Big Sky Cairn

Pete Talbot is pissed. Go read it. Especially the section titled “Max gets jobs for Montanans Virginians”…

The next candidate who says they’re for jobs for Montanans and then spends their money on out-of-state production companies, ad agencies, printers, pollsters, etc., will receive some special attention.

Pete shouldn’t be too surprised that Baucus isn’t spending his significant campaign war chest in Montana. Consider:

1) Baucus lives in DC, which is a lot closer to Virginia than it is to Montana. It’s probably a lot easier to cut a commercial locally.  Not only that, but spending that money in Virginia means that it will benefit the Virginia economy - which means the roads that Baucus drives on and the public services he enjoys will be much better.  Win-win!

2) After a trip to India, Max Baucus famously said that “outsourcing white-collar jobs to low-wage countries such as India has become a global fact of life — and that America must learn to live with it.” Geeze, Montana get over yourself and learn to live with it already.

3) It’s not like it’s our money anyway. Remember, 91% of that money comes from outside Montana like Virginia anyway. Baucus has some backs to scratch, if you know what I’m saying.

4) Still wondering how many of those campaign staffers are from Montana…

PS - Jack talked about this way back when, but it’s a lot more fun when the righteous anger comes from the left.

Obama fresh off of preaching unity yesterday, took time today to clarify the division between he and Senator John McCain on Iran and al-Qaida.

“Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.”

On the five-year anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq the continued ignorance of foreign policy is astounding. Obama goes on to say our enemies of the Taliban, al-Qaida, Iran and North Korea are the benefactors of US military action in the Middle East.

Of course this would be news to all four of our enemies. According to recent polling, the Taliban is now running approval ratings similar to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress. The change in attitude towards Islamic extremism runs across national boundaries. The average Afghan and Iraqi have rejected their ideology of hate. In fact, Al-Qaida has been emboldened to the point of recruiting mentally ill Iraqis to carry out their mission of hate.

Meanwhile North Korea is looking at mass famine due to drought. Normally the international community would fill the gaps with foodstuffs; however, China, South Korea and the US are putting concentrated pressure on the North Koreans over their illicit weapons program and cutting back on shipments.

For nearly a decade, South Korea had led the world in providing assistance to the North, while setting almost no conditions on aid and asking few questions about who was getting it.

But South Korea’s new president, Lee Myung-bak, wants to condition some of his country’s gifts of food and fertilizer on progress in removing nuclear weapons from the North, on improvements in human rights and on guarantees that food will go to poor people, not to the North Korean military.

Finally we come to Iran, according to the NIE Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 following an increase in international pressure. If an astute reader looks into the fine print of the NIE, they will come away with the impression that Iran responds to credible threats of force. Far from being emboldened, Iran has yet to restart its nuclear weapons program due to sustains diplomatic pressure from the UN Security Council, the IAEA, and the threat of US military power in the region.

Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.

In each case the US has worked with local and regional leaders to empower our allies and marginalize our foes. N. Korea is now completely politically isolated from the world. Beijing, due in large part to self-interest, has worked with the US to oppose a nuclear neighbor. Iran has halted its weapons program under the threat of force and a US led diplomatic blitz at the UN and IAEA. Finally, Islamic extremists are on the retreat because the US military empowers and protects the voice of the moderate majority in the Islamic world.

While all four groups are still capable of inflicting serious damage to US interests, it is a tough sell to say that any of them are better positioned now than they were before US military actions in the Middle East.

Jack over at Western Word is quickly becoming one of my favorite Montana blogs. He is consistently breaking interesting stories - driving the debate in the Dextrasphere. Take a look at his latest gem, catching Tester in a bit of a contradiction.

After that announcement and with Tuesday’s viewpoint from the senator telling us it was completed before the documents apparently arrived, the beliefs that this whole audit was just a publicity stunt to get votes are even stronger today - just like his comments about his being “against earmarks, period” were a publicity stunt.

We’ve blogged about Tester’s ethics audit before, here, here and here. Still wondering if the audit is itself a violation of ethics rules that prohibit in-kind contributions. Not holding our breath for the media to ask a tough question like this though - not when the alternative is writing about what a bang-up job Mr. 99 is doing.

It’s kind of fun to watch all of the wealthy Democrats with their opulent personal computers and expensive internet connections whine and complain that they couldn’t spend some of their discretionary money to attend a fancy dinner featuring their favorite “for the little guy” politicians.

It’s good to know that they can appreciate - indeed share in - the suffering of the down-trodden that they claim to represent.

It seems odd that a law that has become as controversial as Real ID (at least in Montana) passed with such popular margins in Congress (100-0 in the Senate, 368-58 in the House). Why?

Our borders and immigration system, including law enforcement, ought to send a message of welcome, tolerance, and justice to members of immigrant communities in the United States and in their countries of origin. We should reach out to immigrant communities. Good immigration services are one way of doing so that is valuable in every way-including intelligence.

It is elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country. Today more than 9 million people are in the United States outside the legal immigration system. We must also be able to monitor and respond to entrances between our ports of entry, working with Canada and Mexico as much as possible.

There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies. They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects.

All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document, some by fraud. Acquisition of these forms of identification would have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary activities.

Recommendation: Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.

And this one too:

For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack. To them, international travel presents great danger, because they must surface to pass through regulated channels, present themselves to border security officials, or attempt to circumvent inspection points.

In their travels, terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit passports and visas, specific travel methods and routes, liaisons with corrupt government officials, human smuggling networks, supportive travel agencies, and immigration and identity fraud. These can sometimes be detected.

Before 9/11, no agency of the U.S. government systematically analyzed terrorists’ travel strategies. Had they done so, they could have discovered the ways in which the terrorist predecessors to al Qaeda had been systematically but detectably exploiting weaknesses in our border security since the early 1990s.

We found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were potentially vulnerable to interception by border authorities. Analyzing their characteristic travel documents and travel patterns could have allowed authorities to intercept 4 to 15 hijackers and more effective use of information available in U.S. government databases could have identified up to 3 hijackers.32

Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws-that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism-inevitably shaped al Qaeda’s planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.33

Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system’s inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.

Recommendation: Targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money. The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.

Remember that 9/11 Commission Report? Turns out that among the central recommendations of this report was something like Real ID. That’s where those excerpts are taken from.

Look, liberals love to set their standards way above federal minimums. Except, apparently, when it’s a matter of national security.

Governor Brian Schweitzer is playing a political game with Real ID, but it’s the time and convenience of the people of Montana that are at risk. We’re the ones who are going to be stuck in lines, unable to open bank accounts and generally inconvenienced so that BS can score some political points.

From this article.

Jim’s expecting it to slow down the process so much that several Montanans could end up missing their flights in the process. “We’ve got 2 flights a day. We’ve got one at 6:25 right now and one at 2:00 in the afternoon.” Reporter Aaron Flint asks, “And the first person they see is gonna be you?” Hassler replies, “It’s gonna be me and they’re gonna be screaming at TSA too. There’s gonna be a lot of ‘you’re causin me to miss my flight.”

Of course, by now everyone knows that Harry Reid was lying to Montana when he promised Jon Tester a seat on the Appropriations Committee. It was a strange offer though if you think about it, because the bread and butter of an appropriator is the earmark and Jon Tester told Montanans that he didn’t like any earmarks at all. But I digress.

Two of our favorite blogs have weighed in:

Jack has a great post up about Tester on earmarks 14 months after taking office. Go read it. Watch the video.

Tester’s vote against the moratorium on earmarks is quite a different view than he had back in 2006 when he was running for the U.S. Senate, and that is a fact.

And then Montana Headlines had this commentary to add.

So why isn’t the vigilant Montana press doing this kind of homework, and asking hard questions of Sen. Tester? Why doesn’t the Gazette article mention Tester’s constant beating of the drum against earmarks in his campaign challenge to Burns?

I particularly enjoyed the statements that MH wrote for Tester for the sake of accuracy. Go take a look.

Rack this one up to media bias.  Yes, Rehberg voted for Real ID.  It’s all over the papers and in every news story about Baucus and Tester.  Usually the article also mentions that Renberg changed his position on the law after the state unanimously passed legislation refusing to comply.

So I find myself wondering why, in every article I’ve read about Baucus and Tester opposing Real ID, there is absolutely no mention of how Baucus voted.  It seems like in an article about their opposition to a law, it would be relevant to know how they originally voted when that law was made.  And I figure the reporters know it’s relevant because they mention Rehberg’s support for the law even when the story isn’t about Rehberg at all.  But Baucus’ press release probably didn’t have that information in it, and as busy as it gets, it was probably too much work to determine if he ever supported Real ID.  After all, its not like anyone would try to use this as a political issue.

Fear not dear readers; I did the 2 minutes of research on Google.  Turns out, that like 99 of his colleagues in the Senate, including the other Senator from Montana, Max Baucus voted for Real ID.  Doesn’t that seem newsworthy to you?

After reading this story I lost a little bit of faith in humanity. Even for the low standards set by big time college football, this story out of Clemson is simply horrible.

For those who are not following what happened this week, Clemson released Ray Ray McElrathbay, a third string running back, from his scholarship. Nothing scandalous until you hear Ray Ray’s story.

Last summer Ray Ray’s 11 year old brother Fahmarr visited him at Clemson. Ray Ray and Fahmarr both grew up in the Atlanta foster care system. Their mom was a drug addict and the father got into some trouble with his gambling problem. During this summer visit, Fahmarr asked to stay with Ray Ray permanently. Ray Ray quickly agreed and filed for legal custody. The NCAA even granted a rare waiver so Ray Ray could receive outside financial support to help raise his little brother. Truly, this was a heartwarming and touching story.

This quote should have been a warning for the storm clouds approaching:

Clemson Coach Tommy Bowden said he was concerned at first when Fahmarr began showing up at practice.

“I mean, big-time football is a serious business, a multimillion-dollar business, and I thought a little kid running around would be a distraction,” Bowden said. “I mean, we didn’t need to be baby-sitting. But it’s worked out.”

Well, as the top story stated, Clemson decided not to renew Ray Ray’s scholarship. Why? Please Bowden, justify this…

Clemson signed the maximum 25 players in February and is over the 85-scholarship limit mandated by the NCAA.

In addition, the Tigers have a multitude of running backs: Davis, junior C.J. Spiller, and incoming freshmen Jamie Harper and Berkeley’s Andre Ellington.

“We’re pretty good at running back right now,” Bowden said.

Wow. All I can say is Tommy Bowden, you are one classless act.

In case you are wondering, Ray Ray is expected to graduate with a degree in sociology a year early. He made honors last semester while taking 21 credit hours. For some reason I think this kid will do pretty good for himself. Best wishes to Ray Ray. You are a much better person than the man you used to call coach.

While others have focused on more over the top rhetoric from Governor Schweitzer, I will focus on what came out last Friday.

Specifically this quote:

‘‘They are working on some things, and Montana is working on some things, and it will be fine,’’ Schweitzer said.

As much as I disagree with the Governor he is an adept politician. He knows that the looming May 11 deadline for REAL ID compliance has a good chance of blowing up in his face if the situation is not resolved.

Now I am a bit under the weather, and this may be the medication talking, but let me lay out a couple scenarios about how I see the REAL ID situation playing out over the next couple weeks.

Right now one of about three things can happen. Either Montana caves to federal demands (unlikely), DHS caves into Montana’s demands (even more unlikely), or some sort of compromise is reached.

The way I see the dominoes falling is that Governor Schweitzer knows he has limited allies in his quixotic crusade outside of Montana. Right now, only Maine and South Carolina have not asked for extensions. He has to seek a way out of the corner he has painted himself into.

According to Friday’s AP article, it looks like the compromise will be coming from Attorney General McGrath’s office. They are alreadly seeking counsel with the Legislature to see if Montana can apply for a waiver. So what if the AG writes the letter to DHS asking for an extension? It would be a win - win for the Governor and the State. Since the letter does not orginate from the Governor’s office, he is free to continue his same old song and dance. All the while, the average Montanan can board a plane flight without being molested by a TSA agent. If there is any blowback from civil liberty groups, the Governor will be able to direct the blame to the federal government and the Attorney General’s office.

Of course this whole situation relies on McGrath being a willing pawn in the Governor’s game.

Just a possibility. As the Governor acknowledged, this game of chicken has to end. This way would seem to make more sense than either DHS or Schweitzer backing down.

I could not let this go without a mention, but it looks like Governor Schweitzer made some international headlines…in Tehran.

UPDATE:

So it looks like the two fine Senators are asking for Homeland to delay implementation for all 50 states.  I am pessimistic by nature, so I do not see anyway Chertoff can get around the fact that the law requires the provisions to go into effect three years after enactment.  Reading Baucus’s comments, one has to wonder if he even bothered to read this bill before he voted for it in 2005.