O Tannenbaum, O Tannenbaum The War On Christmas Returns!

But the facts are, of course, obscured (this is the Trib, remember).  Take a look at The Trib op-ed page today:

The Obama administration surely should have second thoughts about imposing -- by executive fiat, under a 1996 federal law -- a tax on fresh-cut Christmas trees that defies logic.

Quick criticism led the Obama Agriculture Department to delay a new 15-cent tax on each Christmas tree sold by producers who sell more than 500 annually. The revenue would fund a new, image- and sales-enhancing Christmas Tree Promotion Board.

Yet, as David S. Addington writes for The Heritage Foundation blog, The Foundry, "the American Christmas tree has a great image that doesn't need any help from the government." That said, why is the government involved at all?

The National Christmas Tree Association, which wants the tax and the promotion board, says real trees overwhelmingly outsold fake trees, their only real competition, in 2010 -- 27 million, worth $976 million at retail, vs. 8.2 million, worth $530 million -- and the economy has little effect on real trees' sales.

For some reality based faced framework, let's first go to Jake Tapper at ABC and see where it leads:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to delay implementation and revisit a proposed new 15 cent fee on fresh-cut Christmas trees, sources tell ABC News. The fee, requested by the National Christmas Tree Association in 2009, was first announced in the Federal Registry yesterday and has generated criticism of President Obama from conservative media outlets.

Let's go take a look at that link. That'll be what the NCTA has to say. Take a look:

The program is designed to benefit the industry and will be funded by the growers at a rate of 15 cents per tree sold. The program will be administered by an independent 12-member board of small business owners who grow and sell farm-grown Christmas trees and they will be responsible for developing and approving promotional and research efforts to benefit the entire industry. The program is not expected to have any impact on the final price consumers pay for their Christmas tree. The funds collected after this season will be used to develop promotion and research programs for the 2012 season. [Underline/bold in original.]

And it's not exactly a "tax" in that it's not intended to raise funds for the guv'ment - the growers of the trees come up with $.15/per tree.  And  the what was supposed to happen to that money?  Here's a clue from the NCTA:

This program was developed under the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996. There are at least 18 other similar programs already in effect for various agricultural commodities. Although smaller in scope, the Christmas tree program will be similar to recognizable programs for milk, cotton and beef that have brought consumers commodity-oriented messages such as “Got Milk?” and “Beef, It’s what’s for dinner.”

But is any of that true?  Yes, it is - from the Federal Register:

This rule establishes an industry-funded promotion, research, and information program for fresh cut Christmas trees. The Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order), was submitted to the Department of Agriculture (Department) by the Christmas Tree Checkoff Task Force (Task Force), an industry wide group of producers and importers that support this program. Under the Order, producers and importers of fresh cut Christmas trees will pay an initial assessment of $0.15 cents per tree, which would be paid to the Christmas Tree Promotion Board (Board). This Board will be responsible for administration and operation of the Order. Producers and importers that produce or import less than 500 Christmas trees annually will be exempt from the assessment. The program is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act).

An industry funded promotional board that isn't expected to raise the price of a Christmas Tree to fund a promotional campaign along the lines of those "Got Milk?" ads.  OF COURSE it's because Obama hates America and he wants his heartless bureaucrats to raise taxes on everyone - AT CHRISTMASTIME.

There are two points to this op-ed that I haven't raised yet.  Did you see where the initial report came from?

David S Addington at the Heritage Foundation.

The same Heritage Foundation that's taken tens of millions in Scaife money.  But that's not the big point.  You remember David Addington, don't you?

• Approver of Torture by memo
• Approver of Torture after observing it
• Denier of Geneva Conventions
• Supporter of Illegal Domestic Surveillance

Yea, that David Addington.

Good to see they got him writing about Christmas Trees because when he's written about stuff that matters, he shreds democracy.

Bush Again Admits To Torture

(h/t to Crooks and Liars):


Transcript via C&L as well:

CAMERATO: Good morning Mr. President. My name is C.J. Camerato and I’m from Boston Massachusetts and I’m curious, were or are you concerned that legislation that you passed such as the Patriot Act opens the door for potential abuse by future presidencies?

BUSH: Great question. The law that was passed twice by the Congress, once when Republicans controlled the Congress, when we controlled the Congress and once after the ’06 election when we got soundly thumped, guarantee civil liberties and there’s a lot of safeguards in the law. And I don’t think a president can…can, through executive order preempt the safeguards in the Patriot Act. There are plenty of checks and balances in our system and throughout the book and historians will note throughout my presidency that I worked assiduously to make sure that civil liberties were not undermined.

And at the same time, provide the tools necessary for a president, future presidents to be able to protect the homeland and um… look, there’s some very controversial… the Patriot Act was one of the least controversial things I did initially. And then it became a… both parts of the political spectrum became a touchstone of too much government and yet the experts will tell you that the tools inherent in the Patriot Act were necessary to disrupt terrorist’s attacks.

And another interesting point in the book, I learned from history was that a lot of the actions that Harry Truman took made my life easier as president and therefore many of the decisions I made through executive order are the most controversial decisions I made through executive order, such as listening to the phone calls of people who might do us harm, or enhanced interrogation techniques, became the law of the land.

In other words, after the ’04 elections and after the ’06 elections, I went to Congress and said we need to ratify through legislative action that which I had done within the Constitution by executive order. And so the Congress, in spite of the fact that we had been dumped, passed law that now enables a president to have these certain tools.

People say why didn’t you just leave it under executive order? And the reason why is in some cases it might be too hard politically for a president to put out an executive order that for example our authorized enhanced interrogation techniques.

But if that were law of the land as passed by a legislative body it might be easier for that person to use that technique and it was… and so one of the… I think I saw as an accomplishment was to get the Congress to pass much of what I’d done by executive order and in so doing there was embedded in law, concern for civil liberties.

Um, that "listening to the phone calls of people who might do us harm" part? That was illegal.

And the "enhanced interrogation techniques"? We all know that was the waterboarding. It's also illegal.

So don't talk to me about Dubya's concern for civil liberties. He committed war crimes and should be prosecuted. The fact that he wasn't even investigated by the Obama administration will forever stand as one of its great moral failures.

Crimes Were Committed

From Huffingtonpost:

In a repudiation of the Bush administration's now-defunct terrorist surveillance effort, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that government investigators illegally wiretapped the phone conversations of an Islamic charity and two American lawyers without a search warrant.

I know it's too late for a perp walk.

But I'd still love to see it.

Teh Birther Crazie Continues

Mike Castle is a moderate Republican (I thought they'd all been purged from the GOP by now - you live and learn) from Delaware. Former Governor and current House Representative from Delaware.

He got booed in his own state for declaring that President Obama is a US Citizen. The Washington Independent has the story:

A little evidence that [the birther] conspiracy theory is showing up in uncomfortable situations for Republicans: Here’s Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), a moderate Republican who hasn’t announced whether he’s running for re-election or for the U.S. Senate next year, at a town hall meeting earlier this month.

A woman gets up, holding a baggie containing her birth certificate, and unleashes a rambling, minute-long tirade tirade about how the president is a “citizen of Kenya.” The crowd hoots and cheers when she’s done. Castle responds, diplomatically: “Well I don’t know what comment that invites. If you’re referring to the president, then he is a citizen of the United States.” That elicits roars and boos from the crowd, so Castle presses on. “You can boo, but he is a citizen of the United States.”

Take a look:


Even in little Delaware, teh crazie flourishes.

Then there's Pat Boone. In his Newsmax column he hits all (and I mean ALL) of the Anti-Obama wingnut points. First on the birth certificate:

I know; this suspicion, this question about whether Barack Hussein Barry Soetoro Obama was actually born in the United States — as the Constitution explicitly demands — has been circulating for months, since before he won the election last November. He, or somebody in his confidence, posted a supposed copy of a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth," or COLB, on his presidential campaign Web site — even though a COLB, under Hawaiian rules, does not necessarily prove in-state birth. Some found the document, which does not list the hospital of birth or attending physician, to be fake.

"Some" also believe the moon landings to be a hoax. That doesn't mean there's any evidence to support it. Same here. Pat goes further:

• Corsi's trip to Kenya where he was denied entry (the cover-up's gone international!!)
  
• The videotape (which, again, "some" have reported to have seen) showing Obama's paternal step grandmother saying she saw his birth -in Kenya
• And then this convoluted conspiracy:

  Many, who know more than I do about what actually happened, notably the United States Justice Foundation, have surmised that baby Obama’s mother, about to have her child in Kenya, had booked a flight to Hawaii but was prohibited from flying because delivery was so imminent. But soon after baby Barack was born, USJF theorizes she flew with him to Oahu and obtained some kind of "record of birth" as if he'd been born there.

OR he was simply born in Hawaii.

Pat sums up the importance of this issue with:

Yes, it is important, crucially and everlastingly important. America’s very future depends on the defense of, and obedience to, our basic constitutional laws.

Good to know. But where was Pat and the other birthers when the previous President was lying the country into a war? Okaying illegal domestic surveillance? Ordering torture?

More On Bush's Crimes Via The NY Times Editorial Board

Last Saturday I wrote about this report from 5 Inspectors General regarding Bush era secret surveillance activities.

Today, with an editorial titled, "Illegal, and Pointless," the New York Times Editorial Board chimes in:

We’ve known for years that the Bush administration ignored and broke the law repeatedly in the name of national security. It is now clear that many of those programs could have been conducted just as easily within the law — perhaps more effectively and certainly with far less damage to the justice system and to Americans’ faith in their government.

And...it just gets worse for Dubya and Cheney from there. A few paragraphs later:

Once the Bush team got into the habit of breaking the law, it became their operating procedure that any means are justified: ordering the nation’s intelligence agents to torture prisoners; sending innocents to be tortured in foreign countries; creating secret prisons where detainees were held illegally without charge.

And finally a call out to the Obama administration:

President Obama has refused to open a full investigation of the many laws that were evaded, twisted or broken — pointlessly and destructively — under Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama should change his mind. A full accounting is the only way to ensure these abuses never happen again.

Bush and Cheney and their administration broke the law. Repeatedly. For the sake of the integrity of the system, their illegalities must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law they so flagrantly violated.

A Follow Up

There's more to this story about that new governmental report about Bush's surveillance activities. I started here and, as promised, here's more.

The New York Times reports:

While the Bush administration had defended its program of wiretapping without warrants as a vital tool that saved lives, a new government review released Friday said the program’s effectiveness in fighting terrorism was unclear.

And:

Most intelligence officials interviewed “had difficulty citing specific instances” when the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program contributed to successes against terrorists, the report said.

But weren't we told that it was necessary because it saved lives?? Yes we were:

The findings raise questions about assertions from Mr. Bush and his most senior advisers that the warrantless wiretapping program was essential in stopping terrorist attacks. In January 2006, for example, Mr. Bush said the surveillance program “helped prevent attacks and save American lives.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney has made the same point, most recently in his public defense of the administration’s campaign against terrorism.

So now we know that was a load of crap a lie, too.

More lies from the Bush administration. Wasn't it a great 8 years? I mean it's all justified by the "fact" that they "kept us safe" for 7 and a half of them.

More on Bush's Criminal Behavior

From the AP via Talkingpoints memo:

The Bush administration authorized secret surveillance activities that still have not been made public, according to a new government report that questions the legal basis for the unprecedented anti-terrorism program.

And:

The report describes the program as unprecedented and raises questions about the legal grounding used for its creation. It also says the intelligence agencies' continued retention and use of the information collected under the program should be carefully monitored.

Many senior intelligence officials believe the program filled a gap in intelligence. Others, including FBI, CIA and National Counterterrorism Center analysts, said intelligence gathered by traditional means was often more specific and timely, according to the report. [emphasis added]

Here's the report, if you wanted to follow along.

The report brings up this enticing little tidbit:

The IG report said an unnamed White House official inserted a paragraph into the first threat assessment prepared by the CIA after the Sept. 11 attacks, which was used to justify the extraordinary intelligence measures.

The paragraph said that the "individuals and organizations involved in global terrorism possessed the capability and intention to undertake further terrorist attacks within the United States," according to the report. It also said that the president should authorize the NSA to conduct the surveillance activities.

Here's the text from the report (page 7-8):

The CIA initially prepared the threat assessment memoranda that were used to support the Presidential Authorization and periodic reauthorizations of the PSP. The memoranda documented intelligence assessments of the terrorist threats to the United States and to U.S. interests abroad from al-Qa'ida and affiliated terrorist organizations. These assessments were prepared approximately every 45 days to correspond with the President's Authorizations of the PSP.

The Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Chief of Staff was the initial focal point for preparing the threat assessment memoranda. According to the former DCI Chief of Staff, he directed CIA terrorism analysts to prepare objective appraisals of the current terrorist threat, focusing primarily on threats to the U.S. homeland, and to document those appraisals in a memorandum. Initially, the analysts who prepared the threat assessments were not read into the PSP and did not know how the threat assessments would be used. CIA's terrorism analysts drew upon all sources of intelligence in preparing these threat assessments.

After the terrorism analysts completed their portion of the memoranda, the DCI Chief of Staff added a paragraph at the end of the memoranda stating that the individuals and organizations involved in global terrorism (and discussed in the memoranda) possessed the capability and intention to" undertake further terrorist attacks within the United States. The DCI Chief of Staff recalled that the paragraph was provided to him initially by a senior White House official. The paragraph included the DCI's recommendation to the President that he authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance activities under the PSP.

Let me see if I can hash this out. The CIA threat assessments were used to support the Presidential Authorizations. But to the FIRST threat assessment, the White House added text stating that the terrorists possessed the capability to undertake further terrorist attacks in the US.

I have a question: If that text (or something like it) was already in the assessment, then why was it necessary to add? It follows that if it was added, then it must not have been in the original. And the text came from the White House.

And so the White House doctored-CIA authored threat assessment was then used to justify the White House's authorization to extend the surveillance.

More later...

Another Reason To Look Forward To January 20

From ABC News:

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, Americans won't just get a new president; they might finally learn the full extent of George W. Bush's warrantless domestic wiretapping.

Since The New York Times first revealed in 2005 that the NSA was eavesdropping on citizens' overseas phone calls and e-mail, few additional details about the massive "Terrorist Surveillance Program" have emerged. That's because the Bush administration has stonewalled, misled and denied documents to Congress, and subpoenaed the phone records of the investigative reporters.

Now privacy advocates are hopeful that President Obama will be more forthcoming with information. But for the quickest and most honest account of Bush's illegal policies, they say don't look to the incoming president. Watch instead for the hidden army of would-be whistle-blowers who've been waiting for Inauguration Day to open the spigot on the truth.

For instance:

New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh already has a slew of sources waiting to spill the Bush administration's darkest secrets, he said in an interview last month. "You cannot believe how many people have told me to call them on January 20. [They say,] 'You wanna know about abuses and violations? Call me then.'"

Can't wait.

Good Luck Today

I wonder if we'll survive till dinner time.

For those of you who don't know, this will be the first weekday our great nation will be left unprotected by the now defunct "Protect America Act." Now, according to the great leader, "our country is in more danger of an attack" because the cowards in the House of Representatives didn't roll over and give him what he wanted. More from the AP:

"American citizens must understand, clearly understand that there's still a threat on the homeland. There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm," Bush said. "We've got to give our professionals the tools they need, to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so we can stop it."

"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," he said.

Too bad Ronald Reagan's fav-rit newspaper, the Washington Times had this to say recently:

Many intelligence scholars and analysts outside the government say that today's expiration of certain temporary domestic wiretapping laws will have little effect on national security, despite warnings to the contrary by the White House and Capitol Hill Republican leaders.

With the Protect America Act expiring this weekend, domestic wiretapping rules will revert to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires the government to obtain a warrant from a special court to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance in the United States.

The original FISA law, these experts say, provides the necessary tools for the intelligence community to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

Indeed, this stuff was supposed to have been resolved a while back. Dubya even said so on October 27, 2001:

The bill I signed yesterday gives intelligence and law enforcement officials additional tools they need to hunt and capture and punish terrorists. Our enemies operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, using the latest means of communication and the new weapon of bioterrorism.

When earlier laws were written, some of these methods did not even exist. The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. It will help us to prosecute terrorist organizations -- and also to detect them before they strike.
Since 11th of September, the men and women of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been relentless in their work. In return for their exceptional service, these public servants deserve our full support, and every means of help that we can provide. Intelligence operations and criminal investigations have often had to operate on separate tracks. The new law will make it easier for all agencies to share vital information about terrorist activity.

Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.

In recent years, some investigations have been hindered by limits on the reach of federal search warrants. Officials had to get a new warrant for each new district and investigation covered, even when involving the same suspect. As of now, warrants are valid across districts and across state lines.

And what did he sign on October 26 of that year? Read on, MacDuff:

Six and a half weeks after the worst acts of terrorism ever committed on U.S. soil, President Bush signed into law the wide-reaching "USA Patriot Act," which authorizes broad new powers for law enforcement agencies that Congress rejected in less turbulent times.

That's right. We're left unprotected in these troubled times by the USA Patriot Act. Not to mention the FISA court and the rest of the intelligence community.

That's what dubya and his many apologists want us to believe.

How stupid do they think we are?