Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in February that she was "never" told that the CIA was using waterboarding in interrogations. Then in May she changed her story to say she was told, but still claimed it was not quite as early as the CIA said.

On that point she's contradicted, however, both by a CIA memo and by a Republican former congressman who got the same briefing she did. The current CIA director, a Democrat, says his agency's story, though not infallible, is "the most thorough information we have."

Prominent Republicans, including former Speaker Gingrich, are saying that Pelosi should step down because of this.

Who's right? It is clear that Pelosi has contradicted herself, and that she knew as early as 2003 that waterboarding was in use, long before she raised any public or private objection. But as to whether she was misled by CIA officials in a 2002 briefing, we can't say on the basis of evidence than is publicly available now. That judgment may have to wait for the history books.

Meanwhile, we present in our Analysis section a detailed time line of Pelosi's shifting accounts, the claims of her critics and the evidence produced so far.

Analysis

Pelosi said unequivocally in February: "I can say flat out, they never told us that these enhancement interrogations were being used." In April, she said that "we were not told" about the program at any briefing.

But a CIA memo released May 6 flatly contradicts those claims, stating that CIA personnel gave Pelosi "a description of the particular EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] that had been employed."

That briefing was in September 2002. Pelosi herself now admits that an aide told her about the interrogation techniques in 2003, but she still maintains that the CIA didn't tell her in 2002 that waterboarding had been used.

On May 14, she escalated her charge, claiming that the CIA deliberately misled legislators. That prompted several Republicans, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former presidential candidate and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Fox News commentator Sean Hannity to call for Pelosi's resignation.

Who's right?

So who is correct? Is Pelosi misleading Americans and then recklessly charging the CIA with deliberate misconduct to cover her tracks, as some Republicans are suggesting? Or is it the CIA memo that's false, perhaps put forth in an effort to claim there was tacit bipartisan approval for acts that some Democrats now say should be prosecuted as criminal?

Evidence is sketchy. So far, no recordings, verbatim transcripts or contemporary notes of Pelosi's 2002 briefing have surfaced, and for all we know none may even exist. All that's known publicly are conflicting, after-the-fact accounts. So we simply can't determine exactly what the CIA told Pelosi in 2002, or exactly when she became aware of what was going on.

One thing is clear: Pelosi herself now concedes that she knew about the CIA program – including the waterboarding – far earlier than she had led the public to believe. Her calls for a "Truth Commission" come six years after she now admits that she first learned about the CIA enhanced interrogation program.

In what follows, we'll lay out what both sides are saying, and leave it to our readers to judge.

She said

We start with a February exchange between Pelosi and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, a liberal commentator who pressed the speaker to explain why she did nothing after being briefed on the techniques in Sept. 2002, at a time when she was the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Pelosi reacted defensively, denying that the CIA told her that the harsh techniques were actually in use:

Maddow (Feb. 25): “September, 2002, you were briefed on CIA, detention issues and enhanced interrogation issues. Because of those briefings – and I know that you expressed concern for the NSA after that October 2001 briefing. You released that publicly in 2006. But you didn't express public concerns at the time after those briefings.”

Pelosi: “The fact is, they did not brief … well, first of all, we're not allowed to talk about what happens there, but I can say they did not brief us with these enhanced interrogations that were taking place. They did not brief us. They were talking about an array of interrogations that they might have at their disposal.”

Maddow: “Techniques in the abstract, as if they were not being used?”

Pelosi: “We were never told they were being used.”

Maddow: “You were told they weren't being used?”

Pelosi: “Well, they just talked about them, but – the inference to be drawn from what they told us was that these are things that we think could be legal. And we have a difference of opinion on that. But they never told us that they were being be used, because that would be a different story altogether. ... And they know that I cannot speak specifically to the classified briefing of that kind. But I can say flat out, they never told us that these enhancement interrogations were being used.”

In an April 23 news conference, Pelosi made an even stronger claim, saying that "we" were not told of the use of waterboarding at the September 2002 briefing "or any other briefing":

Pelosi (April 23): “At that or any other briefing, and that was the only briefing that I was briefed on in that regard, we were not – I repeat, we were not – told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.

“What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel – the Office of Legislative Counsel opinions that they could be used, but not that they would. And they further – further, the point was that if and when they would be used, they would brief Congress at that time. ... My experience was they did not tell us they were using that. Flat out. And any – any contention to the contrary is simply not true.”

Up to this point Pelosi had been adamant that the CIA never informed her that the "techniques" had actually been used on any prisoners. Her April statement broadened the claim even further by stating that "we" (which we take to mean herself and other Democrats) were not told at any briefing that these techniques were being used.

Pelosi backpedals

CIA SealThen came the memo, released on May 6, with a first line that appears to drive a stake through the heart of Pelosi's account of that Sept. 2002 briefing:

CIA memo: Briefing on EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.

After that, the backpedaling began. Pelosi said at a news conference on May 14:

Pelosi (May 14): “The CIA briefed me only once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002 in my capacity as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I was informed then that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal. The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed. Those conducting the briefing promised to inform the appropriate members of Congress if that technique were to be used in the future...Five months later, in February 2003, a member of my staff informed me that the Republican chairman and the Democratic ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions.”

By her own account, by February 2003, Pelosi knew what the CIA was doing, regardless of whether or not she heard it directly from the CIA. And she knew at the very least that the CIA had informed the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee and Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California, who by that time had replaced Pelosi as the ranking minority member on the committee.

But Pelosi has never wavered from her assertion that at her Sept. 2002 briefing, the CIA presented its interrogation program as a theoretical possibility and not as a fait accompli. That omission, Pelosi said, amounts to deliberately misleading members of Congress.

They said

The CIA has a different account. On May 6, the agency released a 10-page listing of all its briefings to members of Congress on "enhanced interrogation techniques." First on that list is a Sept. 4, 2002, briefing to Pelosi and Republican Rep. Porter Goss of Florida, who was then chair of the House Intelligence Committee. (Pelosi would soon give up her position as ranking minority member on the committee to take over as House minority leader; Goss would later be appointed head of the CIA.)

As we've said before, the memo contradicts Pelosi's story. We know that the CIA had already waterboarded Abu Zubaydah in August 2002. So if CIA officials really did brief Pelosi and Goss on techniques used on Zubaydah, as the memo clearly states, then Pelosi had to know that waterboarding was more than a theoretical possibility.

What's more, Goss backs up the CIA's version of events, writing in an opinion piece for The Washington Post that:

Goss: “In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers. Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned.”

Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the current ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, likewise sides with the CIA, though he overstates the case somewhat. Hoekstra claims in the Wall Street Journal: "It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002." Even the CIA hasn't gone that far. The much-disputed briefing with Goss and Pelosi took place Sept. 4, 2002. But the CIA had begun waterboarding at least a full month earlier. Still, Hoekstra does claim that congressional leaders knew of the activities in the fall of 2002, just as the CIA claims.

And even one of Pelosi's fellow Democrats, CIA Director Leon Panetta, is standing by the CIA's version. He says "contemporaneous records" from 2002 back up the accounts given in the 10-page memo released May 6. In a memo to CIA employees, and posted on the agency's Web site May 15, Panetta defended his agency:

Panetta (May 15 memo): “As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed.”

Whom do you trust?

So whose story should we believe? The politician who has changed her story already? Or the government agency with its specific time line supported by one of the lawmakers it briefed and also by Panetta? Normally we'd say that's a pretty easy call. But things aren't quite so simple. There are reasons for thinking that the CIA memos aren't all that reliable either.

For one thing, while Panetta says the CIA's 10-page summary of briefings is "the most thorough information we have," he also admits the possibility that it may not be entirely correct. He said in cover letters to chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas and to ranking-member Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, that the account is based on the recollections of CIA officials and on memos created for the record, but he left it to the committee "to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened."

Panetta (May 5 letter to Silvestre Reyes): “This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs [memoranda for the record] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened.”

And sure enough, three different legislators have disputed various details in the CIA's account of the briefings.

Former Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat who in September 2002 served as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in an interview with the Huffington Post that prior to the release of the memo, the CIA initially told him that CIA records indicated he'd been briefed four times on torture policies.

Graham, however, has rather famously chronicled pretty much every aspect of his life (right down to, say, what he puts in his pockets each day) since his first run for governor of Florida in 1977. Graham checked his notebooks and discovered that, in fact, he was briefed only once, on Sept. 27, 2002. Graham said he informed CIA officials of the discrepancy, telling NPR that after the agency reviewed its records "they indicated that I was correct. Their information was in error. There was no briefing on the first three of four dates."

One CIA official later reportedly offered an explanation for the discrepancy to Spencer Ackerman, who published a story in the liberal-leaning Washington Independent quoting an unnamed "U.S. intelligence official familiar with the briefings" as saying the other three briefings may have involved discussions of detainee interrogations generally, but not the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques." Graham, however, has said that he has no records of the three disputed briefings recorded in his notebooks.

Since then, two other Democrats have come forward to dispute the accuracy of the CIA memos. An aide to West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Politico that the memo showed Rockefeller attending a Feb. 4, 2003, briefing that he did not in fact attend. The CIA memo includes Rockefeller's name with an asterisk, noting that while Rockefeller did not attend the briefing, he was individually briefed later. The aide claims that the individual briefing was actually seven months later, on Sept. 4, 2003.

Moreover, the aide took exception to the claim that the briefings disclosed the full extent of the interrogation program, saying that "Senator Rockefeller has repeatedly stated he was not told critical information that would have cast significant doubt on the program’s legality and effectiveness."

Most recently, Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, wrote a letter to Panetta claiming that yet another detail is wrong. The memo lists a congressional staffer as having attended a Sept. 19, 2006, briefing. The staffer, however, tells Obey that while he did go to the briefing room, he was turned away by the CIA briefers.

Nor are accusations that the CIA misled Congress particularly new. In May 2006, The Washington Post reported that Mary McCarthy, a former CIA deputy inspector general, "became convinced that 'CIA people had lied' " during a Senate briefing in which CIA officials said that the agency had never violated international treaties prohibiting cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners. McCarthy had been fired a month earlier, for leaking classified information to Post reporter Dana Priest.

The CIA's most recent defense is more tepid. Responding to Obey's charge that parts of the CIA memo are incorrect, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano told the Washington Independent on May 19 that:

Gimigliano: “While CIA’s information has Mr. Juola attending briefings on September 19, 2006 and October 11, 2007, there are different recollections of these events, which Mr. Obey’s letter describes. As the agency has pointed out more than once, its list — compiled in response to congressional requests — reflects the records it has. These are notes, memos, and recollections, not transcripts and recordings.”

So we're left with Democrats offering one (not always entirely accurate) story and the CIA and some Republicans offering a different (and, again, not always entirely accurate) story.

As Panetta told CIA employees in his May 15 memo, "Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened." That goes for the rest of us. More definitive evidence may yet emerge, but until then everyone will have to reach their own conclusions about how much Pelosi and other members of Congress were told.

Sources

Goss, Porter. "Security Before Politics." Washington Post, 25 April 2009.

Hoekstra, Peter. "Congress Knew About the Interrogations." Wall Street Journal, 22 April 2009.

Lochhead, Carolyn. "Torture battle escalating, Pelosi vs. Boehner: Transcript of April 23, 2009 Pelosi Press Conference." SFGate.com, 23 April 2009, accessed 19 May 2009.

Panetta, Leon. "Message from the Director: Turning Down the Volume." CIA.gov, 15 May 2009, accessed 21 May 2009.

"Pelosi News Conference on Waterboarding Disclosure." Washington Post, 14 May 2009.

Smith, R. Jeffrey. "Fired Officer Believed CIA Lied to Congress." Washington Post, 14 May 2006.

Stein, Sam. "Graham: CIA Gave Me False Information About Interrogation Briefings." Huffington Post, 14 May 2009, accessed 19 May 2009.

"Transcript: One on one with Nancy Pelosi." MSNBC.com, 25 February 2009.

 

Memorial Day is always the holiday that makes me think of my father and his entire generation, who put everything on the line to both save the world and create a world that was so easy for the baby boomers to grow up in. Their courage, sacrifice and accomplishments overcoming grave economic and political threats are still awesome to me. That’s a word that is so badly overused, but utterly powerful when you think about what it really means.

The “greatest” generation pulled together as one, facing down threats we could hardly imagine. They put their lives on the line, paid taxes without bitching, built superhighways, schools and infrastructure that the rest of the world couldn’t imagine. They rose up as one to transform everything from top to bottom and then showed their kindness and generosity not only by creating social security, the GI bill and unemployment benefits here, but in rebuilding both Germany and Japan while allowing both to retain their cultures without taking tribute in victory. The world has never seen anything like it before or since.

Today our country is going through a trying time. There are real threats to our economic lifestyle and our political dominance of the world. How are we responding? Are we unified, rallying behind our new leader who inherited two wars, staggering debts and an economy in freefall? Are we willing to sacrifice and pay taxes to help those less fortunate? Hardly.

We want everything but are not willing to pay for anything. We talk about how much we believe in god and religion, but oppose all social programs designed to help the needy. Provide health care for all so that we don’t lose everything we’ve worked for all our lives during our last six months of life due to crushing medical bills, even if we were actually “insured?” Don’t be silly, you must be a commie, or a socialist or a fascist, or all of them at once!

Today you see it’s all about name calling, just like in third grade. Take for instance a great man who has dedicated his life to service of this country, Colin Powell. He is called a “RINO” (Republican in name only) because he didn’t tow the party line and vote for his party’s candidate in the last election. Those calling him a RINO and calling for him to be drummed out of the party have never worn a uniform, risked anything for their country or made any kind of real sacrifice. The brave Dick Cheney “had other priorities” during our generation’s war in Vietnam. Rush? Please. What sacrifice has he ever made?

Pay no attention to the fact that Powell was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest rank in the U.S. military. Or that he was born black in the Bronx and that he worked hard for every one of his many achievements with no help from a wealthy and politically connected family. Nope, you are told to judge him solely based upon the fact that he voted his conscience and it wasn't Rush or Cheney’s pick!

On Tuesday, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Like Powell she comes from the Bronx, her parents both having come here from Puerto Rico. Her brother became a doctor. She too worked hard for everything and has had a brilliant career, first being appointed a federal judge by the first President Bush. She is the first Hispanic ever nominated for the Supreme Court and by almost all accounts the most qualified nominee in decades.

The right wing had signaled that they were prepared to filibuster anyone that Obama might nominate and their name calling started before the news conference had ended. They have done everything possible to stall and hinder every single action the president has proposed to date and their utter lack of cooperation in this regard only plays true to their form.

So as I reflect on Memorial Day and all that it means to me, I wonder how so many people can come here from all around the world and achieve so much so quickly, while so many Caucasians, whose families have lived here for so many generations, have achieved so little. They speak the language of the country (my Dad spoke only German until he was 6, Sonia Sotomayor’s father never learned to speak it!), they are white and they are both destitute and resent immigrants. They actually listen to Rush and think he represents the truth and them. Rush preaches the Rand theory of “Darwinian Economics,” which is survival of the fittest, or to put it another way, the “I got mine, to hell with you!” philosophy.

The damaged mind of Rand took it to the next step, “If I’m stronger than you, I can take what your’s too!” It’s horrific and repulsive. I wonder what Jesus would say to the right wing if he came back to preach a sermon next Sunday and they were there to hear it.

 

 

Lowell Grant lives in Kelseyville.

Just what percentage of your business is loyal repeat customers? Five percent? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Fifty percent?

And just how much of your annual budget do you allocate to advertising and marketing to reach new customers? Five percent? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Twenty-five percent?

Imagine: After starting or continuing your advertising campaigns, the phone rings, the shop door opens, you don’t recognize the person, oh my goodness, it’s a “PLRC” – a potential loyal repeat customer!

What’s the first impression that you’re going to give to this PLRC, potential loyal repeat customer?

A big smile! Finally, you’re going to get a return on the investment of your marketing dollars. Now is your chance to get paid off … or not!

You discover that for whatever reason, you can’t accommodate them!

For example you have no occupancy, you don’t offer that particular product or service, you’re temporarily sold out of the product their looking for or the first appointment or availability you have is not until next week or next month.

What is the reason you can’t make that sale today?

If it’s just a matter of timeliness, ask your PLRC what their time line is.

If you cannot accommodate their time line – you can still create a PLRC today through “co-opetition.”

Our first year in business at the Edgewater Resort, located in Soda Bay on the shores of beautiful Clear Lake, after being in business for just two months, we received the first call for a reservation from a PLRC for a date that we were full on.

We had already met some of the other hospitality owners our first week in the county, at a Lake County Resort and Restaurant Association meeting and had visited and checked out some of their accommodations.

So, after finding out that the PLRCs dates where not flexible, we asked if we could mail her a brochure for the future, recommended and gave the phone number of a couple of co-opetitioners, or “COOPS.”

To our surprise, the next week we received a handwritten letter in the mail from this woman who was obviously blown away at our customer service. In her letter she thanked us for the referrals and wrote that the next time she comes to Clear Lake she would definitely call the Edgewater Resort to make her reservation. We’d made our first PLRC!

This PLRC has been coming several times every year since 1996 with her family to the Edgewater Resort and continues to recommend us to her family and friends … all of which have become loyal repeat customers.

Here’s a few tips for that PLRC that comes to your place of business rather than calling or e-mailing.

1. On the back of your business card, write the name and contact information of the COOPS that you are recommending.

2. When at all possible, take the extra step – pick up the phone and actually call the COOPS to see if they have the product or service available for the PLRC and tell them you are sending your PLRC to see them.

3. COOPS work both ways. Now you have created a win-win relationship with the co-op and in turn they will start recommending you.

4. Remember, after receiving a recommendation from a COOP, take a minute to call them and thank them for referring you.

How do you pick your circle of COOPS? Remember that because you are recommending them to your PLRC you must be sure that they will have a positive shopping experience. Believe me, your PLRC will get back to you, if they don’t!

Through my 40 years of having five successful businesses, I have always found that the most successful business people are ALWAYS willing to share their “secrets to success.” These folks get the concept of COOP. Success breeds success!

We all know that when a visitor comes to our communities and they have an negative experience, they don’t just go home and bad mouth that particular business, many of them go home and bad mouth the entire community!

Co-opetition referrals will ultimately alleviate this. The strong businesses will strive while the weaker ones will either step up to the plate and make the necessary changes or eventually, simply put, just go away.

We, Mt. Konocti Facilitation – MKF, have just recently facilitated the committee chairman, Leslie Firth, of the new “Shop, Stay and Play” campaign in Lake County. We suggested that they take a survey of our local citizens of the “top five best local businesses” in numerous and various categories including:

Wineries, bed and breakfasts, restaurants, event planners, photographers, travel agencies, massage therapists, consultants, retail stores, local news, certified public accountants and tax preparers, architects and engineers, pet services and veterinarians, doctors and dentists, computer and technology services, real estate and insurance agents, automobile repair and body shops, attorneys, electric, plumbing and building contractors, and one of my favorites – the best cheese-burger and fries on the lake … and the categories go on and on.

Now … here’s your list of COOPS to add to your own the list.

Hopefully, your business will be voted one of the top five. We have also suggested that this survey be taken once every four months and updated with the results each time. So, if a business is not on the top five best list, it’s certainly a goal to reach for, or not. They can either take the opinions of our local consumers or not. They can complain that their business is not on the list or strive to be one of the best of the best.

This list is not only a valuable resource when local citizens shop local, it is also valuable to the tourists and visitors that come to our communities and it gives deserving recognition to those businesses that are doing it right!

Our recommendation to survey and update every four months, the “top five best local businesses” in the various categories, also insures the consistency and level of service remain strong of the top five and creates the possibility for any new businesses and the ones that do step up to the plate, a chance to receive this prestigious recognition. We can imagine the top five soon becoming the top 10 in our community!

So, the next time you cannot accommodate a customer, no matter if they are new or repeat customers, take the time to turn them into a PLRC – a potential loyal repeat customer and at the same time guaranteeing them a positive local shopping experience.

When businesses play the co-opetition versus competition game, everyone wins – the local consumer, the visitor, our business community, our reputation and, most of all, the economic health of our communities.

Think about it – it only took a few mega businesses to put our national economy in the situation it is today. Small businesses have been creating the most new jobs for years, while many big businesses have been outsourcing their jobs for years.

Our motto at Mt. Konocti Facilitation is small businesses rock!

Sandra West is co-owner of Edgewater Resort in Kelseyville and co-facilitator of Mt. Konocti Facilitation, www.mtkonocti.com. She gave this talk at a business networking seminar hosted by the Lodge at Blue Lakes on Thursday, May 7. Mt. Konocti Facilitation offers free and confidential business facilitation services to businesses based in Lake County. For more information call 707-995-8133; all calls are returned within 24 hours.

The May 19 special election presents a very difficult choice for anyone involved with our local public schools. Proposition 1D is deceptively entitled, “Protects Children’s Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget.” Who could be against funding for children services and balancing the state budget?

Well, it turns out that this proposition actually will take thousands of dollars away from programs that serve both children and families in our county, and does very little to balance the state budget. This proposition does anything but “protect” services for children.

On the other hand, we also know that the proposed solution to the state budget deficit depends on the passage of Propositions 1A thru 1E. If these don’t pass, then even more reductions will need to be imposed to balance the budget.

As background, the state budget deal forged by the governor and the Legislature was designed to bridge a deficit estimated to exceed $42 billion. The vast majority of this amount was addressed by the enormous budget cuts that have already been approved by the legislature and the governor and by the $5.8 Billion in revenue that will be generated by Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E.

The budget agreement of cuts and additional taxes and revenue transfers was considered the least terrible of truly awful options. The budget agreement tried to protect public education as best it could, but as we stand now the state budget agreement hinges on the approval of the propositions on the May 19th ballot, in particular Propositions 1A, B and C.

If they do not pass it is likely that more draconian cuts will be needed and there is no way to escape the fact that education as the largest single state expenditure category in the state will suffer additional devastating cuts.

So I am voting Yes on propositions 1A, 1B and 1C.

But what about Proposition 1D and Proposition 1E?

In Lake County Proposition 1D would cut 36 percent or about $225,000 each year for five years, from the current revenue that our county receives from the cigarette tax approved by voters in 1998 and reaffirmed in 2000. And an additional $125,000 of earmarked state funds will be lost in the first year.

I am a member of our county’s First Five Commission that decides how this money is spent to serve children from birth to age five and their families. For 10 years, our commission has made decisions to spend this money on services that are proven to prevent higher costs to our communities when these children are older.

These services have included: a comprehensive oral health project that over the last five years has reduced substantially the amount of dental decay and disease in our young children; a parenting educational program called “Nurturing Parenting” that has shown families new ways to communicate without using physical punishment making for happier families; an early intervention project that identifies children with developmental delays and prepares corrective plans so that these children are entering school ready to learn.; a program that trains “stay at home” parents how to be an effective first teacher of their toddlers; and programs that train family run child care providers how to provide a quality learning environment and experience for the children in their care.

Why would I vote to eliminate these services that are showing impressive results now for the same children and families that we will serve later in our public schools? “An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure” comes to mind.

The amount taken by Proposition 1D for the state deficit is $608 Million for the 2009/2010 year and approximately $268 million annually for the next four years. These are big numbers, but the total is less than 2% of new revenue needed to balance the budget.

The revenue from Proposition 1D is just not worth the elimination of the early childhood education programs and health and family services that are working now for our county’s children. The passage of Proposition 1D will have a damaging effect on children and families in our county, and will cause the need for such increased expenditures in the future that the relatively small amount of revenue is unjustified.

Similarly, passage of Proposition 1E would potentially reduce funding for mental health services in our county. Statewide it transfers voter approved funding of $234 million in 2009/2010 and $226 million in 20010/2011 for mental health services. Reducing these services could impact our most vulnerable citizens. Our County Mental Health Department is already struggling with budget challenges as evidenced by the most recent reduction of 18 positions.

So I’m voting YES on Prop 1A, 1B and 1C, and NO on Prop 1D and Prop 1E.

Dave Geck is the Lake County superintendent of schools.

After 100 days in office, we find President Obama is sticking to the facts – mostly.

 

Nevertheless, we find that the president has occasionally made claims that put him and his policies in a better light than the facts warrant. He has claimed that private economists agreed with the forecast in his budget, when they were really more pessimistic. He's used Bush-like budget-speak trying to sound frugal while raising spending to previously unimagined levels. And he has exaggerated the problems his proposals aim to cure by misstating facts about school drop-out rates and oil imports.

 

At the same time, there's been no shortage of dubious claims made about the president by his political opponents. Republicans have falsely claimed that Obama planned to spend billions on a levitating train and that his stimulus bill would require doctors to follow government orders on what medical treatments can and can't be prescribed, among other nonsense.

 

And those whoppers are mild compared with some of the positively deranged claims flying about the Internet. No, the national service bill Obama signed won't prevent anybody from going to church, for example. And no, he's not trying to send Social Security checks to illegal immigrants.

 

Economic cheerleading

 

Facing some heat from critics who complained that the administration’s budget figures are too rosy, Obama offered a misleading defense to a national TV audience during his March 24 prime-time news conference. He said: “Our assumptions are perfectly consistent with what Blue Chip forecasters out there are saying.” That wasn’t true.

 

Obama was referring to the Blue Chip Economic Indicators, a survey of forecasts from 50 private economists. In fact, at the time he spoke, the most recent Blue Chip forecast was far more pessimistic than the administration’s budget projections. That’s no small matter, since a weaker economic performance will produce even larger federal deficits than the Obama budget already forecasts.

 

Obama also got it wrong when he claimed in that same speech that “we are reducing nondefense discretionary spending to its lowest level since the '60s.” His own forecast puts this figure higher than in many years under Reagan, Clinton or either Bush.

 

Furthermore, he used the same verbal sleight-of-hand that President George W. Bush had used to deflect attention from the larger truth – that total federal spending is (and was) soaring far beyond the government’s means to pay for it. “Nondefense discretionary spending” is just a small slice (under 20 percent) of total spending. It excludes military spending, homeland security spending and rapidly rising Social Security and Medicare spending, among other things. So even if Obama’s claim had been true, it would have been misleading – pure spin.

 

Presidential puffery

 

We've noted a tendency for Obama to puff up the problems he's facing, as well as the solutions he's proposing. For example:

 

• He told a joint session of Congress Feb. 24 that "we import more oil today than ever before." That's untrue. Imports peaked in 2005 and are lower today.

• He claimed in the same speech that his mortgage aid plan would help "responsible" buyers but not those who borrowed beyond their means. But even prominent defenders of the program in his administration concede that foolish borrowers will be aided, too.

• He claimed in a March 10 address on education that the high school dropout rate has "tripled in the past 30 years.” But according to the Department of Education, it has actually declined by a third.

 

We’ve also found Obama being more certain than is warranted. He is fond of repeating, for example, that his stimulus bill will “create or save” 3.5 million jobs. Maybe so; some leading economists figure that’s possible, though it's far from a certainty. The immediate reality, however, is that the economy has been losing an average of 22,000 jobs per day since Obama took office.

 

Stimulus bill bravado

 

Another example occurred April 16 during his visit to Mexico. Obama wanted his hosts to crack down on the violent drug trade and was promising that the U.S. would do its bit, too. But he went too far when he said, “More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States.” It's true that U.S. officials say that more than 90 percent of the guns Mexican officials ask them to trace are found to have come through the U.S. But Mexican officials don't ask the U.S. to trace all the guns they recover, so there's no way to know exactly how many come through the U.S.

 

Republican spin

 

Of course, we’ve noted plenty of false claims made by Obama’s critics, too.

 

• Republican Rep. Tom Price of Georgia claimed Obama’s stimulus bill created "a national health care rationing board," when in fact it did nothing of the sort.

• A number of House and Senate Republicans claimed that Obama’s stimulus bill contained $8 billion for a “levitating train.” In fact, not a dime of the money was earmarked for the proposed 300-mph “maglev” bullet train between Anaheim, Calif., and Las Vegas; the $8 billion is now being directed to 10 other passenger routes using more conventional technology.

 

Internet dementia

 

The wildest claims about Obama continue to come from anonymous chain e-mails that spread like viruses. Some notable examples:

 

• There's no evidence that Obama dithered and delayed the rescue by Navy SEALs of Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates, as claimed in a quick-spreading e-mail full of military jargon. The retired rear admiral who (in some versions) supposedly wrote it told us he's not the author, and that he never even met a Navy SEAL. The message's central claims are false, according to both White House and Pentagon officials.

• Nobody will be prevented from going to church by the national service bill Obama signed on April 21, and students won't be forced into slave-like forced labor either. The bill actually had broad support from Republican lawmakers, many of whom enthusiastically joined Democrats to pass it. It greatly expands such existing programs as VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America).

• And there's no point in sending Obama a petition asking him to veto a bill to pay Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants, as urged in yet another viral message. Obama has never supported such a move, and there's no such bill anyway.

 

None of this surprises us. Spin, fact-twisting and deceptive claims have been standard fare in Washington for a long time, and we doubt that will change. It's just part of the messy process we know as democracy, and it's our job to help citizens sort through all that.

 

Brooks Jackson is with the Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It is a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.

A recent local newspaper reader’s opinion that the contemplation of prosecuting torturers and their superiors for utilizing the fanciful scribbling of a few morally bankrupt lawyers to justify their outrages is a fools errand demonstrates how far down the path toward psychopathic one segment of the American population has traveled.

 

In an examination of the historical record we find this point of view reoccurring time and time again throughout the American experiment always with a record book asterisk that it represents an unacceptable premise and that the American Dream is above that type of behavior – even in wartime.

 

To be fair, the American government has prosecuted – on occasion – its soldiers for war crimes and has certainly encouraged or participated in the prosecution of foreign nationals for war crimes against American military or civilian personnel. Historically, water-boarding was common in Europe during the Middle Ages and the Inquisition utilized it frequently.

 

The Dutch East India Co. used it as did 19th century prisons. During the Spanish American War, a U.S. military officer was court-martialed for using it and President Truman publicly called for efforts to “prevent the occurrence of all such acts in the future.” It was a favorite tactic of both the Gestapo and the Japanese during World War II and a Japanese military officer was prosecuted for waterboarding an American Captain in 1946.

 

Vietnam-era U.S. soldiers frequently used the process until a collective group of American Generals opposed the tactic and at least one soldier was court-martialed. Of course, this moral ambivalence in some areas of our populace is understandable.

 

With the Inquisition and Middle Age Europe approving such behaviors it’s predictable that it should loom large over the shoulder of descendant Christianity. It’s also predictable that non-military, fanatic, nationals might resort to the tactics of previously despised enemies to achieve the selfsame goals, albeit with ineffective and counterproductive results.

 

Despite Vice President Cheney’s vehement assertions to the contrary, no experienced interrogator has ever testified to any kind of torture being effective at gathering usable intelligence from hardened military personnel.

 

The reason civilians, a la Cheney, think waterboarding is an effective tool is more because they know that in their own soft and cushy lives – with none of their own families ever serving in combat – these processes would definitely be effective against them!

 

New information released in the last week shows that much of the intelligence gleaned from the prominent terrorists was revealed well before any “torture techniques” were utilized, leading to questions as to why they were necessary at all. Armchair warriors like Bush and Chaney ignored the protestations of generals and interrogators in their own military hierarchy to continue down this path of idiocy. Now they all should be held accountable.

 

It fascinates me that our society scrunches up our moral noses in disgust at visible sexuality yet sits placidly by while our children are exposed to endless hours of watching human beings killing each other.

 

Americans have a choice these days – to continue being the country that talks out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to ethics and morality – or to choose to elevate itself to practicing what is right and not what is, in the end, simply a flashy pretense of toughness devoid of any effective results.

 

James BlueWolf lives in Nice.