The Intelligence Industrial Complex Prepares for War
In my review of Tim Shorrock’s important Spies for Hire, I summarized one of the most important parts of the narrative he tells in the book.
Shorrock describes, for example, [Mike] McConnell’s key role in the formation of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA), a trade organization that serves as a bridge between large intelligence contractors (like Booz Allen, SAIC, Computer Sciences Corporation, and ManTech) and the officers from CIA, NSA, and DHS who join them on the board of the organization. “INSA,” Shorrock explains, “is one of the only business associations in Washington that include current government officials on their board of directors.” Shorrock describes how INSA worked with the DNI (back when John Negroponte was DNI and McConnell was head of INSA and a VP at Booz Allen) to foster information sharing in the intelligence community–including with contractors. He reports that, for the first time in 2006, INSA’s contractors were consulted on the DNI’s strategic plans for the next decade. And Shorrock describes one intelligence veteran wondering “if INSA has become a way for contractors and intelligence officials to create policy in secret, without oversight from Congress.”
McConnell, after nurturing this enhanced relationship between contractors and government intelligence services, ascended to serve as DNI. He was, Shorrock points out, “the first contractor ever to be named to lead the Intelligence Community.” Once confirmed, McConnell immediately buried a report assessing the practice of outsourcing intelligence. And he worked to further expand the ties between government spying and its contractors.
[snip]
[The warrantless wiretap program] not just about Bush and Cheney ignoring laws and spying on citizens (though it is that). It’s that, in the name of fighting terrorism, the Bush Administration is creating a monstrous new Intelligence-Industrial Complex in which intelligence contractors and the government collaborate–with little oversight–to snoop at home and abroad.
Now, Shorrock’s book got far too little attention, IMO. But he did lay out in great detail the many problems with the degree to which we have outsourced our national security infrastructure to contractors (and Jeremy Scahill has, of course, tirelessly chronicled that as well).
Which is why I’m amused by the panic revealed in a memo the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a few weeks ago preparing all members of the intelligence community for an upcoming Dana Priest series covering the same terrain. The memo reveals:
- The Director of Communications for ODNI, Art House, briefed Intelligence Community public affairs officers on the article back in January
- House briefed the Deputies Committee for the intelligence community on the Priest series the week the memo was released
- House has laid out a response plan to Priest’s article including his agency and the NSC, to be coordinated with all the IC agencies
- House is already planning “a meeting or conference call to review procedural action before, during and after publication, and to compare substantive points that might be offered in rebuttal to the article”
Perhaps that’s just good messaging strategy–the kind that (as it happens) becomes a lot less effective when it is laid out ahead of time.
But what I’m perhaps most amused by is this paragraph:
This series has been a long time in preparation and looks designed to cast the IC and the DoD in an unfavorable light. We need to anticipate and prepare so that the good work of our respective organizations is effectively reflected in communications with employees, secondary coverage in the media and in response to questions. [my emphasis]
Nowhere in this memo–at least as republished by Marc Ambinder–does House even hint that Priest has her details wrong (and given that she’s been working on it for two years, I’d be surprised if she did). The only real risk that House raises is the “unauthorized disclosure of sensitive and classified information.”
Yet the conclusion he draws from months of preparation for an article by Priest that is presumably factually correct is that it is “designed to cast the IC and the DoD in an unfavorable light.”
I’ve got a ton of respect for Priest’s reporting and therefore would guess that the article is designed to reveal the truth about the IC and DoD. And yet the intelligence community, inside its bunker, perceives a search for the truth as a design to portray it unfavorably.
What an apt explanation, then, for the problem with excessive contracting: when a reporter avails herself of Constitutionally protected rights to act as a watchdog on our government and its contractors, the government itself assumes that must be an attack. Hell, the IC has had time to preemptively respond to some of the problems Priest is about to reveal (and, as I said, Shorrock gave them a head start two years ago).
But instead, it has decided to go to war.
As MrKlynn states to those on the defensive, “When you are explaining you are losing.”
The Intel Community’s approach of “explaining” will be attacks. It will look bad.
Hopefully, a wikileaks post will happen within a short time after Priest’s series.
Hope you have lots of popcorn and energy drinks.
I don’t know if you are on Twitter, but I hope EW saw this:
http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/18785390278
It was just posted earlier today. Sounds like Julian knows something.
Well, given that I agree with bobs’s synopsis:
I hope Julian Assage is not simply teasing.
Anyone want to wager Erik Prince has his bags packed and a private flight on the runway to Dubai? Who will be joining him…?
What does the WaPo have to do with it?
Isn’t that where Dana Priest’s stuff is going to be published?
Man, I hate it when they answer a question with a question. (Sigh.) Is there some particular DP stuff? And who is breaking the story(ies)? Wikileaks or WP? I’ve been on vacation so I may have missed something.
OK, I got caught up. I’m just confused by Wikileaks’ angle.
Before you put Julian Assange up on a pedestal.. WL insiders want to know where the cash he’s spending is going because it’s not going to internet services or new servers. John Young is asking him to disclose the financials and clear it up. http://cryptome.org/, also zerohedge is questioning what is going on.
He’s not answering responses, and he’s cancelled a speech a blackhat hackers convention, presumably because the gov. is out to get him, but another speaker/author at the convention mentions that he think Assanges is pulling a fast one for publicity and donations. At least it appears that way. Assange and Wikileaks are not interchangeable.
I am oldish and do not use twitter or facebook. Is there any other way to see what the man has to say?
Just click on the link @#7. You don’t have to sign up. I too am like you but you can still read his page on twitter.
I did click…I’m not that old!!! All I got was the headline, then, later there was the article linked to the good wife, whatever that is. Who is this Julian person and what is he saying?
Not definitive about Assange, but fairly recent.
I have a lot of regard for the Guardian’s reporting, but no idea of how accurate this is; it doesn’t allude to the claims made here by shekissesfrogs.
His personal background is certainly interesting, as are his views on journalism’s future. Personally, I don’t think that all of journalism needs to be ‘scientific’, as he claims. But a bit more attention to data and reliable sources – rather than ‘Palin candidate in 2012’ would be a step in the right direction IMVHO.
(But for that kind of journalism to develop, you’d need to check out the Guardian’s fantastic Datablog feature to see the seeds of what could become terrific information, publicly available…. Or see the links to EW’s terrific Timelines on the right sidebar of this page.)
Perhaps Dana Priest will show us some moves toward better journalism? Here’s hoping.
Maybe it’ll even include a timeline…?
Thanks so much for responding, readerOfTeaLeaves. I had no idea that Julian Assange is who he is. He is younger than my oldest child, and I hope he is guided by some sense of self preservation that will also save my children – and those of other mothers.
“I’ve read Spies For Hire. I’m not worried about companies doing intelligence work, I’m worried that they become the predominate organizations and drive IC policy. THAT is scary.”
I read it too when it was first published, and after a ten minute search, still can’t find it in my piles.
What concerns me — 1), No Congressional Oversight at ALL. Intelligence Committees probably can inquire into the business end of some contracts, but not much beyond that. It is the perfect way to remove Congressional Oversight, thin as it is, from Intelligence Work and Operations.
2), The Intelligence — raw data, that is collected in contractor programs frequently remains the property of the contractor, as do various data processing systems developed by contractors as part of a contract’s run and completion. What this means is Contractors can use (resell) processes, and reshape some data for other uses to their own profit, and at the same time deny those benefits to Government Ownership. There is virtually no oversight of contractor’s disposition of post contract assets. All of the cumulative benefits of experience are lost to the in-house teams.
3), another great disadvantage — each Contractor is essentially an independent administrative management-marketing system, with all the overhead costs that entails. The more contractors, the more overhead charged to Intelligence Agencies. This is NOT how one saves money on procuring necessary services.
When the Bush administration started subcontracting everything in sight, I doubt that saving money was any concern, although they were probably convinced, a priori, that businesses could do things more efficiently than the “government bureaucrats” that they hated so much. Their main concern was probably reducing the size of the Government bureaucracy and handing out lucrative contracts to their friends.
BTW, Sara, I’ve got follow-up for you on the subject of “manufacturing engineers” if you’re interested. You can reach me at bobschacht AT infomagic DOT net.
Bob in AZ
I’m not sure what I said to make you think I’m putting him on a pedestal. I just wasn’t sure what he had to do with the D. Priest articles. I don’t put her on a pedestal either. Time will tell though who is for real and who is not.
Do you have a specific link about the WL insiders wanting answers?
Not to go too OT wrt wikileaks, etc, but here is the keynote lecture (mp3 file at drop.io) given at the H.O.P.E conference over the weekend. Assange didn’t show, but another of the crew did a good job, perhaps better than Assange (based on some of his previous speeches). The clip starts with a kind of weak intro speaker, btw.
You know, I would hope Julian does know something, however, it’ll probably be overlooked by MSM along with a MILLION other majorly important bits of information that have already been overlooked and will get no national attention at all. The public will remain asleep. The question is, is this, could this, be what wakes them up? We can only hope.
I hate that contractors know things that Congress does not. I assume this includes contractors from Israel. Is it possible that the Israeli government has more information about this than our own representatives?
Yes.
But how could anything go wrong with that?
Marcy,
Where is your big giant snark tag on that comment?
Speaking of contractors. I read that the contractors we use are the contractors for 80% of the countries in the world. And we do not seem to be worried about national security whatsoever.
Yes, this seems to be a trademark consequence of the Bush years. National governments will become increasingly irrelevant as International Intelligence Companies emerge as the major players on the international stage. They are probably already mining Roman history to write their scripts for the first national take-over by mercenaries.
Bob in AZ
This sounds SO Rovian. There’s no true or false, right or wrong; all there is, is spin. So never mind any searching moral inventory– its just a matter of whether you’ve got the spin right.
Bob in AZ
The cockroaches are scurrying for cover…
I highlighted a recent NSA internal memo in my Mum’s the Word…, along with that ODNI memo…
Well, add Foggy Bottom to the list…
The truth? They can’t handle the truth!
The Office of the DNI is staffed with very talented people, some of whom have taken in-depth courses in management training and interpersonal relations, perhaps even a basic parenting course. Routine in that training, whether at McDonald’s, MIT or the local parenting class, is to distinguish the behavior from the individual engaging in it. Constructive criticism says, for example, “I don’t like that behavior,” not, “I hate you for doing that”. It helps with three year-olds as well as those acting like one at work. The difference it makes in getting teams to work together is amazing.
Applied to Ms. Priest’s article, then, the DNI’s critique would rationally say that it puts the DoD’s outsourcing programs in a bad light, because, for example, rampant outsourcing that maximizes contractor income is badly managed from the perspective of the outsourcing firm. It overstates benefits, understates costs and risks, and leads to loss of control and the ability to engage in independent action.
The characterization DNI’s talented staff choose, however, is not the one they learned in B-school or Public Administration school, or when earning their stars and stripes. Instead, it purposely focuses on a personal attack, and the testosterone and bureaucratic and budgetary-driven need to respond in kind – with a personal attack that takes no prisoners and damns the attacker. The quality of the behavior being criticized is disregarded, as if the DoD or DNI could never possibly get something wrong, nor could the military or CIA ever arrest and abuse an innocent person in the war on terror ™.
As EW says, this is an intentional call to arms, presumably in an effort to support and increase outsourcing, not a response to criticism that may be exactly right.
O/T
Court OKs 2nd Gitmo prisoner’s move to Algeria
“The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the U.S. to send two Guantanamo Bay prisoners back to Algeria even though they want to remain at the prison camp because of fear they might be tortured at home.
” . . . with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. . . ”
LINK.
Funny. That’s exactly what the U.S. government said about assurances from Syria when they sent Maher Arar there in 2002.
I wonder what the State Department annual assessment of human-rights regimes by country says about Algeria.
I meant to see if I couldn’t find an answer to your question, but I haven’t done that yet, skdadl. Been busy (doing what remains a mystery as a quick look around here confirms).
Just saw this article on the G-20 aftermath. Seems to give a good summary.
THE CIVIL LIBERTIES CHORUS
MORE VOICES OF DISSENT PILE UP AFTER THE G20 POLICING DEBACLE
LINK.
Comment and link at 38 are for you. (Managed in my fumbling way to disguise it as for me. Sowwy).
Thanks, kid — I saw that, and I’d found the country reports m’self as well — fascinating reading. I don’t like being mean to Algeria, actually, since I know where the roots of that turmoil come from. But the amorality as well as the sheer chutzpah of the U.S.’s returning individuals to it after the U.S. has itself made them locally infamous … it takes the breath away.
Thanks also for the NOW link, especially for the letter from the law profs, which I haven’t seen before. A lot of us are now suffering from G20 derangement syndrome — it just don’t stop, y’know? Every once in a while, there’s a bit of humour — have you heard about Officer Bubbles? This is the long story; the shorter form apparently made it to Faux News, and Officer Bubbles (real name: Adam Josephs) has made a few front pages here. Screenshots of his Facebook homepage were got, whereon he filled in the “Employer” line thus: “City of Toronto — I collect human garbage.” At the rally yesterday, there was a bubble-in.
Thanks to you, too, dear skdadl. Yep, Officer Bubbles is a piece of work, all right. How do those types even make it into law enforcement? They are cruel and sadistic, needing treatment and not a badge which they interpret as giving them the right to act out and do harm with impunity.
Here ya go.
What is with Stevens? Is it that, with his retirement at hand, he can slip into something comfortable…like the right-wing majority?
Well, first off, I don’t think Stevens was ever quite as flaming liberal as the media and pundits have tried to paint him. But secondly, the decision to release and repatriate is really an executive one and absent awfully compelling evidence, which was not present here other than the detainee’s expressed fears, I think the court is properly loathe to invade that province.
I’m with you on Stevens not being what he was cracked up to be. I thought his performance on Padilla was particularly deplorable.
On deference to the executive, though, does the detainee really have to produce clear and convincing (complelling, as you put it) evidence? After all, it’s the government that supposedly has the knowledge. Shouldn’t
that put the burden of proof (including overcoming its own assessments of
the foreign government in question) on the government?
(It’s really a question, even if it looks like and argument)
You would think so, and arguably that is correct. But it is a call that is discretionary with the executive, and I thinks courts will no invade it easily or willingly.
Why shouldn’t the courts “invade that province”? They regularly do all the time in the case of asylum evaluations. You state the evidence “was not present here other than the detainee’s expressed fears,” but I’m not so sure such evidence has been presented in court. If I’m wrong, please let me know. I would think the principle of non-refoulement comes into play once the courts have granted a habeas petition. I know, of course, of no legal precedent in such situations, but it simply seems on the surface of it that the state can kidnap someone and take them 1000s of miles away, imprison them for years without charges, then, due to a petition of habeas, release them ultimately, and not make a determination of whether the former prisoner’s fears of persecution upon return are “well-founded” or not; nor would leave that to an agent of the executive branch to determine, but must make that a judicial decision, with evidence presented and argued, according to rules of evidence, right to cross-examine, etc.
Algeria is a holy mess, with a slow-burning civil war continuing, and massive violence. From a report I wrote for a client, who WAS granted asylum here based on a well-founded fear of persecution or harm should he return:
From Carol Rosenberg’s article today:
How can you say that “compelling evidence” is not available?
The court’s decision was an outrage and another blow against the international position of non-refoulement, marking the U.S. as an uncivilized nation, a nation busily disassembling the rule of law in the name of empire building.
What can I say — yes.
It is because of their detention by the U.S. that the Algerians’ personal and political profiles have been raised dangerously in Algeria. They have every reason to fear going home, and their detention is no small part of the cause of that fear.
Yep, slip-slidin’ away.
See bmaz @ 44. He may never have been there.
I knew bmaz had made an interesting comment re Stevens, and went back several articles, scanning through “Comments” to find it. And it was sittin’ here the entire time, LOL. Many, many thanks to you, michaelfishman.
and bmaz @44
On the other hand, I think I gave Stevens a bad rap on this one. It does look like he participated in the decision.
On the other other hand, after Jeff Kaye and skdadl, I defer to the big guns. Which is easier to do when they agree with you.
I can hardly wait to read Priest’s piece. Sy Hersh’s book is overdue, isn’t it? I thought he asked us to wait one year after Obama took office…
Tim Shorrock gives a little preview to Priest’s work.
h/t Jason Leopold
all smoke and mirrors now in the PROZAC nation….we are sleeeeeping………..shshhhhhh!
Sorta’ a tangent — but I’ve
been thinking a little more
about Dick Cheney’s heart — and
wanting, wishing and hoping. . .
for his full recovery.
Do go see why.
नमस्ते
Agreed.
Bob in AZ
That snip from the cogent
original post should have
preceded mine, above.
Sorry.
नमस्ते
Yup, I’ve said that often. Not only is the deterioration of any human, no matter how evil, really painful to watch, not only do I not wish that on Cheney’s grandchildren, but I’m a big enough believer in justice in this life I’d like him to live a while longer.
Thanks, Bob — and EW.
Let him live deep into his 90s — to
see, with his own eyes — what history
makes of his disastrous policies.
नमस्ते
http://cryptome.org/0001/mom-bomb/mom-bomb.htm
What is this nonsense? I am a MOM with sons (and daughters) and a kitchen. None of those kids has any business making bombs – in my kitchen (as if!!!) or anywhere else – they should be making sure proper safe food is available for their children!!! I am reasonably certain that there are MOMS of Moslem, Jewish, various Christian, and other faiths who have the same perspective.
It’s worse than that. I’m sure they’re violating intellectual property law.
I read Spies for Hire shortly after it was published in 08. Considering the veil of secrecy that shields intelligence community contractors from public scrutiny Shorrock did an admirable job.
For an interesting take by Shorrock on Dana Priest’s upcoming series in the WaPo checkout his website
http://timshorrock.com His article even includes photos!
Shorrock is a first-rate journalist. I worked with him briefly years ago, and have alwats been impressed with his work.
Thanks, it is always good to highlight the work of Tom Shorrock. Siobham Gorman is another that it is good to mention. We have a $70-$80 billion intelligence industry, and let’s face it for that kind of money we are mostly getting avalanches of crap. 9 years and they still can’t even say if Osama bin Laden is alive. They haven’t gotten Zawahiri, Mullah Omar or Hekmatyar. It was only luck that the Times Square bombing attempt didn’t kill a lot of people or that the underwear bomber didn’t take down a plane. I mean a small group of a couple hundred specialists could do a better job than the whole of the rest of this intelligence industry circus put together.
I’m an intelligence contractor and, believe it or not, I’m worried about the privatization of intelligence too. Of course overspending and failed projects should be made known to the public too. I disagree with Hugh – sometimes we get small mounds of diamonds. As long as Priest is balanced in her articles, meaning she describes in general detail what has succeeded, the public has a right to know. I’ve read Spies For Hire. I’m not worried about companies doing intelligence work, I’m worried that they become the predominate organizations and drive IC policy. THAT is scary.
Small piles of diamonds that come with mountains of crap and a huge price tag. The intelligence community has had only one significant success in the last 50 years and that was finding missiles in Cuba in 1962. On the other hand you can come up with a list of major failures and misses as long as your arm with 9/11, the fall of the Soviet Union, and WMD in Iraq being the most glaring.
Don’t fault the intelligence community for the WMD in Iraq fiasco. Fault the consumers of intelligence in the Bush administration who did not want an objective intelligence assessment and knew what they wanted to hear. They kept rummaging around in the raw intelligence until they found what they wanted. And they kept outdated intelligence long after its shelf life had expired, that suited their purposes.
Bob in AZ
Jeff’s latest sure seems to apply here
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/60465
“Along with Richard Hil and Paul Wilson, he just published another amazing work of political journalism. In his new book, Erasing Iraq: the Human Costs of Carnage, Otterman again traces the history of U.S. intervention in Iraq, from the early support for Saddam Hussein, through the Iran-Iraq War, the 1990 Gulf War, the Clinton-era period of murderous sanctions, and the recent devastation wreaked by the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation. The destruction of Iraqi society, with its millions of displaced, its looting of historical treasures, its chaos and war upon a previously largely secular culture, is shown to be a kind of sociocide.”
“Erasing Iraq” our MSM has sure done their part to do so
Just a few questions.
Should IC contractors be allowed to sell hardware or software, developed under contract with the US gov’t, to foreign regimes, which use the products to suppress or repress their own citizens?
Shorrock suggested in his book that substantial portions of the PDB (President’s Daily Brief) were provided by analysts employed at BoozAllen, SAIC, and CACI. Is this true today?
Should we have much more stringent oversight of IC contractors by Congress?
Thanks, EW. I’ll have to get hold of Shorrock’s book.
Another book that looked at outsourcing — in this case for the NSA — was James Bamford’s 2008 book, The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. I’m certainly looking forward to the Priest series.
Here’s a snippet from an Amy Goodman interview with Bamford in Oct. 2008:
and bmaz @44
On the other hand, I think I gave Stevens a bad rap on this one. It does not look like he participated in the decision.
On the other other hand, after Jeff Kaye and skdadl, I defer to the big guns. Which is easier to do when they agree with you.
I didn’t look at it to see who was actually on it. I think he would still be technically on term, but am not positive. Either way, declination of cert acquiescence is not usually a great marker for overall performance and ideology in general, so even if he did participate this is not a great indicator. Stevens is a very decent and good man, and a very good justice overall. I have just never found him to be quite as much a raging liberal as he is often painted. But don’t get me wrong, I would be content with a court full of Stevenses.
Justice Stevens is officially retired, bmaz, and his seat vacant, as of the end of the Monday that Senator Byrd died, which was also the last announcement day for Court decisions this term – June 28th.
Thus, this was a 5-3 decision, and would have been 4-4 and (also) left the Circuit Court decision intact if Kennedy had voted with Ginsburg/Breyer/Sotomayor, since a replacement for Stevens is (obviously) not seated. The Circuit Court panel acted in haste, without full briefing or argument, to prevent Judge Kessler from hearing evidence from the State Department about its assessment of conditions in Algeria, and to lift her preliminary injunction against bin Mohammed’s rendition to Algeria (he was detained in Pakistan, not Algeria, before being brought to Guantanamo in 2002). [The habeas corpus release granted bin Mohammed by Kessler last November is not under appeal by the government.]
Links and more in my current diary about the issue here.
Yeah, that makes sense I guess, and it would not have made a difference anyway without Kennedy. Did you see Linda Greenhouse’s piece on the demise of “The Kennedy Court”? It is pretty good.
No, I hadn’t seen that new Greenhouse piece, bmaz – thanks for the recommendation.
It’s a very timely and interesting analysis, which ties in with the question that arises about just what Justice Kennedy is making of what the D.C. Circuit has managed to do to his fine, even stirring, Boumediene decision in two short years…
There are certainly worse ways to operate on the Supreme Court than that. It’s my sense that, her rookie status aside, Kagan would be siding with the powerful, damn the fairness, which makes her nomination seem akin to Alito’s in terms of how unpromising and even dangerous it feels at this point in the process.
However, adhering religiously to “fair and not-fair” when assigning rights to multinational corporate entities with massive cash reserves on the one hand, and to the average voter with their minimal ability to ‘pay to play’ on the other, in the election-campaign funding arena, seems to conveniently lead to dismissing as immaterial suffocating, parallel power imbalances that are then further aggravated to the point of making “fairness” a laughable concept. If Kennedy has been heading too far out on such a limb, even as he “still loves his job after 22 years” and relishes being on “the winning team” on the Court, I hope he soon pulls back, for all our sakes.
Agreed on pretty much all accounts. Interestingly, aside from the torture issues, I do think Linda has made a fair summary of Kennedy’s MO on civil rights and liberties issues in general. This is precisely why I am not as fearful of how the gay marriage/Prop 8 issue will come out when it hits the Supremes and, hopefully, al-Haramain and Jeppesen as well. Plus both cases come out of the 9th and Kennedy came from there and still harbors some respect for them. I actually meant to write a post on just that this weekend but kind of never got around to it.
In reading through the details again of the horrific torture to which Binyam Mohamed was subjected – which are spelled out in Judge Kessler’s bin Mohammed habeas opinion of last November, a summary of which is “not dispute[d]” by the government – Jeppesen was definitely on my mind, with regard to the government’s continuing efforts to prevent Mohamed and the others from ever getting their day in an American courtroom, by hiding behind a “state secrets” shield. That case has been percolating for awhile now in the en banc Ninth (since a December oral argument, I believe), so I hope you keep that draft/conceptual post handy, in case the decision finally issues in the near future…
I think Stevens was a moderate, but the Supremes as a whole have drifted so far to the right, and more liberal justices that he served with have retired and have not been replaced by equally liberal justices, that he now (relatively speaking) appears to be a “Liberal,” i.e., he’s not radically conservative.
Bob in AZ
Yep, that is just about right.
America where are you now?
Dont you care about your sons and daughters?
Dont you know we need you now
We cant fight alone against the monster