and be a vehicle to insure the tens of millions who have no insurance.

Ezra Klein has written that Obama would need to get major concessions in order to drop the public option--including more money for subsidies and a much stronger health insurance exchange--but that the public option should only be dropped--if it is truly needed to 'secure passage of the final bill.'

If the public option needs to be dropped to secure passage of the final bill, then that may be the unfortunate reality of the situation. But that's the context in which you drop something like the public option: A context in which you get something significant for the concession, like passage of everything else, or much more money in subsidies and much stronger exchanges. You don't drop it in the hopes that the compromise will be seen by opponents as reasonableness rather than weakness. The public option is good policy and, if it comes down to it, the largest bargaining chip. You don't give it away lightly. But you do have to keep it in perspective.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...

Klein's column about Health Insurance Exchanges: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...

And, this from Klein on the public option...

The public option is one of them, to be sure, and I think there's a substantial chance it will be present in the final legislation. But what about the expansion of Medicaid to 133 percent of the poverty line? That's a solid 20 million poor Americans who don't have coverage now, and will soon. What about the out-of-pocket caps, so no one goes medically bankrupt ever again? Or the assurance that no insurer can ever discriminate based on a preexisting condition? Or the subsidies for working Americans who can't quite afford coverage? Or the requirements that insurers spend more money on medical care and less money on premiums? Or the guarantee that the gruesome practice of rescission will finally end?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...

I would wholeheartedly agree on the regulation of the 'medical loss ratio'--the percentage of premiums spent on paying claims. It is about 80 cents today--compared to the early 90's figure of 94 cents paid out in claims (Wendell Potter gave these figures when he appeared on Bill Moyers several weeks ago).

That said, I have no doubt most Republicans would not support a 'national' Health Insurance Exchange. Of course, we do not need all their votes.

I'd go a step further than Tomasky: The upside of health-care reform is not that it's a defeat for the reactionaries. Rather, the upside of health-care reform is health-care reform. Four years ago, when the public option didn't exist as a popular policy concept, liberals would have been thrilled with the legislation we're seeing today. It's better than anything the major Democrats proposed in the primary, much less anything that passed four committees in Congress.

I keep recommending this Families USA brief (pdf, but worth it!) outlining the 10 most important elements of health-care reform. The public option is one of them, to be sure, and I think there's a substantial chance it will be present in the final legislation. But what about the expansion of Medicaid to 133 percent of the poverty line? That's a solid 20 million poor Americans who don't have coverage now, and will soon. What about the out-of-pocket caps, so no one goes medically bankrupt ever again? Or the assurance that no insurer can ever discriminate based on a preexisting condition? Or the subsidies for working Americans who can't quite afford coverage? Or the requirements that insurers spend more money on medical care and less money on premiums? Or the guarantee that the gruesome practice of rescission will finally end?

Obviously, there are a hundred ways that reform is going to fall short of not only perfection, but sufficiency. And the political compromises required to pass anything will dispiriting and inane. But it's worth keeping in mind that this bill is going to help a lot of people. Tens of millions. Hundreds of millions over the course of a few decades. It will mean that some of the very worst things that can happen to someone -- medical bankruptcy, or a cancer that strikes when someone is uninsured -- will, by and large, simply stop happening. That's worth being excited about.

By Ezra Klein
August 24, 2009

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...

S.752

Title: A bill to reform the financing of Senate elections, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard (introduced 3/31/2009) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: H.R.1826

Latest Major Action: 3/31/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)

Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 5/14/2009
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 7/9/2009
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - 5/18/2009
Sen Specter, Arlen - 3/31/2009

H.R.1826

Title: To reform the financing of House elections, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Larson, John B. (introduced 3/31/2009) Cosponsors (75)
Related Bills: S.752

Latest Major Action: 3/31/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

COSPONSORS(75), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)

Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 4/21/2009
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. - 5/19/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 6/19/2009
Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 4/21/2009
Rep Capuano, Michael E. - 3/31/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve - 3/31/2009
Rep Connolly, Gerald E. "Gerry" - 6/2/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 6/15/2009
Rep Cooper, Jim - 3/31/2009
Rep Costello, Jerry F. - 7/29/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe - 4/21/2009
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 6/2/2009
Rep Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. - 5/12/2009
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 5/20/2009
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. - 5/6/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd - 6/9/2009
Rep Doyle, Michael F. - 3/31/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. - 3/31/2009
Rep Ellison, Keith - 7/14/2009
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. - 7/21/2009
Rep Fattah, Chaka - 7/15/2009
Rep Filner, Bob - 5/12/2009
Rep Foster, Bill - 6/9/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan - 4/21/2009
Rep Green, Gene - 4/22/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 7/22/2009
Rep Hare, Phil - 6/2/2009
Rep Heinrich, Martin - 3/31/2009
Rep Himes, James A. - 4/21/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 5/6/2009
Rep Hodes, Paul W. - 6/2/2009
Rep Holt, Rush D. - 3/31/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. - 6/2/2009
Rep Israel, Steve - 6/3/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 7/23/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. - 6/2/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 3/31/2009
Rep Kagen, Steve - 7/27/2009
Rep Kind, Ron - 7/16/2009
Rep Kosmas, Suzanne M. - 6/10/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 5/5/2009
Rep Lee, Barbara - 4/30/2009
Rep Lewis, John - 7/29/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe - 6/4/2009
Rep Lowey, Nita M. - 7/27/2009
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. - 4/21/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 7/10/2009
Rep Markey, Betsy - 6/10/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. - 5/11/2009
Rep McCollum, Betty - 6/4/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim - 5/20/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. - 7/29/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. - 7/30/2009
Rep Miller, George - 7/22/2009
Rep Moran, James P. - 5/19/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. - 5/5/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 3/31/2009
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. - 7/24/2009
Rep Perriello, Thomas S.P. - 6/8/2009
Rep Pingree, Chellie - 3/31/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell - 3/31/2009
Rep Polis, Jared - 3/31/2009
Rep Reyes, Silvestre - 7/14/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. - 7/15/2009
Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch - 6/25/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 5/19/2009
Rep Serrano, Jose E. - 7/30/2009
Rep Sestak, Joe - 6/4/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol - 4/21/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh - 7/21/2009
Rep Smith, Adam - 5/13/2009
Rep Teague, Harry - 6/10/2009
Rep Welch, Peter - 4/21/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 6/3/2009
Rep Wu, David - 6/16/2009

What Happened to the Moral Case for Health-Care Reform?

I spent Sunday reading T.R. Reid's "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care". It's very, very good. I'll probably base a couple of posts on it. For now, however, I want to point out something he says about the successful efforts in Sweden and Taiwan to overcome the political opposition and rebuild their patchwork health care sector's into national health-care systems:

Both countries decided that society has an ethical obligation -- as a matter of justice, of fairness, of solidarity -- to assure everybody has access to medical care when it's needed. The advocates of reform in both countries clarified and emphasized that moral issue much more than the nuts and bolts of the proposed reform plans. As a result, the national debate was waged around ideals like "equal treatment for everybody," "we're all in this together," and "fundamental rights" rather than on the commercial implications for the health care industry.
Elsewhere, Reid quotes Princeton health economist Uwe Reinhardt saying that "the opponents of universal health insurance cloak their sentiments in actuarial technicalities or in the mellifluous language of the standard economic theory of markets, thereby avoiding a debate on ideology that truly might engage the American public."

This year, however, it's not just been the opponents of the policy who have relied on the "mellifluous language of the standard economic theory of markets." It's been the advocates of reform. Ask yourself what the administration's one-line goal is on health-care reform. Is it "equal treatment for everybody?" Is it "if every American is guaranteed a lawyer, why not a doctor?" Is it even "guaranteed health care for everyone?"

No. It's "bend the curve." And the problem with "bending the curve" is that it's a broadly testable proposition. This is, in part, why the Congressional Budget Office's skeptical assessments pose such a threat to health-care reform. If the White House's primary objective was health care for every American, or guaranteed care that you could keep even if you lost your job, or choice of insurance plans for every American, you could spend a bit more on health care and say you were achieving your goal. But if you say that the point of health-care reform is to save money, and then the outfit charged with estimating such things says it won't, that strikes at the heart of the project.

more...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...

Hope for Health Reform: Push Single Payer Now
by John Nichols

The corporate special interests and their willing accomplices within the ranks of the Democratic party are capitalizing on the confusion about the scope and character of proposed reforms. In so doing, they are creating a circumstance where the push for real reform can and will be thwarted unless there is a major pushback from real reformers.

That pushback can and should take the form of a renewed effort to promote the right repair: a single-payer program.

There has already been some progress in this regard. The recent 25-19 vote by the House Committee on Education and Labor for an amendment allowing states to create single-payer health care systems if they so choose was an example of this.

A bigger test could come this week, as the House Energy and Commerce Committee considers Congressman Anthony Weiner's proposal to replace the convoluted public-private scheme that is outlined in the Obama/House leadership bill with the easily-understood and efficient single-payer plan contained in HR 676 that has been endorsed by 86 members of Congress.

Were the committee to endorse the Weiner amendment, single-payer would be on the table -- as it should be.

more...

But it's not just Baucus. The monied Montanan has all too many Democratic allies -- especially among the Democratic Leadership Council-allied "New Democrats." The "New Dems" are far greedier and more troubling players than the small cadre of southern and rural Blue Dog Democrats. Of particular concern is the determination of so many of the "New Dems" to follow Baucus' lead and grab up what Jerry Flanagan, a health-care analyst with the group Consumer Watchdog describes as the "huge down payment" of campaign contributions from corporations that want any health care "reform" warped to favor their interests.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/455...

Published on Saturday, July 25, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Obama's Health Care Struggle -- Waterloo or Water Down?

by Bill Moyers & Michael Winship

According to the Associated Press, the drug industry's trade group PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) and the drug company Pfizer "reported spending more money than other health care organizations on lobbying in the second quarter of this year" -- $6.2 million from PhRMA, $5.6 million from Pfizer.

"Including its latest report, PhRMA has now spent $13.1 million lobbying so far this year. Pfizer has reported $11.7 million in lobbying expenses for 2009."

This is part of the reason, as Alicia Mundy and Laura Meckler recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, that "the pharmaceuticals industry, which President Barack Obama promised to 'take on' during his campaign, is winning most of what it wants in the health-care overhaul."

Their story describes "a string of victories" plucked from the Senate Finance Committee by drug company lobbyists, including no cost-cutting steps, no cheaper drugs to be allowed across the border from Canada, and no direct Federal government negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies to lower Medicare drug prices.

And that's not all. The Senate Health Committee is giving the biotech industry monopoly protection against competition from generic drugs for 12 years after they go on the market.

No wonder the cost of reform keeps going up and up and up. Could it be that Harry and Louise are happier because, this time, they're in on the deal?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/2...

OBAMA: 'DON'T BET AGAINST' HEALTH REFORM


President Barack Obama reacts to a question about health care shouted out by a reporter as he leaves the Rose Garden after announcing his nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin, rear, Monday, July 13, 2009, at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Monday, July 13, 2009 12:08 PM
by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray

In the conveniently timed intermission during the Sotomayor hearings, President Obama announced Regina Benjamin to be his pick for surgeon general.

But the president also used the announcement as a kind pep talk on health-care reform, as congressional watchers and the press have begun to doubt whether Congress can meet his goal to pass reform bills before it goes on its August recess.

"We are going to get this done," Obama said. "Inaction is not a option."

He added, "Don't bet against us. We are going to make this happen."

And mentioning a sports/exercise metaphor he's used before, Obama said that Washington's muscles for enacting change have atrophied. So: "We are whipping folks back into shape."

Earlier today, we noted that the day's two main storylines -- Sotomayor and CIA/Cheney -- would make it difficult for Obama to get his message out on the economy and health care. Well, he used a surgeon general announcement to try to break through.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009

"What Can I Do?"

Someone recently approached me at the cheese counter of a local supermarket, asking "what can I do?" At first I thought the person was seeking advice about a choice of cheese. But I soon realized the question was larger than that. It was: what can I do about the way things are going in Washington?

People who voted for Barack Obama tend to fall into one of two camps: Trusters, who believe he's a good man with the right values and he's doing everything he can; and cynics, who have become disillusioned with his bailouts of Wall Street, flimsy proposals for taming the Street, willingness to give away 85 percent of cap-and-trade pollution permits, seeming reversals on eavesdropping and torture, and squishiness on a public option for health care.

In my view, both positions are wrong. A new president -- even one as talented and well-motivated as Obama -- can't get a thing done in Washington unless the public is actively behind him. As FDR said in the reelection campaign of 1936 when a lady insisted that if she were to vote for him he must commit to a long list of objectives, "Maam, I want to do those things, but you must make me."

We must make Obama do the right things. Email, write, and phone the White House. Do the same with your members of Congress. Round up others to do so. Also: Find friends and family members in red states who agree with you, and get them fired up to do the same. For example, if you happen to have a good friend or family member in Montana, you might ask him or her to write Max Baucus and tell him they want a public option included in any healthcare bill.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/06/wh...

The Healthcare War is Now Official

Yesterday the American Medical Association came out against a public option for health care. And yesterday the President reaffirmed his support for it. The next weeks will show what Obama is made of -- whether he's willing and able to take on the most formidable lobbying coalition he has faced so far on an issue that will define his presidency.

And make no mistake: A public option large enough to have bargaining leverage to drive down drug prices and private-insurance premiums is the defining issue of universal health care. It's the only way to make health care affordable. It's the only way to prevent Medicare and Medicaid from eating up future federal budgets. An ersatz public option -- whether Kent Conrad's non-profit cooperatives, Olympia Snowe's "trigger," or regulated state-run plans -- won't do squat.

The last president to successfully take on the giant health care lobbies was LBJ. He got Medicare and Medicaid enacted because he weighed into the details, twisted congressional arms, threatened and cajoled, drew lines in the sand, and went to war against the AMA and the other giant lobbyists standing in the way. The question now is how much LBJ is in Barack Obama.

The big guns are out and they're firing. All major lobbying firms in Washington -- many of them brimming with ex-members of Congress -- are now crawling all over the Hill. Lots of money is on the table. AMA's political action committee has contributed $9.8 million to congressional candidates since 2000, and its lobbying arm is one of the most formidable on the Hill. Meanwhile, Big Insurance and Big Pharma are increasing their firepower. The five largest private insurers and their trade group America's Health Insurance Plans spent a total of $6.4 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, up more than $1 million from the first quarter last year, and are spending even more now. United Health Group spent $1.5 million in the first quarter, up 34 percent from the $1.1 million it spent in the first quarter last year. Aetna spent $809,793 between January and the end of March, up 41 percent from last year. Pfizer, the world's biggest drugmaker, spent more than $6.1 million on lobbying between January and March, more than double what it spent last year. It also spent nearly $3.3 million lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2008. Every one of them is upping their spending.

Some congressional Democrats are willing and able to stand up to this barrage. Many are not. They need cover from the White House.

The President can't do this alone. You must weigh in and get everyone you know to weigh in, too. Bombard your senators and representatives. Organize and mobilize others. And let the White House know how strongly you feel. This is one of those battles that define a presidency. But more importantly, it's one of those battles that define the state of American democracy.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/06/he...

FRIDAY, JUNE 05, 2009

How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option, And What Obama and the Rest of Us Must Do

I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.

You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.

So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.

Max Baucus, Chair of Senate Finance (now exactly why does the Senate Finance Committee have so much say over health care?) hasn't shown his cards but staffers tell me he's more than happy to sign on to any one of these. But Baucus is waiting for more support from his colleagues, and none of the three proposals has emerged as the leading candidate for those who want to kill the public option without showing they're killing it. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy and his staff are still pushing for a full public option, but with Kennedy ailing, he might not be able to round up the votes. (Kennedy's health committee released a draft of a bill today, which contains the full public option.)

Enter Olympia Snowe. Her move is important, not because she's Republican (the Senate needs only 51 votes to pass this) but because she's well-respected and considered non-partisan, and therefore offers some cover to Democrats who may need it. Last night Snowe hosted a private meeting between members and staffers about a new proposal Pharma and Insurance are floating, and apparently she's already gained the tentative support of several Democrats (including Ron Wyden and Thomas Carper). Under Snowe's proposal, the public option would kick in years from now, but it would be triggered only if insurance companies fail to bring down healthcare costs and expand coverage in he meantime.

What's the catch? First, these conditions are likely to be achieved by other pieces of the emerging legislation; for example, computerized records will bring down costs a tad, and a mandate requiring everyone to have coverage will automatically expand coverage. If it ever comes to it, Pharma and Insurance can argue that their mere participation fulfills their part of the bargain, so no public option will need to be triggered. Second, as Pharma and Insurance well know, "years from now" in legislative terms means never. There will never be a better time than now to enact a public option. If it's not included, in a few years the public's attention will be elsewhere.

Much the same dynamic is occurring in the House. Two members who had originally supported single payer told me that Pharma and Insurance have launched the same strategy there, and many House members are looking to see what happens in the Senate. Snowe's "trigger" is already buzzing among members.

All this will be decided within days or weeks. And once those who want to kill the public option without their fingerprints on the murder weapon begin to agree on a proposal -- Snowe's "trigger" or any other -- the public option will be very hard to revive. The White House must now insist on a genuine public option. And you, dear reader, must insist as well.

This is it, folks. The concrete is being mixed and about to be poured. And after it's poured and hardens, universal health care will be with us for years to come in whatever form it now takes. Let your representative and senators know you want a public option without conditions or triggers -- one that gives the public insurer bargaining leverage over drug companies, and pushes insurers to do what they've promised to do. Don't wait until the concrete hardens and we've lost this battle.

posted by Robert Reich

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/06/pu...

Dear ,

Can someone else vote away your rights?

Last November, California voters passed Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in the state. Immediately, the proposition was challenged and the CA Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. This week, the Court announced their deeply disappointing decision to uphold Proposition 8 and its ban on same-sex marriage.

We don't have time to mourn. We have to get organized.

The best defense is a strong offense.

In last year's fight, marriage equality groups in California weren't able to change the hearts and minds of those who eventually voted against equality. To win their votes, we need a powerful message and compelling stories. We need to organize everywhere and we have to start early. We have to start now.

Our friends at the Courage Campaign, a statewide powerhouse mobilizing for a repeal of Prop 8 in 2010, have a provocative and common-sense message on the air right now.

KEEP THE AD ON THE AIR - CONTRIBUTE NOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN

How can someone vote to take away my right to equality?

We can't vote to pay a man or woman less just because of their gender. We can't vote to sell houses only to those with a certain skin color.

In response to the court's decision, the Courage Campaign is immediately hit the California airwaves with a powerful 60-second TV ad. The ad puts the faces of loving couples to the simple message that equality is a civil right. It ends with a call to action to join the campaign to restore marriage equality.

With your help, they're launching this provocative new TV ad in moving images of the families most affected by the passage of Prop 8 and set to the beat of Regina Spektor's beautiful song "Fidelity".

The ad is a great start. Please watch it and then contribute to get it on the air -- and keep it on the air.

CONTRIBUTE HERE: http://www.CourageCampaign.org/DFA

In California, we lost last November. Republicans all across the country celebrated and immediately went to work copying tactics used to win in California. But in Vermont, we were ready. And while it was a tough fight that forced the legislature to override a Republican veto -- we won. We won because our offense was our best defense.

Last time, they framed the message. We're not going to let that happen again.

-Arshad

Arshad Hasan, Executive Director
Democracy for America

This is why Senators voted 33-60 against Bernie Sanders' credit card usury amendment--which would have capped interest rates at 15%. It is not because 'people are just not very good to one another' as you lamented on a recent show.

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes...

Here is what Durbin said in a link from Huffpo regarding banks and their undue influence on Congress. Durbin was a co-sponsor of Bernie Sanders credit card usury bill, as well.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.

On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion: the banks own the Senate.

"And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," he said on WJJG 1530 AM's "Mornings with Ray Hanania." Progress Illinois picked up the quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/d...

Here is a link to see just how much the financial, real estate and insurance sectors donates to the campaigns of our members of Congress:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indu...

ONWARD, CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS

THESE NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN DOCUMENTS FROM THE RUMSFELED PENTAGON MIXED RELIGION AND WAR

In the days surrounding the U.S. invasion of Iraq, cover sheets--like the ones in this exclusive GQ.com slideshow--began adorning top-secret intelligence briefings produced by Ronald Rumsfeld's Pentagon. The sheets juxtaposed war images with inspirational Bible quotes and were delivered by Rumsfeld himself to the White House, where they were read by the man whom, just after September 11, referred to America's war on terror as a "crusade."

Click for slideshow: http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

The GQ article on Rummy in which this slideshow is featured:

AND HE SHALL BE JUDGED

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has always answered his detractors by claiming that history will one day judge him kindly. But as he waits for that day, a new group of critics—his administration peers—are suddenly speaking out for the first time. What they’re saying? It isn’t pretty

By Robert Draper

ON THE MORNING OF Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing’s cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days’ war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death.”

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: “It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.” (To see these and more Bush-administration intelligence cover sheets, visit GQ.com’s exclusive slideshow).

These cover sheets were the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a director for intelligence serving both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. In the days before the Iraq war, Shaffer’s staff had created humorous covers in an attempt to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle. Then, as the body counting began, Shaffer, a Christian, deemed the biblical passages more suitable. Several others in the Pentagon disagreed. At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout—as one Pentagon staffer would later say—“would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.”

But the Pentagon’s top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush’s public standing. When colleagues complained to Shaffer that including a religious message with an intelligence briefing seemed inappropriate, Shaffer politely informed them that the practice would continue, because “my seniors”—JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself—appreciated the cover pages.

more...

http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?i...

Click for slideshow: http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret