Disinformation on Defunding

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:37:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

KagroX writes a misinformed post on the efficacy of not funding the Iraq War:

Let's see that first one again:
Was it a full-bore data-mining program of some sort, akin to the TIA program that Congress had de-funded? (John Yoo suggests as much in his new book.)

What jumps out at me there is this: the possibility that we're talking about the reincarnation of a program that Congress had de-funded.
That'd be idle speculation but for the mention that John Yoo apparently makes such a suggestion himself.

It's idle speculation particularly because it is from John Yoo. Let's consider what John Yoo was doing in 2003:

Professor Yoo was a visiting professor at the University of Chicago Law School in 2003.

John Yoo was not at Justice when the program in question was not funded as it was originally. He does not know anything about it and could not. It is by definition idle speculation.

What and how did Congress defund? It defunded the Terrorism Information Awareness program:

The Senate bill's language is simple but comprehensive: "No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense ... or to any other department, agency or element of the Federal Government, may be obligated or expended on research and development on the Terrorism Information Awareness program."

(Emphasis supplied.) What was the Terrorism Information Awareness Program?

Late last year controversyerupted about a Department of Defense (DOD) R&Deffort called Total Information Awareness (TIA) under an office headed by retiredAdmiral John D. Poindexter within the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA). Byintegrating various new tools designed to detect, anticipate, train for,and provide warnings about potential terrorist attacks, DARPA hopes to develop aprototype Total Information Awareness system. This system would integrate anumber of ongoing R&D efforts, referred to in this paper as Total InformationAwareness programs.

In short, it was the Poindexter program. Did the Poindexter program get funded? No. Defunding worked. It is harmful to argue that defunding will not work based on nonsense from John Yoo.

So what was funded? According to Wikipedia (thanks ek):

Notwithstanding the defunding of TIA and the closing of the IAO, several TIA projects continued to be funded under the classified annexes to the Defense and the Intelligence appropriation bills in 2003 and subsequently.
For example, several TIA projects were funded through the National Foreign Intelligence Program for foreign counterterrorism intelligence purposes by the National Security Agency as Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA) under the classified annex to the 2004 DOD Appropriations Act as contemplated in §8131 thereof. Recent reports suggest that some of this activity is now part of the Disruptive Technology Office (DTO) reporting to the Director of National Intelligence.⁹
An unknown number of TIA's functions have been merged under the codename "Topsail".¹⁰

This is Wkipedia so take it with a grain or 2 of salt. But let's accept it as true. Congress funded these appropriations. If this is the big flouting of law, then the Congress is the one that did it.

It is ridiculous to argue that this is an example of defunding not working. It is disingenuous to argue it accepting this account as true.

And it is even more disingenuous to compare funding in the tens of millions with the 100 billion minimum a year of war in Iraq would require.

It is stupid to point to Iran/Contra, where the Reagan Administration had to sell missiles to Iran and beg for money from the Sultan of Brunei, to raise relatively paltry amounts, as an argument against defunding for Iran/Contra proves defunding CAN work. The Reagan Administration had no money for the Contras.

If the Contras could be defunded, then of course the Iraq Debacle can be defunded. Does anyone really think Bush can secretly continue fighting the Iraq Debacle off of a black budget, one the Congress has to approve anyway?

Let me put it bluntly, for those who oppose defunding, do it honestly, don't play these disingenuous games.

< Senate Reaches Immigration Deal With White House | An Unacceptable Answer: Will The Media Accept It? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Disinformation on Defunding | 47 comments (47 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:27:54 PM EST

if part of the confusion is terminology.

I can see defunding sounding to some like something is being taken away, or a reversing of a prior appropriation. Like something that needs pro-action. Like a bill to be voted on.

It is none of those things.

Maybe "NOT funding" is easier for people to get a grip on, and harder to argue against?

Kagro's post is not confusion (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:30:19 PM EST

It was delioberate misinformation.

A low point for daily kos.


: Yes, I know. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:41:33 PM EST

That was pretty obvious. I was wondering if a name change might make disinfo campaigns more difficult.

Good post, BTD (none / 0) (#1)
by Warren Terrer on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:57:00 PM EST

What is KagroX (none / 0) (#2)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:57:48 PM EST

trying to do there? What a bunch of crap. Inflating Yoo's meaning as a scare tactic is one thing. And trying to give the impression that Rice meant Bush would try to continue the occupation without the money to do it is a disingenuous form of lying with an apple/orange comparison as another scare tactic. Bush is already defying 'withdrawal legislation' with his recent veto.

Is the defunding idea that threatening to him that he has to try this?

He was at DOJ in '03 (none / 0) (#3)
by Maybenever on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:15:14 PM EST

...he is best known for his work from 2001 to 2003 in the United States Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.[1]

At least according to Wikipedia. It's also possible that he gained information re the continuation of the program after he left the Department.

This is not to comment about the practicability of defunding as a means to end the war, only to observe that the particular attack regarding Woo's tenure at DOJ is without merit.

He left in early 2003 (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:42:39 PM EST

The program was defunded after October 2003.

You are left with one recourse, speciualting that Yoo know about classified budgetng and operations after he left.

Pathetic.


On 6/20/03 (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:55:25 PM EST

Yoo appeared on PBS and was referred to in this way:

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Until recently, he was a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Welcome to you both.

TIA was defunded for the fiscal ytear beginning November 1, 2003.


That is what I said. (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by Maybenever on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:45:43 AM EST

Yoo likely didn't lose his clearance when he left; a clearance at that level is enormously valuable since 9/11, so those who have them work hard to keep them. Therefore, it is possible that he knew of events after his official tenure ended. Since the whole area is highly secretive, it's also probable that he consulted for his former employer as he taught law as well.

In other words, it is in no way a certainty that Yoo's knowledge stopped on his last official day on the job.

All speculation on your part (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:02:37 AM EST

and you have nothing to support your speculations except more speculations.

Huh? (1.00 / 1) (#34)
by Maybenever on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:14:04 AM EST

This site's claim to fame was that it was supposed to be civil. No such luck.

It might be if you avoided (none / 0) (#35)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:25:02 AM EST

using insults like pathetic. You're liable to get what you give.


BigTentDemocrat closed his response (1.00 / 2) (#37)
by Maybenever on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:45:26 AM EST

to me with the word. In my reply, I repeated it to emphasize how offensive it is. I was unaware of the policy here permits him to use language prohibited by other posters. Now that you've informed me that repeating his insults in-kind and immediately is bad form, I'll abstain.

You and BigTent he speculate that Yoo must have lied, since his known tenure at DOJ ended prior to the defunding.

Please offer support for your certainty that all communication between Yoo and the Department ended when he officially left DOJ. Without such support your position is guesswork.

Doesn't credibility demand more than idle speculation before you call a man a liar? Yoo says he knows, you say he doesn't, you should offer some support. At very least avoid vicious attacks pm those who offer possible explanations.


Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:58:49 AM EST

You write "You and BigTent he speculate that Yoo must have lied, since his known tenure at DOJ ended prior to the defunding. "

I speculate no such thing. John Yoo is not quoted by anyone saying a defunded program was operational.

Lederman writes something rather strange but it clearly is his idea of deductive reasoning, not quoting Yoo saying what Lederman surmises.

KagroX goes even further with his idle speculation.

And the fact is no one quotes Yoo saying anything of the sort.

You really mangled the entire episode with this one.

The speculation here is all yours and KagroX's.

Yoo was NOT at Justice when the TIA was defunded. That is a FACT!

Yoo would NOt have clearance to know if it was still operational. You just made that one up. It is simply wrong unless he was contracted by Justice. No one is even alleging that but you.

You are engaged in irresponsible speculation. And you started with bad facts - you STATED Yoo was there in 2003 when the program was defunded.

I proved you wrong. Leaving you with absurd speculations. And now you take umbrage? Sheesh.

Kagro spread disinformation. And you can;t admit mistakes.


You mischaracterize (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by Maybenever on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:50:53 PM EST

my first statement:

He was at DOJ in '03... At least according to Wikipedia." It's also possible that he gained information re the continuation of the program after he left the Department.

as:

You are engaged in irresponsible speculation. And you started with bad facts - you STATED Yoo was there in 2003 when the program was defunded.
I proved you wrong. Leaving you with absurd speculations. And now you take umbrage? Sheesh.

Why mischaracterize my words? For what purpose? It certainly doesn't support your position.

Also, what would have caused Yoo to lose his security clearance? You're positive he did, but why would you think so? Leaving DOJ wouldn't end the clearance, it would take a separate administrative action to have it removed. Or do you just speculate it was taken away?


: Why troll rate for disagreement? (none / 0) (#46)
by Maybenever on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:45:54 PM EST

What is it about civil debate that is so threatening?

: How did I mischaracterize your words? (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:04:45 PM EST

You don't explain.
Then you ask "Also, what would have caused Yoo to lose his security clearance?"
It is not a question of clearance, it is a question of being an authorized person. He left Justice he was not authorized to know that information.
This is a nonsequitor from you:
"Leaving DOJ wouldn't end the clearance, it would take a separate administrative action to have it removed. Or do you just speculate it was taken away?"
You're positive he did, but why would you think so? Leaving DOJ wouldn't end the clearance, it would take a separate administrative action to have it removed. Or do you just speculate it was taken away?

You missed my point. (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:50:34 AM EST

I speculate that was intentional. Attributing things to me not said by me doesn't help you much either. Oh, and if you think using the word 'pathetic' is a 'vicious attack' you might have refrained from using it. Have a nice day.


You admonished me for the word (none / 0) (#40)
by Maybenever on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:04:40 AM EST

so I, improperly, assumed you viewed it as inappropriate. It's hard to keep up here. The rules are very complicated, but I'm catching up. My mistake.

As for the rest, forgive me again.

My position is that there is reason to believe Yoo has knowledge of facts which occurred subsequent to his professional departure from DOJ. Claims he is a liar because he was not employed at the Department when the events took place are speculation.


: Re: forgive me again (none / 0) (#42)
by Edger on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:13:09 AM EST

No. You can rebuild your own credibilty. Don't ask me to excuse you. I'm done with you.

Say what? (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:25:59 AM EST

Yoo likely didn't lose his clearance when he left; a clearance at that level is enormously valuable since 9/11, so those who have them work hard to keep them.

That is simply ridiculous. If he was no longer at Justice he would have no basis for knowing.

This is just plain wrong.


So you believe only current (none / 0) (#41)
by Maybenever on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:11:52 AM EST

active employees of secure government agencies have knowledge of the daily workings of those agency. That means there is never communication between former colleagues.

Interesting premise. I'll give it some thought.

I wonder why revolving door statutes were adopted? That was a wasted effort.


huh? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:40:21 AM EST

Are you saying people with no need to know are being given classified onformation willy nilly?

You of course moved the goal posts:

knowledge of the daily workings of those agency. That means there is never communication between former colleagues.

That is not what I said and if you think classified information being bandied about then you have a scoop.

As for revolving door statutes, I have no idea what you are referencing.


: I'm saying that colleagues (none / 0) (#44)
by Maybenever on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:34:32 PM EST

discuss their work with their former coworkers who have similar security clearances.
Obviously, you are unfamiliar with this type social interaction, but trust me, it occurs.
Precisely because of the potential abuse of professional friendships, certain government officials are prohibited from using those relationships immediately after leaving service for personal enrichment. The laws which hope to prevent the exploitation of such communications are known as revolving door statutes.
I mentioned the revolving door statutes to demonstrate to you that post-employment communication does happen, and can cause a breach of public trust. If you believe no such communications occur, you must also think laws which hope to prevent its exploitation are useless. That was my point, and I accept that you don't understand it.
Let's drop it. You believe it was impossible for Yoo to have learned anything after he left, I believe it is possible that he acquired new information. We will not change the other's mind.

Bush and a black budget (none / 0) (#4)
by Naftali on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:28:28 PM EST

"Does anyone really think Bush can secretly continue fighting the Iraq Debacle off of a black budget, one the Congress has to approve anyway?"

Not me. But I think Bush can refuse to withdraw the troops even after the 'date certain' of de-funding. And I'm pretty certain he will.

I absolutely support defunding, but it alone is not gonna stop the Debacle. To my mind, conflating previous 'defunding failures' with the current situation is only slightly more mistaken than conflating 'defunding' and 'ending the Debacle.'

Kargo is an impeachment bug (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:31:01 PM EST

We went round and round about defunding a month ago.

What's his objection boil down to? (none / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:40:30 PM EST

That defunding would take attention and effort away from impeachment?


You can read (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by andgarden on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:45:54 PM EST

the whole exchange here. To quote him in all of his incorrectness:

I think you're going to see that start to change as Congressional oversight hits the wall across the board, and people start refusing their subpoenas.
And guess what? While you're counting your chickens, let's also admit that nobody but nobody thinks the votes exist for what you want -- defunding Iraq -- is going to happen either.
Are you packing your bags?

Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:48:46 PM EST

Well, after this: "nobody thinks the votes exist for what you want -- defunding Iraq" I don't think I need to.

He's either intentionally lying, or not very bright.


At the time BTD said: (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by andgarden on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:53:57 PM EST

Frankly, he is talking like an idiot.

: Sounds like he's just being himself. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:55:32 PM EST

: Thanks for the links and quotes. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:57:18 PM EST

I remember that now. I had forgotten that thread.

I don't believe it (none / 0) (#14)
by chemoelectric on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:18:42 PM EST

Does anyone really think Bush can secretly continue fighting the Iraq Debacle off of a black budget, one the Congress has to approve anyway?

I don't believe he can 'fight' without the money (as if he were 'fighting' now, which he is not), but I also don't believe this would force him to withdraw from Iraq. He can leave soldiers there begging for food and short of supplies, which to some degree he does already.

However, the general officers might do an Admiral Fallon and veto the Leaderâ€<sup>TM</sup>s proclamations, in which case we may indeed bring the debacle to an end.

You are misinformed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by andgarden on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:31:32 PM EST

He can leave soldiers there begging for food and short of supplies, which to some degree he does already.

Look up the Feed and Forage act.


And how will that (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Naftali on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:18:01 PM EST

be enforced?


Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by andgarden on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:31:30 PM EST

Are you saying that the President will intentionally starve the troops? Seriously, make sure you know what you're taking about before you post.


I agree with naftali somewhat on this point. (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:35:57 PM EST

bush is psychotic. I don't mean that as simply an insult. I think he truly is psychotic. He may try to hold the troops hostage.


That still doesn't get him $100B (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by andgarden on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:40:23 PM EST

He might as well storm Nancy Pelosi's office or something.
Anyway, I've sworn off psychoanalyzing from afar.


I think if he tries it he'll destroy himself. (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:43:22 PM EST

And I think there are still enough with brains in the GOP to stop him if he tries. But I think he might try.


Strong disagree (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:47:30 PM EST

Bush will withdraw the troops and say Democrats lost the war.

That is the political threat.

But it is an empty one IF Dems set a date certain now!

That way Bush has almost a year to win!

Come on E and Andgarden, you guys know this already.


: Where do I seem to disagree? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by andgarden on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:50:49 PM EST

: There is that one, too, yes. (none / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:51:55 PM EST

I hope so. Him saying it won't work though, if people are educated enough.

Active duty Generals revolt? (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:44:23 PM EST

Hey, thanks for the advice! (none / 0) (#29)
by Naftali on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:33:10 PM EST

I'll watch you carefully, to see how someone who knows what she or he is talking about does it.

And if you take about, oh, three minutes to game this out, you'll see what happens. If you get to 'and then the troops starve,' go back a step.

Why so hostile? Is this the preferred tone here?


Darn ... (none / 0) (#15)
by chemoelectric on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:20:17 PM EST

... this site is so UTF-8 unfriendly, which is inexplicable.


Dear diarist, (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:09:08 PM EST

do you object to my providing links on occasion at DK to your informative work on the defunding meme? Quite a bit of disinformation there and I strongly think links may help a few to understand. O.K., boss?

: Sure (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:25:41 PM EST

Use text if you like.