Government Executive Magazine – 1/30/01 Rumsfeld faces big choices in second tour at Pentagon By George C. Wilson, National Journal

[Rumsfeld’s] first [tour as Secretary of Defense] ran only 14 months from Nov. 20, 1975, to Jan. 20, 1977…

On the basis of his 14-month tour, Pentagon reporters in a survey conducted by Armed Forces Journal in 1979 voted him the worst Defense Secretary up to that time; they voted fellow Republican Melvin R. Laird, formerly a Congressman from Wisconsin, the best.

[Rumsfeld was a congressman representing] Illinois’ 13th District (Chicago) from 1963-69. …

In 1966, he was one of only 38 Republicans to vote against increasing the minimum wage from $1.25 to $1.60 an hour. He also opposed spending federal money to establish the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, and he opposed such Great Society initiatives as Medicare, mass transit, and anti-poverty programs. …

During the Vietnam War-on Aug. 30, 1966-Rumsfeld told his House colleagues that it “is beyond me” why the huge contract awarded to Brown and Root [now a subsidiary of Halliburton!] of Houston and other U.S. firms to build air fields and other facilities in South Vietnam “has not been and is not now being adequately audited. The potential for waste and profiteering under such a contract is substantial.” [I guess he got over that.] …

He believed while a lawmaker that Congress, especially the House, should have a larger say in military and foreign affairs. He declared, for example, on March 18, 1968, while the Vietnam War was raging: “The executive needs parcels of extraordinary power to deal with extraordinary situations. However, I question whether the executive should have the range of powers in the range of situations that is the case today.” Three years earlier he said: “Congress must be able to do more than merely nod yes or no to presidential proposals-whether out of apelike obedience or uninformed obstinacy.” [Clearly, he got over this.] …

“The point, I think, that I feel so strongly about is the fact that certain people of this country, in order for them to support something, requires that there is an understanding of it,” Rumsfeld said on July 10, 1967.

Windfalls of War – The Center for Public Integrity
Continue reading Rumsfeld 40 Years Ago vs Today →

Bush Advisers, With Eye on Dean, Formulate ’04 Plans

President Bush’s campaign has settled on a plan to run against Howard Dean that would portray him as reckless, angry and pessimistic, while framing the 2004 election as a referendum on the direction of the nation more than on the president himself, Mr. Bush’s aides say. …

As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean’s rivals are ”doing a great job for us” with their increasingly tough attacks on him. …

Mr. Bush’s campaign aides left little doubt that if Dr. Dean captured the nomination, those Democratic criticisms would be put to service in Republican television advertisements next year, a tactic that would fit with the White House’s general goal of keeping Mr. Bush personally above the partisan fray.

Bush wants a ‘referendum on the direction of the nation’? Fine: is this nation going to move farther to the right than any time since Joseph McCarthy? Are we going to let the President amass more power than any time since the Civil War? Are we going to let the Radical Right completely dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society? Bush is no Teddy Roosevelt; Bush is right of Nixon and more dangerously deceptive. mjh

New Year’s Resolutions By PAUL KRUGMAN, NYTimes

[T]here can be no illusions: President Bush has turned this country sharply to the right, and this election will determine whether the right’s takeover is complete. …

Beware of personal anecdotes. Anecdotes that supposedly reveal a candidate’s character are a staple of political reporting, but they should carry warning labels.

For one thing, there are lots of anecdotes, and it’s much too easy to report only those that reinforce the reporter’s prejudices. The approved story line about Mr. Bush is that he’s a bluff, honest, plain-spoken guy, and anecdotes that fit that story get reported. But if the conventional wisdom were instead that he’s a phony, a silver-spoon baby who pretends to be a cowboy, journalists would have plenty of material to work with. …

Look at the candidates’ records. A close look at Mr. Bush’s record as governor would have revealed that, the approved story line notwithstanding, he was no moderate.

USATODAY.com – Federal surveillance technology to be tested at T.F. Green

A system able to detect ”unusual activity” by anyone inside the airport. For example, the technology could identify an individual who has put down a piece of luggage and left, and then track that person moving through the airport, Cheston said. …

Cheston brushed off concerns about a Big Brother-type of system.

“Everyone should know that if they’re coming to the airport, they’re going to be looked at […],” he said.

…every single second — how long before this extends to people who have ever been at an airport? mjh

Government Computer News (GCN) daily news — federal, state and local government technology; TSA seeks vendors to detect terrorists by checking public data

The Transportation Security Administration has invited proposals from contractors to perform advanced terrorist threat analysis of the agency’s job candidates and employees.

”The analysis should be able to confirm an individual’s identity using public records data, and use that confirmed identity to provide insight and information as to whether the individual presents a potential terrorist threat or has possible connections to potential terrorists,” the agency said in a procurement notice posted Dec. 17.

Makes sense to check your job applicants and employees, doesn’t it? Read on.

The Homeland Security Department agency said potential terrorists might not be on watch lists and might ”try to achieve relative obscurity by constructing typical lifestyles on U.S. soil. In so doing, they will develop an ‘electronic footprint’ of publicly available information that can be acquired and used as a key input for” terrorist threat analysis.

Some terrorists who have not established a significant or useful electronic footprint may still be detected by their lack of such a footprint, TSA said.

Follow the logic: you’re suspicious for leading a normal life and you’re suspicious for leading an unusual life (for having a ‘footprint’ or lacking one).

The procurement notice says the contractor should be able to analyze the records of at least 30,000 individuals in 120 days. Contractors will be required to provide a facility approved for top-secret work and employees with top-secret security clearances.

Responses to the solicitation were due yesterday afternoon.

Finally, note two things: the need to analyze 30,000 people in 120 days (must be planning a lot of job applicants at TSA). Also, this bid was open for exactly 1 week — probably only enough time for someone with lots of computing power and advance insider notice to put a bid together. Halliburton or EDS — which do you want spying on you? mjh

Even a non-political publication like American Archaeology sees the threat of the Bush administration.

The following excerpts are from an article not available online. The article documents the Bush administration’s efforts to privatize everything — the end of public service. Searching for ”efficiency,” Bush would have every civil servant replaced with Wal-Mart employees making less than minimum wage. mjh

The Potential Threat of A-76
A Bush Administration Initiative Could Have Grave Consequences For Public Archaeology.
by Elizabeth Wolf

Circular A-76, first drafted during the Eisenhower Administration and revised by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) over the years, is the government’s vehicle for conducting public-private cost comparisons. President Bush says A-76 “competitive sourcing” promotes government efficiency and gets the most bang for the taxpayer’s buck even if the jobs ultimately stay in the public sector. …

The manner in which the A-76 process was initiated took a heavy toll on the morale of the [Southeast and Midwest Archaeological Centers’] staffs [mjh: and their budgets and time].

Competitive sourcing is the most controversial component of the President’s five-part Management Agenda. [It is seen by some] as a bald attempt to shrink the civil service and reduce government accountability to American citizens.

Welcome to American Archaeology

American News | 12/23/2003 | United States leaps back into nuclear arms race Daniel Sneider, San Jose Mercury News

Buried in the energy bill signed by the president earlier this month are three little lines. The amounts are small, but together they do nothing less than put the United States on the road to developing and eventually testing new nuclear weapons for the first time since the end of the Cold War. …

The administration portrays this as part of a revamping of our nuclear arsenal to meet new threats, including the spread of weapons of mass destruction to so-called rogue states. But the military has never asked for nuclear weapons to meet that threat. …

”This administration has made it clear that they’ve gone back into the nuclear weapons business, big time,” says Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., one of the most knowledgeable members of Congress on this issue….

The advocates of this shift are now firmly in command of nuclear policy in the Bush administration and are moving rapidly to implement their views. And while there is room to carry out research in these areas, there are great dangers as well. …

Battlefield nuclear weapons blur the line between nuclear and conventional weapons, undermining the firebreak against nuclear use that held since 1945. This is even more troubling given the administration’s declaration that it won’t hesitate to strike first if it believes rogue nations or organizations have weapons of mass destruction. It lends credence to North Korea’s propaganda that it needs its own nuclear weapons to counter this threat.

Countless articles refer to the Bush administration “moving rapidly” on various radical changes. It’s as if they’re afraid they’ll be found out and thrown out and, therefore, must change everything NOW. mjh