Bush, Chertoff warned before Katrina struck...

[KRC]

That is interesting, heard some of that through the grape vine and probably read it from you too, let me know what happens. 

616423[/snapback]

 

Will do. The LP convention is this summer. The results of that convention will determine the future course of action for this group. Expect to hear by the end of the summer.

[X. Benedict]

Will do. The LP convention is this summer. The results of that convention will determine the future course of action for this group. Expect to hear by the end of the summer.

616427[/snapback]

Taking the party back from the hemp farmers?

[Ghost of BiB]

I would go with a system where there were straight no leaks, but also (and importantly) only material that could truly compromise national security would be classified.  Not much of a chance of the 2nd part happening unfortunately.

616411[/snapback]

 

I don't know how everyone else works it, but there are very clear cut classification guidances within the DOD. A grey area, to me is FOUO stuff, which technically doesn't meet the requirements of the Confidential, Secret, Top Secret and above criteria, but is exempt from the FOIA as it's deemed to be sensitive though not an actual risk to national security. Bid information, for example. Methinks from the DOD perspective, that's where a lot comes from.

 

State has a different means and criteria for classifying stuff. One of the problems with sharing information.

 

CIA, to the best of my knowledge does pretty well whatever they want.

 

At the executive level, you are working with everybody's different systems, so I have no idea how they blend that. They generally don't tell anyone anything.

 

Lord only knows how Homeland is figuring it out, as they have so many players from so many places.

 

A lot of the reluctance to pass anything meaningful to Congress is that it is out the door before the ink is dried, if there is a grey area at all. Yes, there are exceptions and some (albeit, few) very well informed, smart people in Congress on both sides. But, they know and follow the rules and I've never heard of leaks coming directly from there.

 

So, what I'm getting at is that unless it's information directly derived from the gathering of intelligence by certain methods, actual operational plans and related stuff or compartmentalized weapons info, once it gets into court I think one runs into what the definition of "is" is. There are also cross agency connections there in a lot of cases because of commonality. An example is the DOE "Q" clearance matched to the DOD CNWDI designation. This is also why a while back I made the comments about the NSA info that I did. It is clear cut and dried. Things like Valerie Plame are in the "is" is category.

[Mickey]

And part 1 deals with changing the nature of mankind's zeal to be heard and the natural urge to listen to gossip. 

 

Good night & good luck.

616414[/snapback]

Same kind of thing happens with high profile cases and gag orders. They have tried every which way to stop the practice but nothing ever works. Price of a free society.

 

I have no data to back it up but I am willing to wager we have been more damaged by skullduggery that was not leaked or otherwise exposed than by leaks damaging national security. This is likley the point where someone will bring up the bugging of Bin Laden's phone thing so I will pre-emptively link to the debunk of that story: Cell Phone and here: Satellite Phone. Of course, I could be wrong, maybe there have been some leaks that were just as bad as the Osama cell phone thing, had it been true. Just my sense of things is all.

[KRC]

Taking the party back from the hemp farmers?

616430[/snapback]

 

No. Changing the image of the party from radical extremists to realists.

 

From their website:

Fringe politics does not work in the United States. A political party must appeal to a plurality of voters (effectively, at least 40%) in some districts in order to win elections. Since districts vary, such a party could get away with appealing to less nationwide, but it must at least appeal to 20-30%.

 

In other words, for the Libertarian Party to be effective, it must appeal to the top 20-30% of freedom-lovers. Appealing to the tiny minority of freedom-lovers who want no government at all, or something very close to that, is a recipe for failure.

 

The platform and message of the Libertarian Party is extreme, sacrificing practicality and political appeal in favor of philosophical consistency with a single axiom. As such, the party currently appeals only to a tiny fraction of the voting public.

 

The Libertarian Reform Caucus is working to reform the Libertarian Party, to turn it into an effective tool for increasing liberty.

 

I wrote an essay for them: Linky Thingy

[Taro T]

No. Changing the image of the party from radical extremists to realists.

616445[/snapback]

That would be a great thing if they can pull it off. I consider myself to be a libertarian but rarely if ever consider voting for one of their candidates because far too often they come off as a bit wacky.

[slothrop]

I think we all agree that Nagin and Blanco were at fault here, too, but how does their incompetence absolve Bush of his incompetence?

616199[/snapback]

 

or obsolving Bush and his admin of lying about the whole response.

[X. Benedict]

No. Changing the image of the party from radical extremists to realists.

 

From their website:

I wrote an essay for them: Linky Thingy

616445[/snapback]

It is a practical strategy. It is a good essay.

[Mickey]

That would be a great thing if they can pull it off.  I consider myself to be a libertarian but rarely if ever consider voting for one of their candidates because far too often they come off as a bit wacky.

616510[/snapback]

Exactly. Just when I think they are making sense, they say something crazy. Not all Libertarians you understand, but enough to notice.

 

They leave me scratching my head on the environment for example. The party web site says:

 

"Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield."

 

Okay, they think that selling public land to private interests will improve the environment. But then they say this:

 

"Do you remember the movie, Medicine Man, where scientist Sean Connery discovers a miracle drug in the rain forest ecology? Unfortunately, the life-saving compound is literally bulldozed under when the government turns the rain forest over to corporate interests."

 

What the heck? I thought they said turning over public lands from government to control to private interests is a good thing? So what is their position on this?

 

I also don't like their take on social security either but that is too complicated to go into.

[SilverNRed]

Isnt it the LOCAL GOVTS responsibility to evacuate and handle disaster prep and response? After 9/11, all we heard about was "first responders". There seems to be no mention of them when it comes to this disaster. What? They only are for "certain" disasters?

616421[/snapback]

Apparently all of the people who worked to make this the largest and fastest rescue effort in U.S. history don't count.

 

I mean, who cares about that?

And Nagin......word is that he was hiding under his desk, sobbing like a little girl while Katrina was raging. But he seems to get (almost) as much "good press" as Giuliani did after 9/11.

616421[/snapback]

Maybe they tried that right after the storm when he was grandstanding about his rants being the only reason the National Guard was on the way, but his recent crazy rants (think "Chocolate City") have him more as a punchline than anything else.

 

Again, Im not saying the Feds are absolved of blame. But the fact that its pretty much been implied by the press and a lot of others that Bush and Brown were the ONLY TWO MEN responsible for post, and now PRE-Katrina response from ALL LEVELS of Government speaks volumes.

616421[/snapback]

What is amazing is how "Brownie" went from punchline to trustworthy authority figure overnight pretty much just because the media wanted him to. First this guy was an unqualified buffoon who was more concerned about his dinner plans than the tragedy and proof that Bush gave out jobs to the wrong people and now he's the only one we can trust when it comes to Katrina/DHS. For the love of God, let me know when the press gets their story straight with this guy. Until then maybe they should just stick to the missing girl in Aruba story.

[Wacka]

That would be a great thing if they can pull it off.  I consider myself to be a libertarian but rarely if ever consider voting for one of their candidates because far too often they come off as a bit wacky.

616510[/snapback]

 

Speaking of the Libertarians, their presidential candidate Harry Browne died today.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Apparently all of the people who worked to make this the largest and fastest rescue effort in U.S. history don't count.

 

I mean, who cares about that?

 

Maybe they tried that right after the storm when he was grandstanding about his rants being the only reason the National Guard was on the way, but his recent crazy rants (think "Chocolate City") have him more as a punchline than anything else.

What is amazing is how "Brownie" went from punchline to trustworthy authority figure overnight pretty much just because the media wanted him to.  First this guy was an unqualified buffoon who was more concerned about his dinner plans than the tragedy and proof that Bush gave out jobs to the wrong people and now he's the only one we can trust when it comes to Katrina/DHS.  For the love of God, let me know when the press gets their story straight with this guy.  Until then maybe they should just stick to the missing girl in Aruba story.

617030[/snapback]

 

Nice try at little political bait and switch: you have a local guy overwhelmed used to playing the race card when things failed compared to our President who sat there and didn't ask any questions, said we are prepared despite warnings and requests to the contrary and then didn't deliver, while a lot of the locals including Governor Haley Barbour, R-MS who pleaded with him to get on the sctick ahead of time. Sure there were local failures, but they knew and pleaded before that they would be overwhelmed and still have not received an adequate response from our President.

 

Not Chernoff or any other Bush opologist, but the President himself. Nice line from the latest GOP spin slogan factory: "Apparently all of the people who worked to make this that fastests rescue effort in U.S. history don't count."

 

NO is actually in better shape then most of the areas down there, despite current problems, Gulfport, MS is in horrible shape.

 

I think press doesn't like being lied to and still has been pretty lame in their criticism. It is worse down there then you imagine, most of the area West of downtown is a ghost town at this point.

 

Ironically, the least helped by the Feds right now is Eastern, TX, Bush's home state, where Rita hit. I didn't see much in the way of disaster assistance and a lot more wind damage. Local were complaining the NO was getting all the help, and frankly they are. Still a massive problem with very little leadership from the ivory bubble at 1600.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I ran and won local office as a libertarian. I am no longer a member of the Libertarian Party (although, I am still a registered libertarian). There is a movement afoot to change the Libertarian Party, to make it more moderate. I am watching the results of that movement. If they are not successful, they are going to branch out and form their own party.

616410[/snapback]

 

That would be a shame.

 

"Moderation" will only lead to a watering-down of ideals. The ideals of the party are what make it great.

 

As a libertarian, I want to know more. Can you PM me?

[SilverNRed]

Not Chernoff or any other Bush opologist, but the President himself.  Nice line from the latest GOP spin slogan factory: "Apparently all of the people who worked to make this that fastests rescue effort in U.S. history don't count." 

617069[/snapback]

What on earth are you babbling about?

 

The main points of my post above (in order):

 

Exactly zero attention has been paid to the people who were part of the rescue efforts in the wake of the storm and to the successes in the response.

 

Mayor Nagin is NOT being propped up as a good leader by the media, as far as I can tell.

 

The media's portrayal of Michael Brown has been all over the map since Katrina.

 

Seriously, how does your response have anything to do with that I said? The GOP spin slogan factory??

[Simon]

That would be a shame.

 

"Moderation" will only lead to a watering-down of ideals. The ideals of the party are what make it great.

 

As a libertarian, I want to know more. Can you PM me?

617107[/snapback]

 

The fact that Joe6 and I can support the same political party is one of the things I really like about the libertarians.

And of course I disagree with you about the moderation issue. If the party is not a viable entity, there's virtualy no reason for it even to exist. If it has to moderate its public persona a little bit in order for it to become viable entity, and therefore a legitimate option for a significant number of people, then so be it.

Cya

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The fact that Joe6 and I can support the same political party is one of the things I really like about the libertarians. 

And of course I disagree with you about the moderation issue. If the party is not a viable entity, there's virtualy no reason for it even to exist. If it has to moderate its public persona a little bit in order for it to become viable entity, and therefore a legitimate option for a significant number of people, then so be it.

Cya

617133[/snapback]

 

That's all well and good but what exactly do you want them to moderate on? They're a party that in my interpretation is based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. To "moderate" would mean supporting things like gun control or the income tax. or am I way off base?

[Simon]

That's all well and good but what exactly do you want them to moderate on? They're a party that in my interpretation is based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. To "moderate" would mean supporting things like gun control or the income tax. or am I way off base?

617154[/snapback]

 

Strict interpretation of the Constitution is not viable in 2006; if interpreted strictly one could conclude that our nation's defense is solely the responsible of the states and not the federal government. With the worldwide advent of advanced and expensive technologies, that's simply not feasible.

Suddenly supporting gun control would not be moderation, it would be an extreme change of views. And while income tax pisses me off, it's a necessary evil in this day and age(not to mention its provided for in the Constitution).

I'm curious to see how this plays out and really have no idea what it is they plan to moderate on. But I really doubt that making a slight shift toward some more "user friendly" agendas means that they're going to abandon the type of smaller government platform that makes them attractive to us.

Cya

[KRC]

There seems to be some confusion on the "moderation" aspect I spoke of in my post. They party would not be changing their core beliefs. What they are changing is how it is presented to the public (of course, this could lead to confusion as well). Let me give you an example of what this group is trying to do. This is a hypothetical example.

 

Reduction in the size of government:

Libertarians want to strip federal government down to Constitutionally mandated functions. If you run on a platform of major cuts in government, you will lose. People will be scared that you are cutting too much, too fast. What this splinter group wants to do is come up with realistic ways to cut the government. In a 4-year term, it is possible to cut, say, 5% of the total government budget. This is what you run on: a 5% cut in government spending. Then the candidate discusses how they plan to cut 5% of the federal government budget, showing small decreases in a variety of areas. No major cuts, just “tweeks” here and there.

 

This is the moderate approach this group wants to focus on with their candidates. Realistic goals that can be accomplished in a term or two. Do not focus on the end goals (which would take generations to accomplish). Just focus on what can be realistically accomplished in a short amount of time. This shows a more moderate approach to governing that people can agree with, while not abandoning the candidates core beliefs. This will make the party more attractive to moderates, while still working towards the goals of the extremists.

 

In order to accomplish this, the party platform (and possibly the constitution and bylaws) will need to be changed. This group is currently working on platform revisions to be proposed at the next convention (July). If the platform changes are not accepted, then the group will break off of the party and form their own party. They currently see the Libertarian Party on a road to destruction. This is their attempt to make the party viable in the future.

[GG]

Strict interpretation of the Constitution is not viable in 2006; if interpreted strictly one could conclude that our nation's defense is solely the responsible of the states and not the federal government.

617183[/snapback]

 

Sure about that one?

 

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

 

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[Simon]

Sure about that one?

617346[/snapback]

 

When it comes to the Constitution I admit that there are very few things I feel sure about. It's a matter of interpretation and in the example I used, I don't think it would be an unreasonable interpretation either way. Common sense dictates that a US army be under federal control but it's debatable whether the section you quoted actually delegates that power to the US (i.e. "when called into the actual Service of the United States") and if it doesn't then that power is theoretically reserved to the states.

It's a moot point because it will never really be a viable issue ever again. I was just trying to get across the point that no political party in this day and age can realistically be considered to subscribe to a "strict interpretation of the Constitution".

But you knew that already you combative sumbitch.