by TChris

Donald Rumsfeld's insensitive decision to use a machine to sign the condolence letters he sends to families of soldiers who die in the war provides another reason (and we really didn't need another, did we?) to call for the Defense Secretary's resignation. While the President refuses to criticize Rumsfeld, others are not so circumspect.

[Nebraska Senator Chuck] Hagel, speaking on the CBS News program "Face the Nation," joined Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in declaring his loss of confidence in the defense secretary, and said problems in Iraq were "all of the accumulation of bad judgment."

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a Democrat who serves on the Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Rumsfeld should go. He complained that the defense secretary's "management style is more corrosive than constructive," and said Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks to the guardsman were emblematic of his "disdainful, dismissive" style.

Some Democrats say they see "no need to remove the defense secretary if the president's policies remained the same." Unfortunately, changing the president's policies likely requires changing the president. And while there is little reason to hope that Rumsfeld's successor would be any more capable of "winning the peace" with this President in office, it cannot be good for the military to retain a Defense Secretary who has repeatedly demonstrated how little he cares about the men and women whose lives depend upon his judgment.

by TChris

The Missile Defense Agency has spent more than $80 billion since 1985 in its effort to develop a missle defense system. That's a lot of money for a system that doesn't work. The good news for defense contractors is that the administration plans to spend another $50 billion over the next five years.

In the latest test of a missile interceptor, conducted yesterday, the launching system shut down for unknown reasons. This follows a 2002 test in which the interceptor failed to separate from its booster rocket, causing it to miss its target by hundreds of miles.

A Democratic member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who has been critical of the program, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said the latest setback might make lawmakers wonder whether money for the Pentagon might be better spent elsewhere, particularly in light of the mounting costs of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Republican supporters won't let failure deter their desire to throw more tax dollars at their pals in the defense industry. And while President Bush pledged in December 2002 (after the last failure) that the system would be operational by September 2004, the latest failure will only motivate the administration to set another unrealistic target date for its scaled-down version of Star Wars.

The truth comes out now. President Bush and the Republicans's plans to revamp social security by allowing privatization can only be accomplished by a reduction in benefits to tomorrow's retirees:

Some of the Republican proposals would raise the age when people can start to receive benefits. Others would reduce payments to beneficiaries to account for longer life expectancies. Still others would reduce payments to married couples and scale back the annual increases that are made to keep pace with inflation.

But the biggest single idea is included in the plan the White House most often points to, abandoning the practice of setting benefits as a share of people's pre-retirement earnings. Analysts affiliated with both political parties say that that one change could save more than $10 trillion over the next 75 years, more than enough to wipe out Social Security's projected shortfall. People retiring today or even in the next 10 years would feel almost no impact.

But in decades to come, analysts say, many people would see sharper drops in their incomes when they retired. And because benefits would not keep up with wages, many retirees could feel steadily poorer compared with neighbors who still work.

How much more will it cost the country when the last of the baby boomers need food stamps and medicaid as well as medicare because of reduced social security benefits? How about just giving us back dollar for dollar what we put in since age 16 and we'll take care of ourselves, thank you. What a rip off.

Newsday reporter Leonard Levitt wrote up Bernie Kerik's retirement dinner at the Sheraton Hotel in April, 2002.

Friday at his retirement dinner at the Sheraton, the night was his[Kerik's]. His publisher Judith Regan purchased a table and produced a film presentation of him. Rudolph Giuliani praised Kerik's conduct on Sept. 11 and said that rather than his being a lost son, "He was the brother I never had."

Source: Newsday (New York) April 22, 2002 Monday (available on Lexis.com)

The New York Times has an article that begins, "What was Bernie Kerik thinking?" Much of the article is about Rudy Giulani, and it's not flattered to the ex-Mayor and former prosecutor:

Most of America knows the heroic Rudolph W. Giuliani, celebrated for his masterful leadership after Sept. 11. But before the terrorist attacks, Mr. Giuliani's popularity had dropped at home. Even fans had tired of his aggressive style.

On the premise that it took tough leadership to tame New York, the former mayor conducted himself with unapologetic hubris, surrounding himself with a deferential inner circle - including Bernard B. Kerik as commissioner of correction and then commissioner of the police.

The insular Giuliani team could be secretive, could play loose with people's rights and would even violate the law, attracting lawsuits that City Hall usually lost.

Bernie Kerik withdraws his name from consideration as Homeland Security Chief--word is it has something to do with his position as a director of the stun gun Taser company--from which he has made $6.2 million. He says it's for "personal reasons."

Update: Text of Kerik statement is here. Article claiming decision based on a nannygate problem is here. I'm not buying the nanny story. It could be a combination of things. I ran a Lexis search for "Bernard Kerik" & lawsuit in the news database of articles more than two years old. Have a field day.

The New York Times has some serious questions about Bush's nomination of Bernie Kerik for Homeland Security Secretary:

A homeland security secretary should be above politics and respectful of civil liberties. But when he stumped for President Bush this year, Mr. Kerik engaged in fearmongering. He told The New York Daily News that he was worried about another terrorist attack and that "if you put Senator Kerry in the White House, I think you are going to see that happen." And he was quoted in Newsday as saying this about opponents of the Iraq war: "Political criticism is our enemies' best friend."

There are chapters of Mr. Kerik's career that are worthy of particular scrutiny. In the summer of 2003, he spent several months in Iraq training police officers. But his time there appears to have been cut short, right around the time of some serious terrorist attacks, and the state of the force since his departure has been bleak. Given the relevance of that work to his new duties, it would be instructive to know what, if anything, went wrong.

And what exactly did Kerik due when he worked for Giuliani-Kerik L.L.C.?

Mr. Kerik should offer assurances that former clients and colleagues will not get preferential treatment. He has had difficulty with ethical lines in the past. In 2002, he paid a fine for using a police sergeant and two detectives to research his autobiography.

How about Kerik's service on the board of Taser International, maker of the stun-gun that has killed 70 people,according to a report by Amnesty International?

Last, but not least, is his limited experience on the national level, with Congress or Washington insiders. Why did Bush pick Kerik over, say, Asa Hutchinson, who reportedly is so offended he didn't get the job he's leaving and going back to Arkansas, to prepare for a 2006 gubernatorial run?

An editiorial in the Sunday LA Times says that Bernie Kerik is wrong for the job of Homeland Security Secretary . The Times opines that Ray Kelley would have made the better choice. But then, Kelly didn't spend election season on the prowl as a Bush attack dog--and Kerik did.

The New York Daily News puts Bernie Kerik's appointment as Homeland Security Chief in perspective: Rudy called in a chit.

"Rudy cashed in a chip on this one," said a White House source, who earlier this week predicted there was "no way" Kerik could land a cabinet-level job in the Bush administration.

Kerik was police commissioner under Rudy and then went to work for Giuliani and Partners, Rudy's consulting firm. What's a little more surprising is that Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and even former NY police commissioner and Rudy foe Bill Bratton are supporting Kerik's nomination.

Meanwhile, in the Rudy news department, his recent Southhampton house-hunting excursions help explain why he didn't want the job himself--or any government job right now:

by TChris

It's official.

President Bush asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who directed American military forces in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to remain at the Pentagon and he agreed to stay, a senior administration official said Friday.

President Bush announced former NYC Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik will replace Tom Ridge as chief of Homeland Security.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced his retirement from the Bush Cabinet today.

Bush's cabinet has 15 members. To date, 8 have resigned.

Update: Thompson included these warnings in his departure announcement:

...he expressed grave concern about the threat of a global flu epidemic and the possibility of a terrorist attack on the nation's food supply. "For the life of me," he said, "I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do."

Thanks, Mr. Thompson, for letting them know.

by TChris

A new report explains why "abstinence-only" education has failed to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents.

"The report finds that over two-thirds of these federally funded abstinence programs rely on curricula that distort information about the effectiveness of contraceptives, misrepresent the risks of abortion, blur religion and science, treat stereotypes about girls and boys as scientific fact and contain basic scientific errors," according to the report ordered by US Representative Henry Waxman of California.