A new Field poll was released today showing a significant drop in the approval rating for California Governor Schwarzenegger.

Now in February 2005, his ratings are:
=.      Approve  Disapprove  No Opinion
Adults    54%      35%         11%
Voters    55%      35%         10%

In September 2004, his vratings were:
=.      Approve  Disapprove  No Opinion
          65%       35%         13%

More people now believe he caters to "special interests" and non-republicans find his "trustworthiness" only about average for governors.

Are we an action blog or a discussion blog?

When we register with daily kos, we currently need only supply a confidential email address.

If when registering or re-registering, we all gave up the zip code where we voted, a powerful database of voters and districts could be collected.  

Kos could then run a program to identify members to contact within various districts as district specific issues arose.

Would disclosing our zip code be an invasion of our privacy, that outweighs the potential for political action?

Go to media matters http://mediamatters.org/election/index.html

The networks that have said Ohio goes to Bush have changed in the last hour.  And still it is only four out of the eight making that prediction, but it is a different four.

CNN now has Ohio narrowing to 100K difference.  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/index.html

What is happening?  Why is it so slow?  What is being withheld?

I live in a Democratic stronghold and just spoke with a longtime friend from a Republican stronghold.  She described the voters in her area as "holding their nose" and choosing between two unacceptable candidates.

I responded by describing the voters in my area as "holding their nose" to vote out someone who has caused divisiveness, inequality and hatred, and then voting in someone who has engaged in dialogue and wants equal opportunity for all Ameicans.

As I reflected on these differing motivations, that one side was offended by the choice of candidates [Bush v. Kerry] and the other side was offended by one candidate [Bush], I realized that I was changing my prediction of the election outcome.  Republicans do not like the choices they face while Democrats have no qualms about the choices they face.  This will effect the number of votes cast for each side.

Dan Rather is reported to have interviewed Bill Burkett on camera about the memos used by CBS.

The NYT story is here stating that:

"It was unclear last night if Mr. Burkett had told Mr. Rather that he had been misled about the documents' provenance or that he had been the one who did the misleading."

Remember that Kevin Drum had mixed impressions from his early interview with Burkett here.

There is still a confidential source problem as the LA Times reports here that:

"Under pressure, CBS News executives said they were trying to persuade the confidential source or sources to come forward publicly."

Something interesting is likely to come of this.

There are good reasons to be concerned about increased risk of nuclear weapon deployment under GWBush.  BWBush has re-directed our nuclear policy and budget to allow for more "usable" nuclear weapons.

Conventional "bunker busters" are designed to penetrate through layers of concrete to destroy protected bunkers below, such as encountered in Iraq and expected in Iran and elsewhere.  These conventional bunker busters are discussed here.

GWBush has redirected our nuclear policy to develop "nuclear bunker busters" as being much more effective, but ignoring the nuclear fallout from their use.  The development of these new nuclear weapons, and the associated radioactive fallout, are discussed here.

A second type of useful nuclear weapons are commonly called "low yield weapons" intended for deployment by troops in the field.  These "low yield weapons" do not need flying fortresses to deploy.  Soldiers in the field will be equipped to initiate their use locally and more effectively.  The development of these low yield weapons are discussed here.

This information is well documented in Congress and on the internet.  Senator Dianne Feinstein from California is a major publicist and opponent of this development.  A cursory Google search will produce much more information that has been below the media radar. This amendment  was designed to stop development of these new nuclear weapons, but was defeated.

Problems from this new direction toward usable nuclear weapons include:

1.  More useful nuclear weapons tend to be more likely to be deployed.

2.  Their small, tactical size make containment and control of these weapons more difficult.

3.  Decisions over the use of these small nuclear weapons will tend to be disbursed over many people , increasing the likelihood for their unexpected use.

4.  The development of these weapons by the USA will prompt other countries to keep pace and develop their own versions to counter perceived threats by the USA.

5.  There is a greater likelihood that terrorist groups will obtain control and use of some of these small, useful nuclear weapons.

6.  Radioactive contamination of our childrens' environment.

7.  Once developed, these useful nuclear weapons cannot be un-developed.

8.  A chicken hawk politician will be inclined to authorize use of these more usable nuclear weapons.

The Pentagon late Friday afternoon announced that the claim of Bush's National Guard records being destroyed was an inadvertant mistake.  

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9228015.htm?1c

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/07/24/ap/headlines/d840sfj01.txt

Actual copies are not yet found on-line but some computerized records were allegedly produced that are said to not explain anything.  

This raises even more questions.  Why were they reported lost?  Which records are the true records?  What do they disclose or (fail to disclose)?

Some times our attention gets taken by things that are immediately in front of us and we forget about things from the past, like the  "secret military courts" where alleged terrorists can be tried after they had been subjected to "torture based interrogation".

The effect of combining "torture based interrogation" followed by "secret military courts" is very painful for me to consider.  Maybe someone else can dissect it.

As I understand the reasoning of the recently disclosed DOD/DOJ studies authorizing the use of "torture" based interrogation techniques, they claim that GWBush has authority to use torture because he cannot as "Commander-in-Chief" be limited in his tactics for waging war.  According to the DOD/DOJ analyis, this power of the Commander-in-Chief to wage war without restraint, trumps even the Geneva Convention and United States statutes.

The next step of this analysis is to point out that decisions by the President infer a sense of validity as to those decisions and that subordinates then lack the ability to refuse to follow the decisions of the "Commander-in-Chief" regarding the use of torture.  This lack of ability to refuse to follow these decisions should insulate subordinates from liability for their actions that are otherwise in apparent violation of the Geneva Convention and US statutes -- because their conduct was authorized by the "Commander-in-Chief" and because they lack the ability under these circumstances to make a "moral choice" against torture, citing to the Nuremberg Trials.

No wonder the president has a personal lawyer.  Everyone is protected under these DOD/DOJ studies except the President.  

Subordinates of the President can say that their torture related conduct was authorized by the President because it is the Commander-in-Chief (and not the Secretary of Defense) who has claimed the implied authority to wage war unconstrained by the Geneva Convention or federal law.  These surbordinates can also point out that the government has already recognized that they lacked the ability under these circumstances to make the "moral choice" to not particpate in torture related activities.

What about GWBush?  This DOD/DOJ anaylsis authorized him to walk with a bigger swagger (larger than the Geneva Convention, etc.), but did not inform him of the consequences of the analysis being incorrect.  If GWBush does not have the implied authority to overrule the Geneva Convention and federal law as Commander-in-Chief, then because these laws are criminal laws rather than civil or administrative laws, GWBush is personally liable for their violation when he directs others to act contrary to those laws by using torture for interrogation.

The best defense for GWBush is to claim that these DOD/DOJ studies were never accepted by him, that he never acted in contravention of the Geneva Convention, and that others used these studies to encourage subordinates to violate the Geneva Convention without his approval.  The weakness of this defense is that it is fact based, i.e., did GWBush know or approve of torture based interrogation, and is there a subordinate who will come forward and convincingly say that the "Comander-in-Chief" knew of these techniques.  

Everyone has a built in defense except GWBush who must rely the Rumsfeld/Cheney duo to breakoff any claim that knowledge of these torture techniques had been passed up to the Commander-in-Chief, to eliminate any claim that he exercised his claimed, implied power as Commander-in-Chief to override the Geneva Convention and federal law.  This duo's problem is that they cannot say that they are the ones who permitted the torture, because the studies state that the implied power to allow torture comes only from the Commander-in-Chief.

Will GWBush succeed?  My intuition is that people in the GWBush administration write a lot of memos that are not read by GWBush but which may cause harm to GWBush.

Several possibilities exist.  Lets run through them to see what we find:  

First - GWBush figured out on his own that he now needed a personal attorney.  But this is against the prevailing view that GWBush lacks the intellect to make that level of reasoning on his own.  

Second - His family was watching out for GWBush and told him to get his own lawyer.  Naaa.  GWBush does not listen to his Dad.  This not in character from his Mother.  And family would have told him to keep the hiring of a personal lawyer quiet rather than announce it on the national news.

Third - The US Attorney felt personally compelled by the duties of his office to tell the president to get personal counsel.  I think this asks too much of John Ashcroft who is more manipulative in his approaches to these types of problems.

Fourth - White House counsel thought it was a good idea for GWBush to get a personal attorney.  No. No. No.  Gonzales has shown his methodology.  He would go to bat for the president personally and would never suggest that GWBush get his own attorney.  That is Gonzales' job and would cut Gonzales off from his political power base that runs through the president.

Fifth - The campaign to re-elect the president told GWBush to get a personal lawyer.  No. Never.  They would have put a spin on the news and had one of their captive reporters put it out on the air or in print.  This is not within their repertoire.  They manipulate the news which is not what was done by this announcement.

Sixth - The FBI told GWBush to get a personal lawyer.  WHAT !!!!   No!!!   It is too soon for that.  GWBush does not face custody issues and no one says he faces any immediate interrogation.

Seventh - An underling being approached by investigators told GWBush that the memos he never read would soon be revealed to implicate him in the disclosure of intelligence information, i.e.,   a real threat of disclosure of criminal conduct.   Possible.  

Underlings are being investigated.  Do these underlings make decisions without even nominal consultation with GWBush, or does GWBush ignore their memnos like he did the pre 9/11 memos on terrorist activities?  This is the only escape for  underlings involved in the disclosure of intelligence information, that they did it with the implied consent and authority of their superiors, who must now also be warned about the pending disclsoure.

If the last senario seven is the most probable and is true, then this means that there is pressure being placed on GWBush from the investigation itself, which can be powerful.  This is especially true if the usual government lawyers are now disqualified from participating in the investigation because of a conflict of interest between their allegiance to GWBush and their allegiance to the USA.  

I have presented seven alternative sources of the pressure on GWBush to obtain personal counsel.  Are there other possible sources that I have ignored?  The motiviation to obtain personal counsel indicates some of the reasons for retaining personal counsel.  

I believe that the key for determining why GWBush obtrained personal counsel lies in the fact that he publically disclosed on national television that he was retaining a personal attorney.  This is unusal behavior and suggests matters beyond his control.  Most people seriously needing their own personal attorny do not broadcast that information.

If the above analysis is incorrect, then who told GWBush to get hiis own lawyer?