The Cool Blue Blog

Motivations

Last week, Britain, France and the US decided to announce to the world that they knew Iran was hiding a secret nuclear facility in Iran's holy city of Qom.

The information was developed during the Bush Administration.

It was three years ago that American intelligence agents began picking up signs that someone was tunnelling into the side of a mountain in the desert outside the holy city of Qom.

But according to The Politico, President Obama had no plans to make the announce when he did

But behind the scenes, the Obama administration was furiously preparing for a major public intelligence disclosure that it had not planned to make: that the U.S. had known for years about a previously undisclosed clandestine nuclear enrichment facility Iran has been building since 2005 in a mountain near Qom.

Interviews with administration and international officials, diplomats, non-proliferation and Iran experts suggest the administration had no plans to announce its suspicions before beginning international talks with Iran next week. But its hand was forced after learning some time during the week of a letter Iran had sent the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna acknowledging construction of a previously undisclosed facility.

And it appears that Iran wrote this letter because it found out that the US knew about the facility at Qom.

Last week, as Tehran finally woke up to the knowledge that the plant’s security had been breached, it rushed to declare its existence to the IAEA, hoping to pre-empt other reports and prove its openness and co-operation.

Now that the information is out in the open, Britain, France and the US are talking tough.

The allies will demand that Iran prove to the increasingly skeptical group that its intentions with its various sites are peaceful and energy-related, as Iran claims, and not for weapons development, as the West believes, the official said Saturday.

These nations now agree that they are less inclined to listen to suspect arguments or incomplete evidence — viewing it as a stall tactic, the official said.

Right. But they've known about this for three years. And in those three years they hesitated in imposing more sanctions and instead engaged in "good faith" negotiations as if they didn't know that Iran was hiding this facility. And even now, for all their new found outrage

But beyond the timeframe of "weeks" for coming clean on Qom, the allies will not give Iran a specific deadline to provide the information about its overall program, the official said.

And President Obama is still proceeding with plans to talk to Iran.

Iran is not fooled by all the saber rattling

Consider:

1. The "allies" have known that Iran's been lying about and trying to conceal the existence of this site for 3 years.
2. Despite having this information, the December 2007 NIE in its unclassified "key judgements" report said "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
   program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
   keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." This assessment that was released to the public was not only wrong, it was intentionally misleading.
3. Iran had to have noticed that missing from the group of people announcing Iran's "newly discovered" facility were Germany, Russia and China.
4. President Obama has not canceled his meeting with Ahmadinejad.

Because of what they see with their eyes, not only is Iran unfazed by the West's indignation, it remains provocative.

Iran reported Monday that it successfully test-fired its most advanced and powerful medium-range missiles as part of war games it said were intended to deter the country's enemies.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps tested the Shahab-3 and Sejil missiles in the third phase of a two-day exercise called The Great Prophet IV, state-run news media reported. The missiles are believed to be capable of striking Israel, U.S. military targets in the Middle East and parts of southeastern Europe.

Just last week, President Obama announced that he would cancel plans for a missile shield that would protect Eastern Europe from just such an attack from Iran. This pleased the Russians but did not please the Eastern European countries that would have benefited from plan. The speculation is that this would encourage Russia to align against Iran.

So how's that going?

When asked about Iran and sanctions by NBCs Andrea Mitchell, President Medvedev said

Iran as a state has a right to its own peaceful nuclear program. This is our clear position.

That is what I said to Barack Obama yesterday. I do not believe sanctions are the best way to achieve results. Sanctions were used on a number of occasions against Iran but we have doubts about the results. Nevertheless when all instruments have been used and failed, one can use international legal sanctions.

So, no help there.

The President is hoping that inclusion in the international community is a motivating factor for Iran; that he can convince them that by dropping the nuclear weapons program Iran will get what he perceives they want. And he is probably right that this is what the people of Iran want.

But evidence suggests that this is not what the Iranian leadership wants.

Evidence suggests that Iran's leadership is motivated by

a) the destruction of Israel

b) domination of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf

c) and even, possibly, an apocalyptic return of the 12th Imam

Everything they have done suggests that they need to hold the West off long enough to develop a nuclear weapon with which they become untouchable because they then hold the key to destroying everything the West needs from the Middle East and North Africa: oil.

President Obama is also under the impression that Russia does not want a rogue nuclear nation like Iran around.

But everything Russia has done suggests just the opposite. Russia is helping Iran build it's nuclear facilities. Russia is selling weapons and anti-aircraft defense system to Iran.

Russia has nothing to assure us that their motivations in this regard are friendly to the United States.

So too with China. They also are helping Iran with nuclear and missile technology. Has anyone stopped to think that their motivation may be ascendancy over the US rather than being good global neighbors?

And what was the motivation for publishing an NIE that told us everything was fine with Iran when the authors knew it was untrue?

The State Secret dodge

During the "evil" Bush Administration, people who sued the government alleging they were illegally spied upon found that their cases were thrown out of court when the Government invoked "State Secrets" privilege.

Essentially, a litigant would come before the court and say "George Bush and his evil regime spied on me" and Geoger Bush (et al) would say: "Hey, if we proceed with this case, extremely grave damage to national security will result." The judge without reviewing the reason for invoking the State Secrets claim would often agree and say "OK" and throw the case out of court.

The ACLU was frustrated in this way from halting the NSA's "tap the terrorists" program in ACLU v NSA. The Center for Constitutional Rights tried the same thing with the same results.

In 2006, Khalid El-Masri's suit claiming he was wrongful abducted, detained and interrogated was thrown out of court after the Bush Administration claimed the State Secrets privilege. The case was appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court but the SCOTUS refused to hear the case tacitly affirming the State Secrets privilege which it had explicitly affirmed in 1953's US v Reynolds decision.

President Obama, campaigning as the anti-Bush, often expressed his intention to undo all things Bushian including the use of the State Secrets defense. But after taking office, he was not as offended as he was as a candidate.

    The question came from Michael Scherer of Time magazine.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you criticized President Bush’s use of the state secrets privilege, but U.S. attorneys have continued to argue the Bush position in three cases in court. How exactly does your view of state secrets differ from President Bush’s? And do you believe presidents should be able to derail entire lawsuits about warrantless wiretapping or rendition if classified information is involved?

OBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it’s overbroad.

But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We’re in for a week, and suddenly we’ve got a court filing that’s coming up. And so we don’t have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We’ve got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.

I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can’t litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.

But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it’s not such a blunt instrument.

And we’re interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak.

Well at long last, President Obama's Attorney General Erick Holder announced new guidelines for the use of State Secrets.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced limits Wednesday on the use of the "state secrets" defense, which can block courts from considering cases in which government secrets could be released.

The new standard would require the attorney general and a panel of government lawyers to approve such a claim "only when genuine and significant harm to national defense or foreign relations is at stake."

And who will determine if the new standard has been properly adhered to? According to the Memo released by the Attorney General:

A State Secrets Review Committee consisting of senior Department of Justice officials designated by the Attorney General will evaluate the Assistant Attorney General's recommendation to determine whether invocation of the privilege in litigation is warranted.

B. Consultation. The Review Committee will consult as necessary and appropriate with the department or agency seeking invocation of the privilege in litigation and with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The Review Committee must engage in such consultation prior to making any recommendation against defending the invocation of the privilege in litigation.
C. Recommendation by the Review Committee. The Review Committee shall make a recommendation to the Deputy Attorney General, who shall in turn make a recommendation to the Attorney General.2 The recommendations shall be made in a timely manner to ensure that the Attorney General has adequate time to give meaningful consideration to such recommendations.

So, it appears, nothing has changed. The new Government position is the same as the old government opinion: Trust us.

"On paper, this is a step forward. In court, however, the Obama administration continues to defend a broader view of state secrets put forward by the Bush administration and to demand that federal courts throw out lawsuits filed by victims of torture and illegal surveillance," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project.

Despite the fact that people like the ACLU don't see any difference between the Bush and the Obama positions on this issue, The New York Times who routinely blasted Bush, found the Obama position acceptable. It's headline says "Justice Dept. to Limit Use of State Secrets Privilege" when it did no such thing.

The Washington Post similarly said "Obama to Set Higher Bar For Keeping State Secrets" and

The Obama administration will announce a new policy Wednesday making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping, according to two senior Justice Department officials.

The new policy requires agencies, including the intelligence community and the military, to convince the attorney general and a team of Justice Department lawyers that the release of sensitive information would present significant harm to "national defense or foreign relations.

Civil Libertarians disagree that the new policy will make anything much more difficult especially when you consider that

Since February, a Justice Department task force of eight lawyers has been sifting through about a dozen pending cases in which state secrets arguments have been made.

So far, they have reversed course in only one lawsuit -- a bizarre case in federal court in the District in which a former agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration accuses the State Department and the CIA of installing listening devices in a coffee table in his home.

(I'm assuming that would be Richard Horn.)

But it is unlikely, as the WaPo seems to believe, that the new "rules" will affect wiretap or detention cases given that the Obama Administration is defending a renewal of the Patriot Act

The Obama administration has told Congress it supports renewing three provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire at year’s end, measures making it easier for the government to spy within the United States.

In a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said the administration might consider “modifications” to the act in order to protect civil liberties...

These are the three provisions due to expire:

*A secret court, known as the FISA court, may grant “roving wiretaps” without the government identifying the target. Generally, the authorities must assert that the target is an agent of a foreign power and/or a suspected terrorist. The government said Tuesday that 22 such warrants — which allow the monitoring of any communication device — have been granted annually.

*The FISA court may grant warrants for “business records,” from banking to library to medical records. Generally, the government must assert that the records are relevant to foreign intelligence gathering and/or a terrorism investigation. The government said Tuesday that 220 of these warrants had been granted between 2004 and 2007. It said 2004 was the first year those powers were used.

*A so-called “lone wolf” provision, enacted in 2004, allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of an individual even without showing that the person is an agent of a foreign power or a suspected terrorist. The government said Tuesday it has never invoked that provision, but said it wants to keep the authority to do so.

“The basic idea behind the authority was to cover situations in which information linking the target of an investigation to an international group was absent or insufficient, although the target’s engagement in ‘international terrorism’ was sufficiently established,” Weich wrote.

The American Civil Liberties opposes renewing all three provisions, especially the lone wolf measure.

Now it seems to me that AG Holder's memo is an attempt by the Administration to short circuit congressional action to limit the Executive Branch's use of the State Secrets privilege that would have real restriction. In stark contrast to the new Justice Department guidelines the legislation introduced by Senator Leahy would provide guidelines to the Court regarding when to accept government claims of State Secrets.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) are also cosponsors of the legislation.  The Leahy-Specter-Feingold-Kennedy legislation would: 

• Provide a uniform set of procedures for federal courts considering claims of the state secrets privilege
• Codify many of best practices that are already available to courts but that often go unused, such as in camera hearings, non-privilege substitutes, and special masters
• Require judges to look at the evidence that the government claims is privileged, rather than relying solely on government affidavits
• Forbid judges from dismissing cases at the pleadings stage, before there has been any document discovery, while protecting innocent defendants by allowing cases to be dismissed when they would need privileged evidence to establish a valid defense
• Require judges to order the government to produced unclassified or redacted versions of sensitive evidence when possible to allow cases to move forward safely
• Establish security procedures to ensure that secrets are not leaked during litigation, including closed hearings, security clearance requirements, sealed orders, and expedited appeals
• Establish congressional reporting requirements
• Address the crisis of legitimacy surrounding the privilege by setting clear rules that take into account both national security and the Constitution

Now this legislation was originally introduced to the 110th Congress in response to Bush Administration  "assertions of the state secrets privilege in cases challenging the constitutionally of several of the Bush administration’s national security programs, including the warrantless wiretapping, rendition and interrogation programs" and was reintroduced when the new Congress was seated.

Back in 2008,

Leahy said, “The State Secrets Protection Act will help guide the courts to balance the government’s interests in secrecy with accountability and the rights of citizens to seek judicial redress.  The bill does not restrict the Government’s ability to assert the privilege in appropriate cases.  In light of the pending cases where this privilege has been invoked, involving issues including torture, rendition and warrantless wiretapping, we can ill-afford to delay consideration of this important legislation.  I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this bill.”

And it seems all of this still applies, but

Hours after the Attorney General Eric Holder announced the new policy, which requires administration officials to seek Justice Department approval before blocking the release of sensitive information, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) praised the White House for its openness and transparency.

I wonder if this means Sen Leahy et. al. will now let their important bill languish.

To me, legislating guidelines that allow the courts to decide the efficacy of the State Secrets claim is much better than allowing the Government to police their own hen-house especially since it is an obvious conflict of interest. 

I think that in general for the wiretap cases, the State Secret privilege is justified. It is in cases of rendition and interrogation for which I am least likely to allow the government to just say "Trust Us" and would welcome and independent court review of the justifications for such actions.

Despite the high praise the New York Times, The Washington Post and even Patrick Leahy himself heaped upon the new guidelines from the Attorney General,

Seven major civil rights and open government organizations today sent a letter to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees urging them to pass legislation to restrict the government’s ability to use the “state secrets” privilege to dismiss litigation charging government wrongdoing. Although the Obama administration yesterday announced a new policy in which it essentially promised to use of the state secrets privilege more sparingly, that promise is not good enough, the organizations wrote.

...the new policy does not address all the problems, the organizations wrote. “To ensure proper oversight and an independent check on executive discretion, judges must be able to review the evidence, order the creation of non-privileged substitutes where appropriate, and assess whether there is sufficient non-privileged evidence to enable a case to proceed,” the letter said. “Legislation is necessary to implement these key reforms.”

The seven organizations who signed onto the letter are the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Constitution Project, Human Rights First, the National Security Archive, and OMB Watch.

I agree with the President that these parts of the Patriot Act should be renewed. I agree that the Administration should attempt to police itself with regards to invoking the State Secrets privilege

But I also agree that it could easily be misused and the Executive should have to convince the Judicial Branch that invoking the State Secrets privilege is justified.

Not just itself.

Afghanistan, then and now

On March 27, 2009, President Obama announced a major new direction in Afghanistan

Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.   And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce, that I ordered as soon as I took office. 

Six months later, the careful policy review that resulted in the "New Strategy" is being reviewed again.

A senior administration official tells Fox that President Obama and his national security team began fresh analysis of the Afghanistan strategy on Sept. 13 in the White House situation room as part of an on-going review of war policy.

"There's this idea that there's a change of strategy looming,but there are difficult questions to ask as we continue to review this," the official said.

Back in March, the President said

...let me be clear:  Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.  And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

But now, the President is not so clear

On Sunday he said: The first question is — are we pursuing the right strategy?” Even more tellingly, the President said that his core goal was to destroy al-Qaeda, which is not present in significant numbers in Afghanistan.

So the President's thinking now that maybe we can abandon Afghanistan (again) and it might not become a base for terrorists who want to kill us.

At one point, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton told President Bush to listen to his Generals:

General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, who said last week that the war was likely to be lost without a rapid surge of additional troops.

General McChrystal believes that the only way to avoid defeat in Afghanistan is significantly to increase US troop levels to safeguard the population, fight the Taleban and reconstruct the country’s civilian infrastructure — a strategy endorsed by Mr Obama in a speech on March 27.

But listening to Generals is not the top priority any more

In another sign of the stiffening resistance within civilian elements of the Obama Administration to a major military escalation, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, on Monday expressed “respect” for the general’s assessment, but added: “There are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite.”

But General McChrystal is the guy President Obama put in charge of Afghanistan, after relieving General David McKiernan of his command, presumably because the President trusted his judgment over that of General McKiernan. And what is General McChrystal's judgement?

In a confidential 66-page report leaked to the Washington Post, General McChrystal explicitly states that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict in Afghanistan "will likely result in failure."

Back in March President Obama said

There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban.  They must be met with force, and they must be defeated.  But there are also those who've taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price.  These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course.  And that's why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province.  As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated.  And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans -- including women and girls.

And now General McChrystal recommends

emphasizing the importance of protecting civilians over just engaging insurgents, restricting airstrikes to reduce civilian casualties, and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces and accelerating their training. He also signaled that he will seek to unify the effort of American allies that operate in Afghanistan, and possibly to ask them to contribute more troops, money and training.

Listening to the President back in March and McChrystal today, you'd think they were on the same page.

But the President's hesitation and re-examination of a strategy that is only six months old would cast doubt on that conclusion.

True, he is facing pressure from the Left and he is faced with a public that is growing sour on the war because casualties have grown since al Qaida lost in Iraq and began focusing more on Afghanistan.

But Bushed faced these same pressures and stood resolute.

You know, in reading through President Obama's speech in March I noticed that he did not use the words win, victory or success relative to the outcome of his new strategy in Afghanistan.

Yet another way in which he differentiates himself from Bush, I suppose.

SSGT Bart Cole

SSgt Bart Cole enlisted in the Marine Corps after graduation from high school in 1998 and served overseas several times prior to his two deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

On March 24, 2004, while serving as assistant convoy commander, his convoy approached a U.S. Army convoy near Mushahidah, Iraq.

As the lead vehicle in his convoy came along side of a stopped U.S. Army vehicle, three Iraqi males began firing on the stopped vehicle, wounding the U.S Army soldiers. 

Cole and his turret gunner returned fire.

“All I could think of at the time was I hope my Marines and I get to our Army fellows before they get overrun,” recalled Cole. 

Exposing himself to enemy fire, Cole exited the vehicle and engaged the enemy.

He ran to the Army vehicle, manned the machine gun, and engaged another insurgent who was charging at the wounded soldiers near him.  Simultaneously, the Marines began taking fire from a house parallel to the ambush site.

When Cole began receiving small arms fire and machine gun fire, he crawled up through the Army Humvee.

“I noticed that the .50 cal was unloaded, so I loaded it with an ammunition can that I found in the truck and began to engage the enemy positions while my Marines could rally on my position,” explained Cole.  “When the .50 cal ran out of ammunition, I crawled out of the vehicle, took a M249 automatic weapon from a wounded soldier, and then crawled back up through the Humvee as rounds were slapping the truck.”

Cole leveled the M249 on top of the empty .50 cal and began to place bursts into the left over enemy machine gun emplacement.  He also directed another Marine to suppress the enemy with grenade fire.  Once the enemy machine gun was eliminated, he immediately rendered first aid to the two wounded soldiers until relieved. 

Unfortunately, Cole has no idea how the soldiers are doing.  His Marine unit was not assigned with the Army.

“I hope they are well and healed,” said Cole.

Due to his immediate actions he was not only able to defuse the situation but also coordinated the secure landing zone for a helicopter to perform a medical evacuation for the U.S. casualties.  For his bravery and sound leadership, he was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor.

Charging ahead

Candidate Obama was adamant that a new approach was needed in dealing with Iran. He wanted to talk to them. At first unconditionally then he back away from that, but now, he's back to unconditionally

Tehran offered "comprehensive and constructive negotiations" on Wednesday, but did not mention the key issue of its nuclear programme.

While stressing the offer "does not address our nuclear concerns" the US said it is was ready to "test Iran's willingness to engage".

Now it wasn't but a few days since the IAEA, the UN arm responsible for monitoring nuclear proliferation issues, announced that Iran was not meeting its commitments, and worse, on a path to realizing a nuclear weapon

On Wednesday the US ambassador to the atomic energy agency, Glyn Davies, said Iran had reached ''possible break-out capacity'' - the ability to acquire enough fuel and expertise to complete building a nuclear weapon relatively quickly - if it decided to enrich its uranium to manufacture bomb-grade material....

On Thursday, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear affairs monitor, said Iran would not negotiate further with the major powers about its nuclear program, Iranian news services reported.

The Obama Administration had hoped that such a finding and subsequent response would have resulted in the UN OKing further sanctions on Iran. But again, they miscalculated the usefulness of that particular world body.

RUSSIAN Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has all but ruled out imposing new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, brushing aside Western concerns that Iran had made significant recent progress in a bid for nuclear weapons.

Mr Lavrov said he believed that a new set of proposals Iran gave to European nations on Wednesday offered a viable basis for negotiations to end the dispute. He did not believe the UN Security Council would approve new sanctions, which could ban Iran from exporting oil or importing petrol.

But the "new set of proposals didn't include anything about discussing Iran's nuclear program so the Obama Administration decided to go ahead and talk anyway saying "This may not have been a topic that they wanted to be brought up but I can assure that it's a topic that we'll bring up."

Tough talk.

All of this while Russia is clandestinely supplying Iran with advanced air defense missiles not to mention nuclear weapon expertise and equipment.

Additionally, Iran is collecting US weapons and technology on the black market

Iran increasingly is obtaining U.S. military equipment and technology through shipments to Malaysian middlemen that illegally circumvent trade restrictions, according to American officials and analysts.

The U.S. has charged, convicted or sentenced defendants in at least six cases involving Malaysia since August 2008. The shipments have included parts for bombers and items sent to firms linked to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program, according to court papers. More Malaysia shipments are under investigation, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

I predict that soon President Obama will discover what his predecessor knew only too well: Iran is not going to negotiate away the nuclear weapons program; Russia is not our friend; the UN is useless; and Europe will continue to do nothing of substance.

That will leave unilateral action.

The question is, what will the President do about that?

And the clock is ticking....

High Water Risin'

The Federal Debt subject to statutory limits authorized by Congress was raised in February of 2009 to 12.1 trillion dollars in conjuction with the passage of the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the Stimulus Bill). Ten months later, this debt limit is already in trouble and the Obama Administration is not sure they convince Congress to raise it further.

The Obama administration, concerned about the possibility of a big political fight over the national debt, is looking at how it can continue funding the government in the event that Congress hinders its ability to borrow money.

Treasury Department officials are examining tools employed by previous administrations, including disinvesting government retirement funds and suspending interest payments to federal accounts, according to people familiar with the matter. They are also looking at what to do in the unlikely event of a government shutdown.

At issue is the debt ceiling, a dollar limit controlled by Congress that dictates how much the U.S. can borrow. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the Senate in a letter last month that the $12.1 trillion ceiling could be hit as early as mid-October, and said it needs to be increased so the U.S. can continue funding operations and making debt payments. Mr. Geithner didn't indicate the increase he was seeking.

With the U.S. borrowing about $30 billion a week, some economists say the Treasury will need an increase of as much as $1.5 trillion if it wants to avoid another request before the 2010 midterm elections.

The $12.1 trillion dollar limit was an increase from an $11.3 trillion limit authorized by Congress in October of 2008 along with the TARP program to bail out troubled banks.

Ten years ago the debt limit stood at just under $6 trillion, less than half of what it is today and much less then the $13 trillion limit sitting on the table in Congress.

The House passed a debt-limit increase to $13.029 trillion earlier this year, but the measure has languished in the Senate. Senate Democrats say they haven't put together a strategy for passing the increase. It could be added to other must-pass legislation, such as a short-term spending measure to keep the government running when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. The Senate could also take up the issue on its own.

And this number, $13 trillion, is only in response to what we have going on today: It does not account for whatever healthcare reform plan the Congress passes.

In response, many Americans are very worried

In a Gallup Poll conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 2, 9% of respondents overall and 10% of independents now mention the deficit spontaneously as their biggest worry. That compares with 2% of respondents and 3% of independents a year ago. It is now in the top five among the public's concerns.

And according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll

Half of those surveyed said deficit reduction should be a national priority over increased spending on health care, education or alternative energy.

"I know a lot of people who don't have health care and really can't afford it," said Judy Purkey, a 57-year-old grandmother from Morristown, Tenn., who has raised four grandchildren and is living on disability payments. But she added: "The economy is so bad. You've heard the expression getting blood out of a turnip? — Well, that's what's going on."

So it is no surprise that tens of thousands descended upon Washington DC yesterday to protest what the government is doing fiscally.

Tens of thousands of people marched through Washington Saturday to protest President Obama's proposed health care plans. The rowdy pilgrimage capped a series of conservative "Tea Party" rallies across the country.

As the demonstrators walked along Pennsylvania Avenue toward the U.S. Capitol, the line stretched as far as the eye could see in either direction. The crowd was so thick in places that it was difficult to move.

The Democrats want to play down and discredit these folks as shills for the Republicans while the Republicans want to co-opt the movement, But while many of these folks have indeed voted Republican in the past (what? you think many Democrats think like this?) most if not all are very aware that between 1994 (when Republicans took over both houses of Congress) and 2006 (when Republicans lost control of Congress), the debt ceiling was raised six times and went from just under $4.9 trillion in 1996 to $8.9 trillion in March of 2006.

And under Bush's watch, the Democrat controlled Congress was allowed to raise the debt limit from that $8.9 trillion to the $11.3 trillion it was when he left office.

The Republicans can point to the fact that the Democrats have raised the debt limit 4 times so far in the 3 years they have been in control as compared to six times in 12 years for the Republicans.Each raised the debt by $3 trillion but it took 12 years for the Republicans to do what the Democrats have done in 3. And we all know that if Congress gets what they want, it's not over yet.

But that is little more than a fig leaf: The Republicans can only sheepishly squeak that they weren't as bad as the other guys.

Now even with tens of thousand protesting in Washington, it is difficult to say how widespread the unrest is really among the population after all we saw tens of thousand protesting the war in Iraq and that made little difference politically. We won't really know until about this time next year when a new Congress is selected.

But if it is a real, deep movement, the best the Republicans can hope for is that these voters give them a second chance and the worst is that a new Party arises to unseat them (which is, really, what they deserve).

All economic indicators show that people have learned a lesson with this past recession and they are paying down their debt and becoming more frugal.

The government is doing quite the opposite and I have to believe that large numbers of people are wondering why.

And they see the mounting pile of government debt and in their gut think that this is not good.

It just can't go on.

High water risin', six inches 'bove my head
Coffins droppin' in the street
Like balloons made out of lead
Water pourin' into Vicksburg, don't know what I'm going to do
"Don't reach out for me," she said
"Can't you see I'm drownin' too?"
It's rough out there
High water everywhere

-Bob Dylan

Update: It seems it was more like hundreds of thousands marching in DC, not tens of thousands.

But it can't happen here

Britain has Universal Healthcare and is one of the systems to which proponents of an American versions point as a success story: a role model.

But

A group of senior British doctors expressed concern Thursday about the treatment of the terminally ill, saying some people are dying prematurely because of guidelines for dealing with patients in their final hours.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph newspaper, the six palliative care specialists criticized the "tick-box approach to the management of death" in guidelines used by hundreds of hospitals within Britain's universal health care system...

On Thursday, a leaked consultants' report recommended drastic cuts in the U.K.'s National Health Service to help cope with the ever-rising cost of supporting universal health care — a development that opponents of the U.S. health care reforms are likely to welcome.

But that can't happen here...

Spc Aaron Davis

When Army Specialist Aaron Davis found out he was receiving the Silver Star for his outstanding bravery on the battlefield, he tried to turn it down.

"I felt like I didn't want all the attention because I didn't do anything for attention," said Davis.

Davis, who was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173 Airborne Brigade Combat Team, was serving as an infantryman during his deployment in Afghanistan.

On July 13, 2008, Davis and his unit were attacked by 200 or more Taliban fighters while they were patrolling an area. During the ensuing firefight, Davis was hit with shrapnel to his right leg from a rock-propelled grenade.

Although injured, Davis remained focused on the battlefield and provided critical assistance to three severely injured soldiers until the arrival of a medical evacuation team.

"I wanted to help those who had more severe injuries than I did," said Davis.

When he returned from the evacuation helicopter, Davis was hit again. This time, the shrapnel impacted his body, arms and face.

"Blood was everywhere, I couldn't see, I was hurting everywhere. I didn't want to leave the premises or leave my comrades, but this time I had no choice," Davis continued.

After his second injury, Davis was evacuated from the battlefield for treatment and was soon transferred to a hospital in Germany. Davis went on to receive more treatment in Washington, D.C., followed by further rehabilitation in San Antonio, Texas.

"Although it is hard to think about what happened in the battlefield, I am glad I was there to help my comrades," said Davis.

For his heroic actions, commitment to his fellow soldiers and unflinching bravery under fire, Davis was recently awarded the Silver Star and the Purple Heart by Brig. Gen. James Gilman, Commander, Great Plains Regional Medical Command and Brooke Army Medical Center.

Davlyn Davis, mother of Davis, emphasized the ceremony was not only about her son but also for the ones that didn't make it.

"They are the true heroes; I'm proud to be a mom of a Soldier. Everyone involved in this journey took extraordinary measures to ensure my son and my family was in good hands," added Mrs. Davis.

Davis has continued to receive treatment, but has lost about 50 percent of his vision in his right eye. He hopes that when he makes full recovery he can return to be a squad leader with the Warrior Transition Unit.

Undeterred by his injuries, Davis has also been studying for a promotion to sergeant and will soon go before a promotion board.

Excerpts from article by Maria Gallegos, April

Misinterpreting the mandate

It was predictable.

Back in November of 2008, right after President Obama was elected, I pointed out that what people wanted from him and the Government was less taxes and less government intervention in their lives.

What the survey tells us is that people are not interested in using the tax code to redistribute wealth. Only 23% favored a redistributionist tax system while 73% did not favor such a tax system. 62% want the Bush Tax cuts extended while only 26% want them to expire. And 66% want the inheritance tax cut to be made permanent.

And most people (66%) want Congress to cut spending. And only 39% thought that Government isn't doing enough while most (54%) thought Government is doing too much.

Why anyone thought Obama and the Democrats would give them this is a mystery to me, but is was no mystery that people replaced Republicans because they felt they weren't delivering what they wanted.

Democrats should have noted this as well but instead they deluded themselves into thinking that they won on a mandate to increase spending and government intervention.

So it's not much of a surprise to find that the President and the Democratic-controlled Congress are losing favor with the most important segment of the population: Independents.

Fifty-three percent of independents questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House, with 43 percent in approval. That result marks the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of independents give the president's performance a thumbs-down.

And worse, it's not just the President

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

That represents the lowest level of support for Democrats in recent years, while Republicans have tied their highest level of support for the third straight week. The previous low for Democrats over the past year was 37%.

That's what happens when you misinterpret your mandate.

Truly, this does not necessarily mean that people thinks Republicans are doing such a great job, but it does likely mean that they think Democrats are doing a poor job in meeting their expectations. And the last time people felt that way the voted for the other guy even if the other guy was not perceived much better.

Now a lot of this could go away if the economy improves; people do tend to get grumpy when the economy sucks. But while the Democrats seem to be telling themselves that the "Tea Parties" and vocal dissidents to their proposed health-care legislation are the manufactured result of minority rabble-rousing, consider this:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say tax cuts for the middle class are more important than new spending for health care reform, even as President Obama’s top economic advisers signal that tax hikes may be necessary.

Now the really bad thing about that, aside from the obvious, is that the President and the Democrats in Congress think they have already delivered a middle-class tax cut.

So I'm not convinced that Democrats have shed themselves of they type of self-delusion that led Republicans to their most recent Waterloo.

Of course, Republicans have stuff to worry about as well:

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republican voters say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years.

The current climate appears to me to be where the political classes of both stripes are in a race to the bottom. It just seems to me that the Democrats are more intent on winning it.

Bipartisan agreement

It is clear to me that between the accusations on the Right and the denials from the Left that there is tacit agreement on what should not be in the new health-care legislation.

In summarizing what he calls "fabrications" by opponents of Congress' health care reform, the President said

We are closer to achieving that reform than we have ever been. And that’s why we’re seeing some of the divisive and deceptive attacks. You’ve heard some of them. Ludicrous ideas. Let me just give you one example, this notion that we are somehow setting up "death panels" that would decide on whether elderly people get to live or die. That is just an extraordinary lie. This is based on a provision in the House legislation that would allow Medicare to reimburse you if you wanted counseling on how to set up a living will or other end of life decisions. Entirely voluntary, it gives you an option that people who can afford fancy lawyers already exercise. That’s the kind of distortion that we’ve been hearing too much of out here.

We’ve heard that this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal aliens. That’s not true. There’s a specific provision in the bill that does not provide health insurance for those individuals. You’ve heard that there’s a government takeover of health care. That’s not true. You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. This is all, these are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation, and that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.

OK, so the President has addressed some of the contentious points and has dismissed them as "fabrications". Good. So it seems to me that this is a starting point for bipartisan agreement.

1. There should not be government-mandated reviews of treatment options (i.e. "death panels): treatment should be strictly reserved to decisions made by patients and doctors.
2. The new health-care bill should not cover illegal aliens.
3. The Federal Government should not fund abortions.

Well that sounds like a good start to me. Put these things in plain language in the bill and we can be done with these: we can agree on these things, right?

Moving on, in his press conference on health-care legislation, the President promised that the new legislation would be "deficit-neutral"; meaning the changes would pay for themselves.

“the entire cost of that has to be paid for and it has got to be deficit-neutral. And we identified two-thirds of those costs to be paid for by tax dollars that are already being spent right now.”

I think everyone would accept this as a proposal. So let's work that into the bill. Now we have to recognize that none of the bills being considered by Congress at the moment are deficit-neutral, and that no plan that includes a "public-option" will be deficit-neutral without massive new tax increases.

According to FactCheck.org, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group, said in a report

More access and broader coverage do not save money, however. Greater coverage will increase health spending. Unless major changes are successfully implemented in health care delivery and payment systems, costs will continue to rise from a larger base at a rapid pace. Moreover, potential savings are speculative, while costs are far more certain. That imbalance suggests that unless there is broad popular support for the measures that will be required to achieve savings, the nation’s health care bill could become that much more unaffordable.

And FactCheck.org's analysis also finds that the current plans being considered do not pay for themselves.

The House bill doesn’t pay for itself, adding a net $239 billion over 10 years to the federal deficit, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill is much further away from covering its costs. The CBO estimated that legislation would bring a net deficit increase of $597 billion over 10 years. The Senate bill, CBO said, only produced net savings of $48 billion (compared to current law), while the House came up with more money, saving $219 billion and bringing in $583 billion in federal revenue over that 2010-2019 period.

So if the President agrees the health-care proposals must pay for themselves and the majority of Americans think that as well, let's all agree and make that a hard requirement too.

So this all but eliminates the "public option" we're all agreed.

So good, we're making progress. (See how easy this is?)

Now, it is also clear that Americans do want health-care reform. They most definitely want to be able to get medical insurance if they need it. So I'm pretty sure we can all agree that insurance companies must not be able to exclude people for "preexisting conditions".

So let's add that to the bill.

And most importantly, Americans do not want to see double digit increases in their medical insurance payments each and every year like clock-work, so it is important that whatever bill passes, does something about costs.

Well one cost driver is medical malpractice insurance. So Tort-reform will be an important component of the new health-care bill. Even Howard Dean believes that tort-reform should be part of the health-care reform bill but at the moment, it has not been included. Why? Mr Dean explains

“This is the answer from a doctor and a politician,” said Dean. “Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that’s the truth.”

So let's add tort-reform to the bill. (We're smokin' now)

Oh, and let's try some real competition among the insurers before me make the leap to government-run health care. Like let's let medical insurers sell insurance across state lines.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis who has written extensively on this subject, notes that insurance companies operating nationally would compete nationally. The reason a Kentucky plan written for an individual from New Jersey would save the New Jerseyan money is that New Jersey is highly regulated, with costly mandated benefits and guaranteed access to insurance.

Affordability would improve if consumers could escape states where each policy is loaded with mandates. "If consumers do not want expensive 'Cadillac' health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits," Mr. Herrick has written...

Interstate competition made the U.S. one of the world's most efficient, consumer driven markets. But health insurance is a glaring exception. When the competition caucus in Team Obama has to look for Plan B, this is it.

So it seems to me we could give that a try.

And how about replacing the current "fee for service" payment model that encourages doctors to order unnecessary tests with a capitation model whereby a fixed, per-patient payment is made to healthcare providers in exchange for delivering medical care to patients. This might focus health-care providers on providing services to patients instead of insurance companies and could result in competition among health-care providers since it would be in their interest to have more patients who trust them.

All of these things can be supported by a large majority of the population and none will increase the budget or the deficit.

And, I suspect, that a bill that has these general outlines will garner Blue Dog support and even more than a few Republicans fulfilling yet another Obama promise: bipartisanship.

And if such a plan doesn't garner significant Republican support, well then shame on them.