Open Season On Dick Cheney

The president is "satisfied" with Dick Cheney's "strong and powerful" explanation of the Whittington shooting, and the Kenedy Country Sheriff's Department considers the case closed.

Here are just some of the loose ends still dangling:

The Distance and the Damage Done. Cheney is sticking to his claim that he blasted Whittington from roughly 30 yards away, but hunting experts and gun enthusiasts continue to be skeptical that Whittington would have sustained the injuries he did from that distance. Which is it?

DRINKING.
Cheney says he had a beer with lunch.
Whittington says no one was drinking during the hunt.
Katherine Armstrong said at first it was "None, zero, zippo... No one was drinking." Then later she said "there may be a beer or two in there..."

Was alcohol a factor in the accident?
Did Cheney refuse to the let the sheriff interview him for 14-1/2 hours to allow the alcohol to be gone from his blood?

The 'ranch hand' that the sheriff spoke to at the Armstrong Ranch was the FORMER SHERIFF, who spoke to his boss before advising his successor that it would be better to interview the parties the following day

Why didn't the sheriff insist on a more timely investigation?

Why won't the hospital say if Whittington's blood corroborates his no-drinking claim?


Why won't doctors even say whether Whittington was given a blood alcohol test?

Was Katharine Armstrong actually an eyewitness, or just the designated teller of the agreed-upon tale?

Cheney told Brit Hume Armstrong was "an excellent choice" to put the shooting story out, because: "First of all, she was an eyewitness. She'd seen the whole thing."

Why was there an 18-hour delay in notifying the press?

Why, by his own admission, was Cheney shooting downward when he blasted Whittington in the face? Seasoned hunters wait until the bird takes flight to shoot – they don’t shoot a bird cowering on the ground.

Cheney told Britt Hume that he had turned to his right before blasting Whittington but the sheriff's report says that Cheney turned counterclockwise.

Why did Whittington -- a lawyer -- refuse to let the deputies questioning him about the shooting tape-record the interview?

Why didn’t Cheney immediately go to the hospital with the friend he had just shot instead of staying at the ranch for dinner and drinks?

Who's In Charge?

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Have you ever seriously wondered who is really running the country?

WASHINGTON (AP) -

Vice President Dick Cheney disclosed Wednesday that he has the power to declassify sensitive government information, authority that could set up a criminal defense for his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Cheney's disclosure comes a week after reports that Libby testified under oath he was authorized by superiors in 2003 to disclose highly sensitive prewar information to reporters. The information, about Iraq and alleged weapons of mass destruction, was used by the Bush administration to bolster its case for invading Iraq.

CIA chief sacked for opposing torture

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Read it in a foreign newspaper, 'cuz it might not get carried in the USA. From The Times of London:

The CIA’s top counter-terrorism official was fired last week because he opposed detaining Al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad, sending them to other countries for interrogation and using forms of torture such as “water boarding”, intelligence sources have claimed.
Robert Grenier, head of the CIA counter-terrorism centre, was relieved of his post after a year in the job. One intelligence official said he was “not quite as aggressive as he might have been” in pursuing Al-Qaeda leaders and networks.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counter-terrorism at the agency, said: “It is not that Grenier wasn’t aggressive enough, it is that he wasn’t ‘with the programme’. He expressed misgivings about the secret prisons in Europe and the rendition of terrorists.”

Grenier also opposed “excessive” interrogation, such as strapping suspects to boards and dunking them in water, according to Cannistraro.

Porter Goss, who was appointed head of the CIA to “clean house”, is angery leaks from CIA insiders, rather than getting angry at those who are torturing.

In last Friday’s New York Times, Goss wrote that leakers within the CIA were damaging the agency’s ability to fight terrorism and causing foreign intelligence organisations to lose confidence. “Too many of my counterparts from other countries have told me, ‘You Americans can’t keep a secret’.”

Glad to know that Goss is keeping our house clean for us.

Hmmm -- Wag the Dog?

Although this isn't exactly current, I thought it timely, and possibly a continuing problem.

MSNBC's Countdown host Keith Olbermann devoted his Oct. 12, 2005 program to his conspiracy theory "The Nexus of Politics and Terror," which he described as "13 similar coincidences -- a political downturn for the administration, followed by a terror event, a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning."

"if merely a reasonable case can be made that any of these juxtapositions of events are more than just coincidences, it underscores the need for questions to be asked in this country, questions about what is prudence and what is fear-mongering, questions about which is the threat of death by terror and which is the terror of threat."

Here is a transcript of Olbermann's October 12 "Nexus of Politics and Terror" segment, followed by his interview with Asa Hutchinson for rebuttal:

Keith Olbermann: "Last Thursday on this news hour, I referred to the latest terror threat, the reported bomb plot against the New York City subway system, in terms of its timing. President Bush's speech about the war on terror had come earlier the same day, as had the breaking news of the possible indictment of Karl Rove in the CIA leak investigation. I suggested that preliminary research suggested that in the last three years, there had been about 13 similar coincidences -- a political downturn for the administration, followed by a terror event, a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning. Our third story in the Countdown tonight, 'The Nexus of Politics and Terror.' We figured we had better put that list of coincidences on the public record. You will find 10 of them in this report here. The other three will be in the blog entry that will be going up tonight. This contraction is purely for the sake of time. It permits us to get the reaction of the former Undersecretary of Homeland Security, Asa Hutchison, after this commentary. We bring you these coincidences reminding you and ourselves here that perhaps the simplest piece of wisdom in the world is called a 'logical fallacy.' Just because event A occurs and then event B occurs, that does not automatically mean that event A caused event B. But one set of introductory comments from an informed observer seems particularly relevant as we examine these coincidences. On May 10 of this year, after his resignation, former Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge put back on the terror alert level changes that were issued on his watch. Mr. Ridge said, 'More often than not, we were the least inclined to raise it. Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on [alert]... there were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'"
"'The Nexus of Politics and Terror.' Please judge for yourself."
"Number one. May 18, 2002. The first details of the President's daily briefing of August 6, 2001, are revealed, including its title: 'Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.' The same day another memo is discovered revealing the FBI knew of men with links to al-Qaeda training at an Arizona flight school. The memo was never acted upon. Questions about 9/11 intelligence failures are swirling. May 20, 2002."
Tom Brokaw, NBC Nightly News anchor: "The terror warnings from the highest levels of the federal government tonight are just-"
Olbermann: "Two days later, FBI director Mueller declares that another terrorist attack is 'inevitable.'"
Brokaw: "Tonight, there are even more warnings of possible terrorist attacks in America-"
Olbermann: "The next day, the Department of Homeland Security issues warnings of attacks against railroads nationwide, and against New York City landmarks like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.

"Number two. Thursday, June 6, 2002."
Coleen Rowley, FBI agent: "I never really anticipated this kind of impact."
Olbermann: "Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who tried to alert her superiors to the specialized flight training taken by Zacarias Moussaoui, whose information suggests the government missed a chance to break up the 9/11 plot, testifies before Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Graham says Rowley's testimony has inspired similar pre-9/11 whistle-blowers. Monday, June 10, 2002. Four days later:"
John Ashcroft, Former Attorney General: "We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot-"
Olbermann: "Speaking from Russia, Attorney General John Ashcroft reveals that an American named Jose Padilla is under arrest, accused of plotting a radiation bomb attack in this country. In fact, Padilla had, by this time, already been detained for more than one month.

"Number three. February 5, 2003. Secretary of State Powell tells the United Nations Security Council of Iraq's concealment of weapons, including 18 mobile biological weapons laboratories, justifying a U.N. or U.S. first strike. Many in the U.N. are doubtful. Months later, much of the information proves untrue. February 7, 2003. Two days later, as anti-war demonstrations continue to take place around the globe:"
Tom Ridge, Former Homeland Security Secretary: "Take some time to prepare for emergency."
Olbermann: "Homeland Security Secretary Ridge cites credible threats by al-Qaeda and raises the terror alert level to orange. Three days after that, Fire Administrator David Paulison, who would become the acting head of FEMA after the Hurricane Katrina disaster, advises Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves against radiological or biological attack.

"Number four. July 23, 2003. The White House admits that the CIA, months before the President's State of the Union Address, expressed strong doubts about the claim that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. On the 24th, the Congressional report on the 9/11 attacks is issued. It criticizes government at all levels. It reveals an FBI informant had been living with two of the future hijackers. It concludes that Iraq had no link to al-Qaeda. Twenty-eight pages of the report are redacted. On the 26th, American troops are accused of beating Iraqi prisoners. July 29, 2003. Three days later, amid all of the negative headlines:"
Brokaw: "Word of a possible new al-Qaeda attack."
Olbermann: "Homeland Security issues warnings of further terrorist attempts to use airplanes for suicide attacks.

"Number five. December 17, 2003. 9/11 Commission co-chair Thomas Keane says the attacks were preventable. The next day, a federal appeals court says the government cannot detain suspected radiation bomber Jose Padilla indefinitely without charges. And the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, Dr. David Kay, who has previously announced he has found no weapons of mass destruction there, announces he will resign his post. December 21, 2003. Four days later, the Sunday before Christmas:"
Ridge: "Today the United States government raised the national threat level."
Olbermann: "Homeland Security again raises the threat level to orange, claiming credible intelligence of further plots to crash airliners into U.S. cities. Subsequently, six international flights into this country are canceled after some passenger names purportedly produced matches on government no-fly lists. The French later identified those matched names. One belongs to an insurance salesman from Wales, another to an elderly Chinese woman, a third to a five-year-old boy.

"Number six. March 30, 2004. The new chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, tells Congress, 'We have still not found any WMD in that country.' And after weeks of having refused to appear before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice relents and agrees to testify. On the 31st, four Blackwater USA contractors working in Iraq are murdered. Their mutilated bodies dragged through the streets and left on public display in Fallujah. The role of civilian contractors in Iraq is now widely questioned. April 2, 2004:"
Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News Anchor: "The FBI has issued a new warning tonight."
Olbermann: "Homeland Security issues a bulletin warning that terrorists may try to blow up buses and trains using fertilizer and fuel bombs like the one detonated in Oklahoma City, bombs stuffed into satchels or duffle bags.

"Number seven. May 16, 2004. Secretary of State Powell appears on Meet the Press. Moderator Tim Russert closes by asking him about the enormous personal credibility Powell had placed before the U.N. in laying out a case against Saddam Hussein. An aide to Powell interrupts the question, saying the interview is over."
Tim Russert: "I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate."
Powell: "Get, Emily, get out of the way."
Olbermann: "Powell finishes his answer, admitting much of the information he had been given about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was-"
Powell: "-inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading."
Olbermann: "On the 21st, new photos showing mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison are released. On the 24th, Associated Press video from Iraq confirms U.S. forces mistakenly bombed a wedding party. killing more than 40. Wednesday, May 26, 2004. Two days later."
Ashcroft: "Good afternoon."
Olbermann: "Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI director Mueller warned that intelligence from multiple sources-"
Ashcroft: "-indicates al-Qaeda's specific intention to hit the United States hard."
Olbermann: "-and that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete. The color-coded warning system is not raised. The Homeland Security secretary, Tom Ridge, does not attend the announcement.

"Number eight. July 6, 2004. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his vice presidential running mate, producing a small bump in the election opinion polls and producing a huge swing in media attention towards the Democratic campaign. July 8, 2004. Two days later."
Ridge: "Credible reporting now indicates that al-Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States."
Olbermann: "Homeland Secretary Ridge warns of information about al-Qaeda attacks during the summer or autumn. Four days after that, the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Deforest B. Soaries Jr., confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts.

"Number nine. July 29, 2004. At their party convention in Boston, the Democrats formally nominate John Kerry as their candidate for President. As in the wake of any convention, the Democrats now dominate the media attention over the subsequent weekend. August 1, 2004, Monday morning. Three days later."
Ridge: "It is as reliable a source, group of sources that we've ever seen before."
Olbermann: "The Department of Homeland Security raises the alert status for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange. The evidence supporting the warning, reconnaissance data left in a home in Iraq, later proves to be roughly four years old and largely out of date.

"Number Ten. Last Thursday, at 10 a.m. Eastern time, the President addresses the National Endowment for Democracy, once again emphasizing the importance of the war on terror, and insisting his government has broken up at least 10 terrorist plots since 9/11. At 3 p.m. Eastern time, five hours after the President's speech has begun, the Associated Press reports that Karl Rove will testify again to the CIA leak grand jury and that special prosecutor Fitzgerald has told Rove he cannot guarantee that he will not be indicted."
Chris Matthews: "We're awaiting a news conference at the bottom of the hour. New York City Police-"
Olbermann: "At 5:17 p.m. Eastern time, seven hours after the President's speech has begun, New York officials disclose a bomb threat to the city's subway system based on information supplied by the federal government. A Homeland Security spokesman says the intelligence upon which the disclosure is based is of doubtful credibility. And it later proves that New York City had known of the threat for at least three days and had increased police presence in the subways long before making the announcement at that particular time. Local New York television station WNBC reports it had the story of the threats days in advance of the announcement but was asked by high-ranking federal officials in New York and Washington to hold off on its story. Less than four days after having revealed the threat, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York says, 'Since the period of the threat now seems to be passing, I think over the immediate future we'll slowly be winding down the enhanced security.' While news organizations ranging from the New York Post to NBC News quotes sources who say there was reason to believe the informant who triggered the warning simply made it up, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official tells the New York Times, quote, 'there was no there there.'"

"Coincidences are coincidences. We could probably construct a similar timeline of terror events and warnings and their seeming relationship to the opening of new Wal-Marts around the country. Are these coincidences signs that the government's approach has worked because none of the announced threats have ever materialized? Are they signs that the government has not yet mastered how and when to inform the public? Is there, in addition to the fog of war, a simple, rather benign fog of intelligence? But if merely a reasonable case can be made that any of these juxtapositions of events are more than just coincidences, it underscores the need for questions to be asked in this country, questions about what is prudence and what is fear-mongering, questions about which is the threat of death by terror and which is the terror of threat. Back with the former Undersecretary of Homeland Security, Asa Hutchison, after this."

Olbermann, following an ad break: "And our number two story in the Countdown, the reaction to my commentary, 'The Nexus of Politics and Terror.' My guest was the Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security from January of 2003 until January of this year. He is now a candidate for governor of Arkansas. Asa Hutchison joins us tonight from Washington. Our great thanks for your time tonight, sir."
Asa Hutchinson: "Good to be with you, Keith."
Olbermann: "Let me again read your old boss's quote from I guess what we could call his exit interview with the media last May about raising the terror alert threat level. 'More often than not, we were the least inclined to raise it. Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on [alert]... there were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, "For that?"' Do former Secretary Ridge's comments there justify at least people asking this question, asking if politics is ever mixed improperly with terror warnings?"

Hutchinson: "Oh, I suppose that it's an appropriate question, particularly in today's environment. But I watched your piece, which was certainly interesting, but I don't think it measures up to a close analysis. If you accept that theory, you're arguing that because Karl Rove had a bad press day, the mayor of New York goes on TV and expresses a terrorist threat concern. And that to me does not measure up to logical analysis. Whenever you look back from my experience, and I was there probably for five of those instances, every time it was the intelligence community bringing forth facts that we looked at and made a determination on. And I don't remember politics ever being considered or discussed. It was, the only thing you have is credibility, and if you factor in politics, you lose your credibility very quickly."
Olbermann: "Then perhaps you could tell me who Mr. Ridge was referring to when he said that 'there were times when some people were really aggressive about raising the terror threat level and we said, "For [that]?"' Who are the 'some people' and who are the 'we'?"
Hutchinson: "Well, Secretary Ridge would have to speak for himself, but from my experience, you had someone who's got a history in law enforcement just looking at it from the standpoint, 'My goodness, we got intelligence here, we've got to raise the threat level.' But the Homeland Security has to consider, first of all, 'How does the public react to this? Does it measure up to the standards of credibility? Is it something that we can act upon with an appropriate response?' And, quite frankly, sometimes we realized the public couldn't do anything or law enforcement couldn't do anything. There was a push back saying, 'I don't know that we need to create the fear in the American public.' And, in fact, as you can see, as we got more experienced, the number of times we increased the threat level decreased in '04 as compared to '03. I believe it was four times or three times in '03. We reduced that by half in '04. And I think that's just experience getting better at it."
Olbermann: "I have a question about one particular event that we covered in the piece, which really troubled me from the moment it happened. And I can still recall sitting in my office watching the feed of the news conference live. At the end of May last year, the FBI director and the former Attorney General got up and said that there was new intelligence from multiple sources that al-Qaeda specifically intended to hit, in Mr. Ashcroft's memorable phrase, 'this country hard,' and that someone in al-Qaeda was claiming 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack were complete. You were not at that news conference. Secretary Ridge was not at that news conference. The terror threat alert code from Homeland Security was not raised. Why was the Department of Homeland Security not involved in the announcement of what sounded like a dire imminent threat to homeland security?"
Hutchinson: "I don't know whether the Attorney General was responding to a question in a news conference, but that's the reason that Homeland Security is the agency that the President has designated to communicate changes in the threat level. And Secretary Ridge addressed that subsequently. I think it goes to show that there's different voices, and, as we have created the Department, we tried to bring that together so there's one focal point of communication as to the threats that we face and how the public is supposed to respond to it, and that's Homeland Security."
Olbermann: "As I tried to emphasize in the commentary, hindsight plus the logical fallacy can be a dangerous combination. But can you look at the list of the 10 juxtapositions, especially the two that pertain to around the time of the Democratic Convention last year? And obviously, there are lists that are longer that have been compiled elsewhere that are based on different criteria and are of different merit. But can you look at that list of 10 juxtapositions and say that, in your heart, you're comfortable that not once were political considerations a factor in any of the counterterrorism statements or actions of the government?"
Hutchinson: "I can certainly say that it was never a consideration in raising the threat level because that's what I was personally involved in. As to whether someone else spoke in terms of trying to get a different reaction, you know, it's a large federal government. But I know in every circumstance, whether it's Justice Department or Homeland Security or the White House, politics was never a consideration from the President on down."
Olbermann: "The coincidences that I listed tonight could have the most distressing of possible explanations or the most encouraging of possible explanations or a mixture. But there's a larger issue, and I hope you have an idea of how to address it. Last Thursday, when New York City issued that warning within hours of that Karl Rove story, there were enough people who doubted the authenticity of the warning or who worried that the process had been contaminated in some way by politics, that they just did not believe it. What does the government have to do to eliminate the perception, even if it is a terrible tragic misperception that some of our leaders on this subject would cry wolf?"
Hutchinson: "I think it's a perfect question. And the answer to that is that you cannot ever undermine your credibility, and the way you assure the public that the intelligence is credible or the raising the threat level is credible is by sharing as much information with them as possible so they can see that. Whenever we went to a higher threat level in the financial sector, we did that, shared more information than ever with the public. And the only mistake that was made, we didn't share enough. As you pointed out, some of the intelligence was older, which didn't make any difference, but we should have shared that information so the public can make evaluations. That's why they're not simply having to rely upon those who are in elected positions, but they can see more clearly as to what it's based upon."
Olbermann: "Well, we're out of time here. Regardless of that, and what might be perceived as our disagreement on the substance of this, my great thanks for coming out and speaking to this under these circumstances."
Hutchinson: "Absolutely. Thank you."
Olbermann: "The former Undersecretary of Homeland Security, now the candidate for governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson. Thanks again."

Evidence Keeps Mounting

From the Washington Post:

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.

It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.

Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University.

Woe is me .... says the Economy

The U.S. trade deficit soared to an all-time high of $725.8 billion in pushed upward by record imports of oil, food, cars and other consumer goods. The deficit with China hit an all-time high as did America's deficits with Japan, Europe, OPEC, Canada, Mexico and South and Central America.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that the gap between what America sells abroad and what it imports rose to $725.8 billion last year, up by 17.5 percent from the previous record of $617.6 billion set in 2004.

It marked the fourth consecutive year that America's trade deficit has set a record as American consumers continued their seemingly insatiable demand for all things foreign from new cars to televisions and electronic goods.

The increased foreign competition has helped to keep the lid on prices in this country, but critics say the rising trade deficit is a major factor in the loss of nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since mid- 2000 as U.S. companies moved production overseas to lower-waged nations. Many economists believe those manufacturing jobs will never come back.

"Such a huge trade gap undercuts domestic manufacturing and destroys good U.S. jobs," said Richard Trumka, secretary-treasuer of labor's AFL-CIO. "America's gargantuan trade deficit is a weight around American workers' necks that is pulling them into a cycle of debt, bankruptcy and low-wage service jobs."

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said the new deficit figure showed that "our trade policy is an unbelievable failure that is selling out American jobs and weakening our economy."

Last year's deficit reflected the fact that imports rose by 12.9 percent to an all-time high of $2 trillion, swamping a 5.7 percent increase in exports, which reached a record high of $1.27 trillion.

For December, the trade deficit edged up a slight 1.5 percent to $65.7 billion, the third highest monthly figure on record.

Bush, in an effort to counter the growing anxiety over America's ability to compete with such rising economic powers as China and India, unveiled a new American Competitiveness Agenda in his State of the Union address to double government spending on basic research, extend tax breaks for company spending on research and hire thousands of new math and science teachers for the nation's high schools.

But critics contend that the trade deficit will keep growing unless the administration takes a harder line against unfair trade practices in low-wage countries such as China, a country they contend has gained a huge advantage over America by artificially depressing the value of its currency, which makes Chinese goods cheaper for American consumers and American products more expensive in China.

The U.S. trade deficit with China rose to a record $201.6 billion last year, the highest deficit ever recorded with any country and 24.5 percent above the previous record of $161.9 billion set in 2004. Part of that increase reflected a 42.6 percent increase in imports of Chinese clothing and textiles, which soared at the beginning of the year after the removal of global quotas.

American manufacturers, arguing that the U.S. textile and clothing industries were losing thousands of jobs, got the administration to negotiate a three-year agreement with China to reimpose quotas in a number of categories.

The United States also recorded record deficits with Japan at $82.7 billion. Until it was surpassed by China in 2000, Japan was the country that had the largest trade gap each year with the United States.

America's trade deficit set records with much of the rest of the world as well. Among those records was a $122.4 billion gap with the 25- nation European Union, a $92.7 billion deficit with the nations that belong to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, a $76.5 billion deficit with Canada and a $50.1 billion deficit with Mexico. Canada and Mexico are America's partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The deficit with the countries of South and Central America rose to a record $50.7 billion last year.

A huge 39.4 percent jump in petroleum imports, which rose to $251.6 billion, was a major factor contributing to last year's deficit increase. The price of those imports rose to an all-time high, reflecting tight global supplies. The United States was forced to import more oil in the fall after Hurricane Katrina caused widespread shutdowns of Gulf Coast production.

The rising trade deficits must be financed by increased borrowing from foreigners, who so far have been happy to sell us their products and hold U.S. dollars in payment which they invest in U.S. stock, bonds and other assets. The concern is that at some point foreigners will want to reduce their dollar holdings. If the change occurs at a rapid pace it could send the value of the dollar, U.S. stocks and bond prices all plunging.

Brownie's Doing A Heckuva Job

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

A couple of problems about Katrina are haunting the White House: 1.) Their reaction to the storm, and 2.) Their statements afterward.

Ex FEMA head Michael Brown (Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!) is being grilled by the Congress and he isn't going to be the fall-guy.

Top Department of Homeland Security officials were told that New Orleans was flooding just a few hours after Hurricane Katrina roared ashore, former disaster chief Michael Brown said Friday, contradicting previous statements by agency officials who said they did not know the magnitude of the problem until the next day.

“I find it a little disingenuous,” Michael Brown, who at the time headed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, told a Senate oversight committee. “For them to claim that we didn’t have awareness of it is just baloney.”

The comments came as a timeline of e-mails and reports complied by the committee showed that the federal government could have acted sooner to help victims of the flooding.

As with other controversies of late, the Republicans are asking hard questions and not just acting as White House apologists.

What's dogging Bush is a statement he made, which was later clarified when info started to emerge that indicated it was not quite accurate...and the White House response has been refined from there:

Shortly after the disaster, Bush said that “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.” He later said his comment was meant to suggest that there had been a false sense of relief that the levees had held when the storm passed, only to break a few hours later.

The latest White House explanation:
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president and his top aides were fully aware of the massive flooding — and less concerned whether it was caused by levee breaches, overtoppings or failed pumps, all three of which were being reported at the time.

Sounds like a Compassionate Conservative ...

Response to the State Of The Union

So although Pres. Bush painted a rosy picture of the State Of The Union, Newsday laid the chips on the table:

The nation needed a stiff shot of reality from the White House last night. Unfortunately, much of what it got from President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address was election year sleight of hand.

Bush is coming off a bad year in which his credibility and approval ratings took a beating. He's mired in an unpopular war in Iraq and hog-tied by federal deficits and debt at home. He needs to turn things around. Straight talk about the nation's challenges would be a good start.

There was some of that last night. Bush noted "a duty to speak with candor," alluded to mistakes in Iraq, and said military tactics and the approach to reconstruction there have been adjusted. He acknowledged the problem of high gas and oil prices, and called for a concerted effort to achieve greater energy independence - a new and important initiative. He was upfront about the problem of exploding entitlement spending and the economic challenge from nations such as China and India. And we give him credit for his proposals to boost science and math education.

But Bush framed the international challenges to our security and economy as choosing between isolationism and engagement. It's a phony choice. The United States is deeply engaged in the world, both militarily and economically. The question is whether we are proceeding wisely and, in Iraq, to be kind, the jury is still out.

On domestic issues, the need for candor is just as acute. Middle America is taking a beating. Unemployment and inflation are low and the economy is growing. But household income has dropped five years in a row. The price of gasoline is up. So is the cost of health care and the number of uninsured Americans. And there's been no progress in ensuring that Social Security and Medicare remain solvent.

The bungled federal response to Hurricane Katrina revealed a stunning incompetence. And due to Bush's embrace of warrantless eavesdropping, detainee abuse and jail without charges or trials, the U.S. Constitution and the nation's standing as the champion of freedom and the rule of law have become casualties of the war on terrorism.

In the face of all that, Bush continued to push his misguided goal of an imperial presidency above the courts and Congress. And he offered only small-bore initiatives that would nip around the edges of big problems - expanding health savings accounts, for instance, and establishing a commission on entitlement reform. But with baby boomers about to put unprecedented demands on Social Security and Medicare, Bush called for spending restraint - incredible after years of runaway spending on his watch - and for making his unaffordable tax cuts permanent. This was a speech long on problems but short on solutions.

Misstatement of the Union

Factcheck.Org notes:

The President left out a few things when surveying the State of the Nation:

He proudly spoke of "writing a new chapter in the story of self-government" in Iraq and Afghanistan and said the number of democracies in the world is growing. He failed to mention that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan yet qualify as democracies according to the very group whose statistics he cited.
Bush called for Congress to pass a line-item veto, failing to mention that the Supreme Court struck down a line-item veto as unconstitutional in 1998. Bills now in Congress would propose a Constitutional amendment, but none have shown signs of life.
The President said the economy gained 4.6 million jobs in the past two-and-a-half years, failing to note that it had lost 2.6 million jobs in his first two-and-a-half years in office. The net gain since Bush took office is just a little more than 2 million.
He talked of cutting spending, but only "non-security discretionary spending." Actually, total federal spending has increased 42 percent since Bush took office.
He spoke of being "on track" to cut the federal deficit in half by 2009. But the deficit is increasing this year, and according to the Congressional Budget Office it will decline by considerably less than half even if Bush's tax cuts are allowed to lapse.
Bush spoke of a "goal" of cutting dependence on Middle Eastern oil, failing to mention that US dependence on imported oil and petroleum products increased substantially during his first five years in office, reaching 60 per cent of consumption last year.

One must expect the president to paint a rosy picture in his State Of The Union Address -- and as far as this president's record, this was one of the most truthful -- even if it was only half-truths.