATO.
Amy Graham, former U.S. News & World Report data research director, on how that magazine's college guide measures everything but what really matters: learning.
Eric Schaeffer, former EPA enforcement chief, on how the Bush administration is crippling the agency's abilities to enforce environmental laws.
We also turn our best writers loose on books, movies, art, and American life. The result is feisty culture coverage you won't find anywhere else, including:

Why gays and rock bands drive economic growth;
Why painter Frida Kahlo--a drug addict and Stalinist-- is the new role model;
Why men love action flicks where tough women beat up guys;
Why women secretly love the bad books of Naomi Wolf;



Are you fed up with the imperial Bush White House? The timid Democrats? The spinnable national media? Well, now is the time to join people such as Warren Buffett, Paul Krugman, Garry Trudeau, Molly Ivins, Bill Clinton, and the producers of "60 Minutes" and "The West Wing" who turn to The Washington Monthly each month for journalism that isn't afraid to shake some sense into the system. If, like them, you're hungry for the inside scoop on what's really happening in Washington and what can be done about it, you need our incisive and original coverage.

We're not a subsidiary of some giant corporation, or a mouthpiece for ideologues. We're an independent voice, listened to by insiders and willing to take on sacred cows--liberal and conservative.

Recently, we revealed that President Bush, who claims he doesn't read polls, has a $1 million-a-year polling operation. We explained why Sen. John McCain, if he wants to be president, should switch parties and run as a Democrat. And we showed why the Bush administration is foolish to wage war on terrorism without enlisting our European allies in the fight.

The Washington Monthly ferrets out the important stories you won't find elsewhere--on politics, government, and culture, by some of the brightest writers and commentators in the business, including James Fallows, Nicholas Lemann, Michelle Cottle, Jeff Greenfield, Paul Begala, and Joseph Epstein. And we do it all with style and wit. No wonder The New York Times calls us "a must read," and presidential historian Michael Beschloss says the Monthly "holds up a deadly accurate mirror to the Washington political culture, exposing its hypocrisies, stupidities, and unexpected triumphs."

In the War of Ideas, We Have The Weapons.

Quite simply, The Washington Monthly is the most insightful magazine on politics and government in America. And these days, with war, elections, and a possible recession looming, our in-depth coverage has never been more important. We won't waste your time on tired partisan debate about the need for more government or less government--when what America really needs is better government.

Instead of cynically tearing down institutions and programs, we offer innovative solutions: how to get the best people to work for the government and how to get the best government for the people; how to get teachers who can teach and social workers who can make welfare reform work. We believe in the great American traditions of civic responsibility, caring for the down and out, and giving the average person a break. Bill Clinton says our editors have "a passion for ideas and policies that transcend party and ideology to focus on what works."

The Washington Monthly poses the big questions and tries to answer them. How to make capitalism work for everyone. How to achieve universal health care. How to provide for the baby boomers' retirement in a way that doesn't bankrupt their children. That's why The New York Observer says, "Anyone who gives a damn about this country must subscribe."

When you become a reader of The Washington Monthly, you'll no longer have to wait for the press pack to find the story--because we usually get there first:

Last June, we made the case against unilaterally invading Iraq and for confronting Saddam through the U.N.--four months before the Bush administration, and the rest of Washington, came to the same conclusion.
In October, when the press and both parties were predicting no substantial change in the upcoming midterms, we predicted an historic shift in the balance of power: total control by the GOP of all three branches of government for the first time since 1929.
Two months before September 11, we showed that the CIA lacked enough analysts with the imagination and language skills to spot looming threats.
Who writes for The Washington Monthly?

Brilliant minds and best-sellers, many of whom got their start at the magazine, including: Michael Kinsley, Jonathan Alter, Gregg Easterbrook, Timothy Noah, Taylor Branch, Mickey Kaus, Katherine Boo, James Bennet, Walter Shapiro, David Ignatius, Suzannah Lessard, and Jason DeParle. When The Chicago Tribune picked 11 all-stars of the "new New Journalism," eight had gotten their start at The Washington Monthly.

Other publications frown on journalists who work in government. We welcome them. After all, the best way to understand how the system works is to work there yourself.

Before starting the magazine, Monthly founder Charles Peters was a bureaucrat, a legislator, a lawyer, and a soldier. In the spirit of I.F. Stone, Peters uses that experience to point out what works and what doesn't in his column "Tilting at Windmills."

New editor-in-chief Paul Glastris has worked on both sides of the system. He covered national politics and foreign affairs for ten years at U.S. News & World Report, then served in the White House as President Bill Clinton's senior speechwriter.

We get the inside story by having insiders write the stories, including:

Bruce Reed, former Clinton domestic policy adviser, on how Bush is making the Clinton administration's biggest early mistake--listening to partisan supporters in Congress rather than the voters.
Sen. John McCain on the case for expanding national service.
Wesley Clark, the general who won America's last war, on how the Bush administration is bungling this one by ignoring a secret weapon: NATO.
Amy Graham, former U.S. News & World Report data research director, on how that magazine's college guide measures everything but what really matters: learning.
Eric Schaeffer, former EPA enforcement chief, on how the Bush administration is crippling the agency's abilities to enforce environmental laws.
We also turn our best writers loose on books, movies, art, and American life. The result is feisty culture coverage you won't find anywhere else, including:

Why gays and rock bands drive economic growth;
Why painter Frida Kahlo--a drug addict and Stalinist-- is the new role model;
Why men love action flicks where tough women beat up guys;
Why women secretly love the bad books of Naomi Wolf;
How Dean Martin's son shows that baby boomers learned hedonism at home.

Who Reads The Washington Monthly?

Time says our magazine is "must reading at the White House and on Capitol Hill," and and The Washington Post says our magazine is "setting off the Beltway buzzmeter." Even the conservative Weekly Standard calls us "smart." If you subscribe, you'll join people like Tom Brokaw, Dick Cheney, Tom Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Joe Klein, Ellen Goodman, and thousands of others who want the inside stories weeks or months before they appear in the mainstream media. That's why James Carville says, "If you only get one magazine subscription this year, buy The Washington Monthly. If you're getting another, buy two."

washingtonmonthly.com