"The Death Merchant of the World," An Exercise in Cognitive Dissonance

It's well, well worth watching all of this exchange between Laura Ingraham and former CIA director James Woolsey. Woolsey acknowledges that the US has meddled in other countries' elections in the past and is doing so now, and both he and Ingraham find this laudable and funny. pic.twitter.com/TR3X7VM7Np

— Jon Schwarz (@schwarz) February 17, 2018

Former CIA director James Woolsey unironically admitting that the U.S. continues to interfere in global elections. If anyone would know, he would — he runs the shop that does it (source).

by Gaius Publius

Though we're tilting at windmills, we in the Chair by the Window, it's difficult not to write this. Cognitive dissonance, like the torpedoes, be damned.

Consider these four data points.

1. "We are the death merchant of the world" — Lawrence Wilkerson on U.S. Foreign Policy

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson is a longtime top aide to Gen. Colin Powell. This is from Ben Norton's write-up of an interview he did with Wilkerson in 2016:

"I think Smedley Butler was onto something," explained Lawrence Wilkerson, in an extended interview with Salon.

In his day, in the early 20th century, Butler was the highest ranked and most honored official in the history of the U.S. Marine Corps. He helped lead wars throughout the world over a series of decades, before later becoming a vociferous opponent of American imperialism, declaring "war is a racket."

Wilkerson spoke highly of Butler, referencing the late general's famous quote: "Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

"I think the problem that Smedley identified, quite eloquently actually," Wilkerson said..."I think the problem is much deeper and more profound today, and much more subtle and sophisticated."

Just one example, not the obvious one, but pertinent to the news (emphasis added):

"Was Bill Clinton’s expansion of NATO — after George H. W. Bush and [his Secretary of State] James Baker had assured Gorbachev and then Yeltsin that we wouldn't go an inch further east — was this for Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, and Boeing, and others, to increase their network of potential weapon sales?" Wilkerson asked.

"You bet it was," he answered.

Wilkerson concludes: "We dwarf the Russians or anyone else who sells weapons in the world."

We dwarf them in our wars as well, he could also have said, at least since the Cold War era. To start, think just of the millions killed in Iraq from the two Bush invasions. Then consider the destruction in Afghanistan and Libya under Obama, and the seven countries he was at war with, as we are today.

Wilkerson: "We are the death merchant of the world."

2. The U.S. Intervened in 81 Global Elections Between 1947 and 2000

In an academic study of "Partisan Electoral Interference by the Great Powers," Professor Dov Levin has created a dataset listing and detailing just what the title says — partisan electoral interference by the Great Powers, both covert and overt, between 1946 and 2000.

Joshua Keating at Slate (emphasis added):

Using declassified documents, statements by officials, and journalistic accounts, Levin has found evidence of interference by either the United States or the Soviet Union/Russia in 117 elections around the world between 1946 and 2000, or 11.3 percent of the 937 competitive national-level elections held during this period. Eighty-one of those interventions were by the U.S. while 36 were by the USSR/Russia. They happened in every region of the world, though most commonly in Europe and Latin America. The two powers tended to focus on different countries, though Italy was a favorite of both, receiving eight interventions by the U.S. and four by the Soviets.

Let's not play tit for tat. Foreign interventions are common:

The U.S. and Russia aren’t the only countries that do this. China has interfered in several Taiwanese elections, for instance, and the late President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela gave support to several preferred candidates throughout Latin America[.]

Just note the numbers — at  81 U.S. interventions in foreign elections since 1946. As a percent of all interventions studied, it's more than two-thirds of them, a fraction shy of 70%. As a percentage of all competitive elections studied, the U.S. intervened in more than 10% of them.

This fails to account for 21st century interventions, such as the disaster we created in Honduras.We seem to do this for a living, or as a regular way of running our business.

3. We Intervene Gladly and Smugly

Watch the video above, again if you've already seen it. The "manly men" — the realists, the hard-nosed protectors of our freedom — who run these operations are blasé to the point of proud about them. Even smug. Note the laughter near the end of the clip.

Ingraham: We don't do that now, though? We don't mess around in other people's elections?

Woolsey: Well ... [smiles, makes deliberate muttering noises]

All laugh knowingly.

Woolsey: Only for a very good cause in the interest of democracy.

Smedley Butler was told he was acting in the interest of democracy as well.

4. An Act of War

Was presumed (still unproved, though not disproved either) Russian interference in the U.S. election an "act of war"? Mainstream Democrats have been saying so early and often.

From The Hill:

“I actually think that their engagement was an act of war, an act of hybrid warfare, and I think that’s why the American people should be concerned about it,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.).

“This past election, our country was attacked. We were attacked by Russia,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). ...

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking member, has similarly described the election meddling as an “attack” and likened it to the United States’ “political Pearl Harbor.”

Would James Woolsey agree that meddling in elections is a "political Pearl Harbor"?

Are We at War with the World? Should the World be at War with Us?

Consider three questions:

     • If Russian interference, should it be proved, is an "act of war," a new "Pearl Harbor," how should we respond to that?

     • Have we committed "acts of war" against the world — 81 and counting by Dov Levin's dataset? If so, how should the world respond to us?

     • How should we respond to the world's response? By crying "no fair" and continuing as before, or admitting fault and stopping?

Then ask:

     • How would a principled, moral person answer the first three questions?

     • How is the government and corporate establishment answering them?

     • Whose pockets are you swelling if you agree with them?

This story is not what it appears to be. The real story is the story behind the story you're being told.

Some dissonant thoughts for your day's cognition, sent from The Chair by the Window. Sorry about that.

GP
 

Something Unconstitutional Has Happened But With Gorsuch Confirmed, It Won't Matter One Bit

Many of the nutters usually most enamored of Trump turned on him after the missiles flew Thursday evening, including UKIP whackadoodles Paul Nuttall and  Nigel Farage, plus Milo Yiannopoulos Katie Hopkins, Ann Coulter, Arron Banks and Paul Joseph Watson. Nuttall, who took over the British neo-Nazi party when Farange left, tweeted that "The U.S. bombing of Syria last night was rash, trigger happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing. I hoped for better." In as much as anyone has ever heard on Watson, it's on the crackpot Trump news InfoWars channel. He said Trump turned out to be "just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet. I'm officially OFF the Trump train. It's been fun lads, but the fun is over. I'll be focusing my efforts on Le Pen, who tried to warn Trump against this disaster." Coulter, brutal, sounds sad: "Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates... Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV."

One of the first Members of Congress to respond to Trump's illegal bombing of Syria Thursday night-- amidst all the Trumpanzee-ish fan-fair-- was Kentucky Republican Rand Paul. He tends to almost always give Trump the benefit of the doubt-- but not on something this clear and blatantly unconstitutional. Had you not looked at the dates of these Trump tweets, you might think Trump beat him to the punch. Trump:

Rand:

Ted Lieu, who also tweeted up a storm, sent this statement to his constituents in the morning:

"President Bashar al-Assad’s latest attack on his own people with chemical weapons was heinous and heartbreaking. The U.S. Constitution, however, does not allow the President to engage in acts of war without authorization from Congress. Having served on active duty as a JAG, I am well aware of the legal authorities for the use of military force. President Trump’s unilateral decision to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles at another country’s military-- which had not attacked the U.S.-- was unconstitutional.

"In 2001, Congress authorized the President to use military force against nations and terrorists that committed or aided 'the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.' In 2002, Congress authorized the President to use military force to defend the U.S. against the 'threat posed by Iraq' and to enforce U.N. Resolutions 'regarding Iraq.' Neither of those authorizations apply in this case.

"As a Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I am also deeply disturbed by the whiplash actions of the Trump Administration and the lack of any coherent strategy in Syria. Last week, the Trump Administration signaled that it was okay with allowing Assad to stay in power, even though Assad had already killed hundreds of thousands of people in Syria and previously used chemical weapons. Yesterday, the Trump Administration attacked the Assad regime.

"In 2013, Assad used chemical weapons in Syria. Donald Trump stated that the President needed 'Congressional approval' in order to bomb Syria. He was right. I urge Trump to follow his own advice, as well as the Constitution, and stop engaging in unilateral acts of war without Congressional approval."

Although Schumer, as usual, wanted it both ways, tweeting a quick something-for-everyonecelebratory statement that began with "Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do." Ro Khanna (D-CA) seemed as happy with Schumer's bullshit as we were here at DWT. "Let's be blunt: The problem with process arguments is it's not the substantive question," he said. "The question is: Where do you stand on issues of war and peace? Do you believe it's more unilateral military intervention? Did we learn the lessons of Iraq and Libya and that we should not be engaged? I wish the Democratic Party would speak to the substance of that issue."

Moments after Schumer's stupid tweeted statement Grand Rapids independent-minded Republican congressman Justin Amash had a less wishy-washy statement that Schumer:

This morning, Seattle freshman Justin Pramila could have been speaking for over 100 members of Congress we reminded Trump that presidents aren't allowed to start wars without permission of Congress. "Under the Constitution," she wrote, "only Congress has the power to authorize the use of military force. President Trump has not proposed to Congress a comprehensive strategy to end the violence in Syria and combat the Assad regime. The President owes the American people a plan that ensures we do not become entangled in another war. His unilateral action, without Congressional approval, is a disturbing precedent that we must not allow. A foreign policy of unilateral military action will not bring enduring peace. President Trump must demand Russia come to the table and support a UN investigation of the chemical attack. He must also engage the international community in a multilateral plan to end this humanitarian crisis in Syria and throughout the Middle East. In the meantime, the latest attacks in Syria have resulted in even more deaths and the displacement of thousands of innocent people. President Trump must lift his ban on refugees, and allow those who are fighting for their lives to seek refuge in our country." Also this morning, Paul Krugman tweeted, "Syria strike is to foreign policy as Carrier deal (remember that?) was to trade policy: impresses the rubes, but basically meaningless."

Jerry Nadler (D-NY), one of Congress' foremost constitutional experts went for it as well, pointing out that Trumpanzee's "action in attacking Syria without Congressional authorization was clearly illegal and unconstitutional. Our action against Libya in 2012 without an imminent threat to the United States and without prior Congressional approval was similarly illegal and unconstitutional, as I said at the time. It is essential that the power to decide whether or not to take the country to war rest with the people, through their representatives in Congress, as the framers intended, rather than in any one person. “Furthermore, while it is heartening to know that President Trump was moved by photos of slain Syrian children earlier this week, there have been countless images over the past few years of children laying face down on sandy shores or floating lifeless in the water as they flee the devastations of war at home. Yet the President’s approach to the Syrian refugee crisis flies in the face of the moral decency he cites as the reason to launch a military strike against Assad. I hope President Trump develops the same sense of moral decency when dealing with the Syrian refugees fleeing from Assad’s brutality.”

When I woke up today my first e-mail was from my friend Helen who was dismayed, she said, that one of her favorite columnists, Nick Kristof favored Trump's idiotic move in Syria, a move he admits was of dubious legality, hypocritical, impulsive, politically motivated and risky for the United States: "What the hell has happened to Kristof? Now he is supporting the bombing by Trump. The latter, a knee jerk bellicose bullying response by Trump without any forethought of its implications and no overall strategy or policy, will only lead further to more entanglement and more crap. I kinda prefer reading Brooks these days! Unbelievable."

Kristof wrote that although he's "deeply suspicious of Trump’s policies and competence... this is a case where he is right and Barack Obama was wrong. Indeed, many of us believe that Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake was his passivity in Syria." Of course, others of us think that by taking the constitutional route-- asking Congress to authorize an attack-- Obama did exactly the right thing (as did Congress for turning him down).

Dan Rather agrees with Helen:

There is a tendency to rally around the flag, and a President who takes on a war footing can see a boost of support. It is often transitory. There are arguments to be made that President Assad in Syria has crossed a line that demands U.S. military interference. Whether this should have been a unilateral action is something we all must consider. Whether President Trump has a plan for what comes next must be debated. Whether there is a coherence to this missile strike fitting into a larger foreign policy strategy is a question that should give us all pause.

The role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this Administration needs to face deep scrutiny. The lies we have heard, the chaos in governance, and the looming questions about ties with Russia-- itself a major player in Syria-- demand that the press treat this latest action with healthy skepticism. Perhaps it was the right thing to do. Perhaps a strong and wise policy will emerge. But that judgement is still definitely hanging in the balance.

The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as "presidential" is concerning. War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike.

On his show last night Bill Maher was also more perceptive and on the ball than Kristof. "In America, you’re not really president until you bomb something, you know? Even the liberals were all over this last night. Everybody loves this fucking thing. Cable news loves it when they show footage of destroyers firing cruise missiles at night. It’s America’s money shot."



And, yeah... Bill Maher had Ted Lieu, who the audience seemed to be completely enamored with, on the show last night:

Because Cheney Has Gone Unpunished For His Crimes, Someone Else In His Position Will Do Even Worse In The Future

Yesterday everyone was hating on poor little Belgium. It was over that ballgame in Brazil. I'm not in the Ann Coulter camp or anything, but I just don't get any more excited about soccer than I do about baseball or football or bad mitten. And Belgium… well, I have to admit, was always fly-over country for me when I lived in Amsterdam and visited Paris as frequently as possible-- except I drove. When I did visit Belgium in more recent years, I came to appreciate that the food was pretty amazing-- my faves in Brussels being Comme Chez Soi, L'Épicerie, and Les Brasseries Georges-- but I could never get over Adam Hochschild's 1998 historical masterpiece, King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, And Heroism In Colonial Africa. A few years ago I did a post about how the CIA conspired with Belgium to murder the first elected-- and last I think-- president of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba, based in great part on Hochschild's work.

Monday Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Colin Powell's chief of staff when he was Secretary of State, wrote about how the national myths of the "civilized countries" like the U.S. and Belgium "mask or even convert most of the crimes, and what the myths don't eliminate or alter poor education and memory lapses do." He was referring too the murder, plunder, slaughter, devastation, torture and massacre the civilized nations, primarily of the Northern Hemisphere, perpetrated against the backward nations of the Southern Hemisphere. And the latest myths about Justice and human rights progress is belied by, for example, the hideous unprosecuted war criminal Dick Cheney. "As has been the case since humankind began to organize itself," wrote Wilkerson, "Dick Cheney believes that wealth and power-- his and his cronies wealth and power foremost-- are still the relevant strategic objectives of empire. King Leopold of Belgium is not dead, simply reincarnated in a more modern form. Torturing people is dependent on a nation's supposed needs, killing people on the expediency of policy, waging war on monetary and commercial gain, and lying to the people is a highly reputable tactic in pursuit of each. Leopold would love Dick Cheney."

Cheney even models Leopold: never in the dangerous fray himself (five draft deferments, e.g.), a master of bureaucratic manipulation and intrigue, in love to a fault with secrecy, willing to undertake any crime under the sun so long as it leads to profit, deeply relishing every moment of evil he is able to engineer, and a master of masking it all through adroit, politically-attuned public relations aimed at people too stupid to question him -- all while paying absolutely no attention to what his past clearly demonstrates he has done, thus thoroughly frustrating the decent folks all around him. Leopold to a "T."

This modern man, Cheney, however needs no kingship, no ornate palaces, no personally-owned colony like the Congo; Cheney's writ is the world. It is all of humankind that Cheney would torture, enslave, murder, or plunder if it were required. And Cheney is the ultimate arbiter of whether it is required. Take a look at that face as he tells the American people and the world in 2002 that "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Now, wait a dozen years and envision the same face, somewhat leaner and-- if possible-- meaner, saying on the editorial pages of his Journal as Iraq implodes: "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many." He is of course talking about President Obama, not President George W. Bush. Leopold, whom the American poet Vachel Lindsay, has "Burning in Hell...", must be yearning for Dick's arrival because no one, except perhaps for Leopold himself, would register such a claim in the face of such self-demeaning evidence to the contrary.

In the same chapter of his book referenced above, Hochschild writes: "The Congo offers a striking example of the politics of forgetting." He is right. But it is more than forgetting. It is an abject lack of political courage to hold people accountable.

In King Leopold's case, Belgium and the wider world want to move on and not look back. Holding people accountable would mean holding themselves accountable. That central Africa is today still an unfolding tragedy of exploitation, commercial rivalries, and indigenous incapacity partly an inheritance of colonialism, matters little. The world moves on relentlessly to fulfill its oligarchies' desires for wealth and power. Suitable rhetoric is developed and delivered to keep the masses quiescent. The Leopolds and Cheneys of the world are privately lauded for their hard-headed realpolitik while appropriately tut-tutted in public. Presidents and prime ministers proclaim that it would be nationally disruptive to hold people accountable for their crimes and, besides, they are more concerned for the future than the past.

Which is why most people in America today live in the moment and in the moment alone. If they realized and cared about the past, if they used that realization and care to make the future better, they would not be able to live in the moment so well. In that respect, Leopold and Cheney are right: wealth and power is all that matters.

Cloddish CIA Head John Brennan, Who Was Too Preoccupied Trying To Spy On The Senate, Missed The Crimea

Earlier this week, Harrison Samphir interviewed Paul Craig Roberts regarding how mainstream media is twisting the facts about the crisis in Ukraine. You may remember Roberts as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan. A former editor of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week, he is also a noted civil libertarian who has written extensively how Bush and Obama have used the so-called "War of Terror" to strip away American citizens' constitutional protections. In 2011 he forever broken with the Establishment elite saying that "The west prides itself that it is the standard for the world, that it is a democracy. But nowhere do you see democratic outcomes: not in Greece, not in Ireland, not in the UK, not here, the outcomes are always to punish the innocent and reward the guilty. And that's what the Greeks are in the streets, protesting. We see this all over the west. There is no democracy, there are oligarchies, some of these smaller European countries are not even run by their own governments, they are run by Wall Street... There is probably more democracy in China than there is in the west. Revolution is the only answer... We are confronted with a curious situation. Throughout the west we think we have democracy, we hold ourselves up high, we demonize China, we talk about the mafia state of Russia, we talk about the Arabs and so on, but where is the democracy here?"

In last week's interview Samphir asked him about the situation in Ukraine: "You have written extensively about the current standoff between Russia and the West over the situation in Crimea. How do you assess the current situation? What power struggle is currently unraveling?" Roberts' response is not what you're hearing from the mainstream media in their coverage. It's very much worth reading:

Well, I think it would be a mistake to represent the events in Crimea as a power standoff between Russia and the United States. What has happened in Ukraine is the United States organized and financed a coup. And the coup occurred in Kiev, the capital. Either from intention or carelessness, the coup elements include ultra-right-wing nationalists whose roots go back to organizations that fought for Hitler in the Second World War against the Soviet Union. These elements destroyed Russian war memorials celebrating the liberation of the Ukraine from the Nazis by the Red Army and also celebrating Gen. Kutuzov's defeat of Napoleon's Grande Armée. So this spread a great deal of alarm in southern and eastern Ukraine, which are traditionally Russian provinces. Crimea was added to the Ukraine in 1954 by Khrushchev, the general secretary of the Communist Party. Both of these Russian areas have been part of Russia for longer than the United States has existed. This may have been done to water down the pro-Nazi elements in western Ukraine, because it added a substantial Russian population to Ukraine that tended to balance out the ultra-nationalists in the west. Also, Khrushchev himself was a Ukrainian. It didn't make a difference at the time because it was all part of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed as a political entity and the weak authorities there-- under [US] pressure-- agreed to its breakup, the Ukraine became independent, but it retained the previously Russian provinces. The population in Crimea is predominantly Russian, and so is eastern Ukraine. These people said, "We don't want anything to do with this government in Kiev, which is banning our language and destroying our war monuments and threatening us in many ways." They followed the same legal steps; the same UN procedures, the same international court procedures. So everything that has occurred is strictly legal. And when John Kerry and Obama say the opposite, they're lying through their teeth. It's just blatant, shameful, bald-faced lies. This is not debatable or a question of opinion. It's a matter of law.

So the Parliament in Crimea followed these procedures and has now declared Crimea to be independent. The vote that [was] given to the people on [March 16] . ... So there has been no Russian invasion. That's easily provable. The Russian troops in the Ukraine have been there since the 1990s. It has to do with the lease arrangements it has on its Black Sea naval base [Sevastopol], because when Ukraine was granted independence, Russia certainly wasn't giving up its warm-water port. The terms of the separation state that Russia has a lease there until 2042. Sixteen thousand troops were there, and under the agreement with the Ukraine they can have up to 25,000 along with a certain number of planes, tanks and artillery. All this is specified and well-known, but it is subject to lies from Washington-- and they are repeated endlessly in the so-called American media. The remaining problem is in eastern Ukraine, because there the people are also in the streets demanding their local governments separate from Kiev. Having realized its incompetence in Crimea, Washington has rushed in and appointed Ukrainian multi-billionaire oligarchs [Igor Kolomoisky and Serhiy Taruta] as governors of these Russian regions [Donetsk and Dnepropetrovs]. Where the issue will be drawn is in eastern Ukraine because Putin has said he will make no military intervention unless violence is used against the Russian population in eastern Ukraine. There isn't much Kerry and Obama can do about this. But if the result is that eastern Ukraine returns to Russia, western Ukraine will be captured, subject to an IMF [International Monetary Fund] austerity plan, looted by the Western banks and stuck in NATO while US anti-ballistic missile bases will be put in western Ukraine. This is intensifying the strategic threat to Russia that Washington has been pursuing since the George H.W. Bush regime when he violated the agreements that Reagan had given not to take NATO into eastern Europe. These same agreements were violated when Washington withdrew from the ABMT [Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty] in 2002 so it could construct an anti-ballistic missile defense. These are extreme provocations, and they are reckless. It's the same kind of behavior that gave us the First World War. 

Does it give you cause to stop and think about what our own media is telling us about the crisis? Even trusted sources, like Rachel Maddow aren't reporting this story free from the western media meme.

Where Would Mitt Romney Be When The Phone Call Comes Into The White House Switchboard At 4AM?

 It's now widely acknowledged that foreign policy is clearly-- dangerously-- Romney's weakest suit. From his bungled and insulting romp through England, Israel and Poland, his attack on America while the consulate in Benghazi was under attack and his grotesque attempt to politicize the death of Ambassador Stevens to his attacks on China trade policies that belie his own bizarre net of investments in Chinese sweat shops, and the substance-free foreign policy speech he made at a military academy, Romney is clearly out of his depth on foreign policy. It's not, after all, like converting "heathen" Christians to Mormonism in France or like finding shady off shore banks to hide cash from the tax collector.

The 2011 return has 267 pages devoted to offshore corporations and partnerships. Reuters' Lynnley Browning reported that $4.5 million of the Romneys' long-term capital gains for 2011 came from foreign assets and $3.5 million from foreign income. The New York Times noted that Romney invested $77,262 in CNOOC Limited, the Chinese state-owned oil company, and in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. He also had large investments in a Swiss bank, a Luxembourg steel company and machinery companies in Denmark and Japan. (These were all sold on Aug. 10, 2011, the day before Romney debated his Republican rivals in Iowa and before he started blasting President Barack Obama for being soft on Chinese trade policies.)

This record shouldn't give anyone the idea that Romney is remotely competent to handle foreign affairs, perhaps the single most important job of an American president. And the foreign policy advisors he's surrounding himself with-- the Bush era catastrophe team which led us into unjustifiable, bankrupting wars and breeches in alliances-- only make matters worse. Perhaps the reason polls of the only state where Romney ever held public office show him barely able to break into the 40 percent approval, though, is an even clearer warning-- Romney was a hands-off, absentee chief executive after he was elected governor of Massachusetts. He spent one day in 4 outside of the state, either vacationing or setting himself up politically for one of his presidential runs. "More than 70 percent of that time was spent on personal or political trips unrelated to his job, a New York Times analysis found."

When the ceiling collapsed in the Big Dig tunnel here, Gov. Mitt Romney was at his vacation home in New Hampshire. When the Bush administration warned that the nation was at high risk of a terror attack in December 2003, he was at his Utah retreat. And for much of the time the legislature was negotiating changes to his landmark health care bill, he was on the road.

...Romney, now the Republican presidential nominee, took lengthy vacations and weekend getaways. But much of his travel was to lay the groundwork for the presidential ambitions he would pursue in the 2008 election, two years after leaving office.

During his last year as governor, he was largely an absentee chief executive. In October 2006, for example, he was out of the state all or part of 25 days. His public schedules said he was spending “personal time in Utah” or “attending political events” in California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, Texas and Wisconsin. He went to a fund-raiser on Oct. 6 in Georgia for the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, stumped on Oct. 12 for a candidate for governor in Pennsylvania and appeared on Oct. 31 in Idaho on behalf of another candidate. In December, his last month in office, he took a swing through Asia before vacationing in Utah.

No one points to any lapses from his absences. But some former constituents, particularly Democrats, say Mr. Romney’s travels suggest that he was more interested in attaining the governor’s post than in doing the job. They argue that his focus on his political rise limited his achievements, and they point to President Obama’s double-digit lead in polls in Massachusetts as evidence of a bad taste left by Mr. Romney’s single term.

“I thought he gave up on his job,” said Phil Johnston, the chairman of the state Democratic Party while Mr. Romney was in office. “Romney was quite popular at the beginning of his tenure. The relationship between him and the Massachusetts electorate really soured.”

...Much of Mr. Romney’s time on the road when he was governor was spent barnstorming the nation-- traveling to at least 38 states-- as he positioned himself for his first presidential run. He also sought to build up his foreign policy credentials, visiting Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as well as Greece, the Vatican, China, Japan and South Korea. He attended fund-raisers for local legislators in swing states like Iowa and Michigan and raised money nationwide for his political action committee.

...As his term progressed, the press corps took note of the governor’s travels — and the ill will they generated. The Herald reported that an anonymous group distributed pictures of Mr. Romney on the back of a milk carton, with the caption “Have You Seen Me?” One headline from The Herald was blunt: “Mitt’s Mass Denial.” A Globe analysis of the costs of his travel-- Mr. Romney took no salary and paid for his personal and political trips, but the state paid for his security detail-- found that taxpayers had paid more than $100,000 in the 2006 fiscal year and $63,874 the year before.

Mr. Romney’s frustrations in his home state, where he was often thwarted by an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, became a common theme when he was on the road. He told audiences in Missouri and South Carolina in 2005 that being a Republican in Massachusetts was like being “a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.” He told the Heritage Foundation that he was like a “red speck in a blue state.”

His comments irked some in Massachusetts.

“He would make punch lines making fun of Massachusetts, and that was not widely appreciated,” said Michael J. Widmer, the president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed public policy group. “He was traveling so much the last two years, his most active period was really just two years. It’s tough enough for governors to get something done in four years, let alone two.”

Mr. Widmer said that while the administration focused on passing health care legislation in the second half of Mr. Romney’s term, “the rest of his agenda just went by the wayside.”

...[I]t was not uncommon for Mr. Romney to spend a week or more vacationing. During the summer, he frequently spent weekends at his retreat on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire, about two hours north of Boston, and in 2005 he stayed for almost all of a two-week stretch... Romney’s visits to New Hampshire became so frequent that the Manchester Union Leader, the state’s largest paper, wrote an editorial complaining about attempts by his security detail to cordon off a section of the lake around his home.

“The Massachusetts State Police have no jurisdiction over Lake Winnipesaukee,” it said, adding that troopers from a neighboring state should not be allowed “to harass and intimidate people who are out to enjoy that section of the lake.”

The paper endorsed Senator John McCain in the 2008 Republican presidential primaries and Newt Gingrich this time around.

It wouldn't be the first time that a newly elected president needed on the job training but Romney's aides say he has no interest or understanding of foreign affairs and, let's face it, this is a hands-off CEO type who will delegate things he doesn't like to people he trusts... like John Bolton.

Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, skewered Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team on Monday, saying their policies make his stomach turn.

   Wilkerson took particular aim at John Bolton, former President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations-- and now an adviser to Romney.

  “The man scares me to death,” Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army colonel told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. “He would defeat all the enemies in America and the world-- and believe me they’re plentiful—and he’d do it with everyone else’s blood. John is like Dick Cheney, never served a day in his life and wouldn't serve a day in his life … These people make me sick.” 

As Andrew Rosenthal noted in an editorial for the NY Times last week, "It’s rather amazing that Bolton and co are playing such prominent roles in the campaign; their ideas have been discredited and, by right, they should be hiding in undisclosed locations or at least enjoying early retirements as adjunct professors at third-rate universities-- not blathering on television and feeding a possible future president talking points."

Last Night On Rachel Maddow's Show...

Larry Wilkerson didn't care what Rachel had in mind. He had his own agenda-- cutting Dick Cheney to ribbons on his own terms. She wanted to talk process-- isn't Cheney a yappy dog?-- and he ever so politely, even respectfully, ignored her and just went right for Cheney's jugular. Like many of his who are roiled and rankled when Cheney or any of the Bushists "brag" about there hasn't been another terrorist attack on America in [fill-in-the-blank] number of years. Wilkerson, who was deeply embedded in the upper echelons of the most disastrous American government ever, shoves it right back up their asses-- in the way only a career military man filled with disdain for a pompous, unrepentant draft dodger who thinks nothing about whimsically sacrificing other people's children could do:

That's because he has the honor of being-- or the dishonor of being-- the man on whose watch 3,000 Americans died. More Americans died from a terrorist attack under Dick Cheney's "leadership," if you will, than any other president in our history... The reason that we have not had another attack in this country, more than any other thing, is over 200,000 Americans who have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq against al-Qaeda and other associated enemies... present a target rich environment for al Qaeda. So we have had 200,000 Americans overseas presenting al Qaeda with very, very lucrative targets and therefor, why would they want to come here? This is idiocy of the first order that Dick Cheney is putting out... He's a fearful man.

...This is a man who has told more lies from a public pulpit than almost anyone else I know, Why does the media give him so much airtime... He's destroying what's left of the Republican Party. I think the latest polls show we're down to 21% of Americans identifying as Republicans. I suspect that if Cheney continues it'll be down in the low teens. He's destroying the party. There needs to be someone with some, as we say in the Army, some intestinal fortitude-- some guts-- who stands up and tells this man to go home and shut up.

Eugene Robinson was also asking, in yesterday's Washington Post if "the crazy old coot" can't be shipped back to Wyoming. He seems disappointed-- maybe disgusted would be a more apt way to put it-- that "for the final act of his too-long public career, Cheney seems to have decided to become an Old Faithful of self-serving nonsense... Unrestrained by protocol or objective reality, he's pretty much guaranteed to say outrageous things. He requires no prompting or coaxing. As far as he's concerned, issues have just one side-- his-- and anyone who disagrees must secretly wish to deliver our nation to al-Qaeda."

When Rachel asked Wilkerson if Cheney should apologize to Colin Powell, he was utterly dismissive of Cheney and said the two men couldn't be compared: "Two tours in Vietnam, 35 plus years in service to his country; 5 deferments for Dick Cheney, never served a day in the military; said he had other priorities... I don't even think there's a comparison."