Armchair Generalist

Army Mentors Are Legal

Army public affairs officer Gary Tallman reminds the USA Today journalists that it is, in fact, not illegal to hire retired general officers acting as individuals and not as a company representative. It's not something he ought to have to say, but for some strange reason, some people seem to think that retired general officers are morally obligated to serve their country for free in their second career.

"We followed ethics rules that had been on the books since 1978," said Gary Tallman, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "Those rules, as they are currently written, allow a former government employee to become a direct contractor with the government within one year of retirement."

The Army spokesman said [GEN Dan]McNeill and [LTG John] Vines were hired because of the up-to-date knowledge of counterinsurgency warfare. They are both former commanders of the 82nd Airborne Division and Fort Bragg and the 18th Airborne Corps. They have both commanded task forces in Afghanistan. As a four-star general, McNeill commanded NATO forces in Afghanistan.

USA Today quoted Danielle Bryan as saying their hiring "flagrantly violates the spirit of the revolving-door rules." Bryan is executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.

"As long as they didn't represent a third party, it was legal," Tallman said. "The rules are within a year of retirement you cannot represent a third party to the place where you used to work. What you can do is represent yourself."

The revolving door is when a retired military officer tries to lobby a government agency as an employee of a defense firm within the first year or two of his hiring date. When the Army asks a retired military officer to come back as an individual, it's not the same. It's legal, just as it is with any Federal employee. I know some of you will still disagree, and I understand your point of view. But these guys are uniquely talented. I'm glad that they're still interested in building national security. 

UPDATE: I meant to add as a comparison the actions of industry persons with respect to political positions within the Dem and Repub administrations who oversee the food industry. See the movie "Food, Inc," and you'll understand why I'm really not worried about retired general officers working as defense consultants - to improve the military - as much as I am big industry reps who get to work as political appointees to degrade regulations in their respective areas, regardless of the effect on the public.

Bottom line - worrying about conflicts of interest is appropriate, but blind accusations of potential malfeasance without any evidence of direct benefit to the person (other than reasonable salary and related costs) is just bullshit.

Run Away, Run Away!

 New York City got hit with a dose of white powder, and it didn't come from the sky. It hit the American Express headquarters in lower Manhattan.

Detective Mindy Diaz said no injuries were reported after the police were called to the building in Lower Manhattan on Thursday afternoon.

Three people who were exposed to the powder were decontaminated, Detective Diaz said. The powder was to be tested.

Joanna G. Lambert, a spokeswoman for American Express, said business was not interrupted.

Good news - less panic, more routine. One might think that we've gotten past the bioterrorism boogeyman.

Wash DC Gets More CB Junk

Global Security Newswire reports that the Washington DC metro is going to get updated chemical and biological sensors in addition to video links - because although it's been eight years since 9/11, 14 years since Aum Shinrikyo, and there are no terrorists known to have developed CB warfare agents, it's still a question of when, not if, to too many people in charge. 

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has signed a new contract with Smiths Detection for development, installation and continued support for the enhanced PROTECT early detection system. Upgrades to the Program for Response Options and Technology Enhancements for Chemical and Biological Terrorism system are set to include the latest detection technology and software and upgraded video monitoring capabilities.

What a tremendous waste of time, money, and personnel, continuing the paranoia that the only thing that will stop CBRN terrorism is constant surveillance on every corner. We don't have sensors that are reliable enough for subway use, so they have to be supplemented by cameras. Well, maybe the cameras will at the least be an aid for crime-fighting - they won't be used for much else.

Republican-Generated Nuclear Terror

Bad enough when terrorists bluff about their intent to obtain nuclear weapons to frighten the general populace - now we have Republican politicians doing the terrorists' work for them.  From TPM:

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) was troubled by what might happen when waterboarding and the American right to a fair trial met in a U.S. courtroom. She worried what might happen if terror suspects argued they'd been given "cruel and unusual" punishment at Gitmo.

"This is what scares me because they're in a U.S. court now and the rights are different," she said. "What will they say [about their detention] and what could happen and could they be out among the people again? It's very frightening."

How frightening? Mushroom cloud frightening, according to [Rep. Trent] Franks [R-AZ]. He said that a federal trial would give the suspects "a megaphone to speak to the planet," which he said "only hastens the danger" of, literally, a nuclear terrorist attack.

Yes, we certainly don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, do we? The only thing we need to fear are the fearmongers themselves. Better to dig a nice deep hole at Gitmo, and throw all these Republicans  terrorists into it and forget about them. Also present at the Dec 10 event were Rep. Michelle "Kill the Socialists" Bachman (R-MN) and Frank "Crazy Eyes" Gaffney (Center for Security Policy).  

I'm going to create a new varient of Godwin's Law.

• Sigger's Law: "As any discussion on terrorism grows longer, the probability of attributing terrorists with nuclear weapons (or similar destructive capabilities) approaches 1."
• Corrolary to Sigger's Law: "Once such an observation is made, the discussion is finished and whoever mentioned terrorist possession of nuclear weapons has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."

Deep Thoughts

Do you think that the fact that the US government popped 105 nukes in the open atmosphere in 1962 - during my formative years - had anything to do with my generation's inability to live up to the feats of the "Greatest Generation"?

Casual Fridays

 

I finished the game "Borderlands" yesterday, and I have to highly recommend it. This shooter game is played out on a gorgeous background with brilliant colors. The action is constant and varied, many many targets to shoot at, and no glitches or crashes throughout the game. As I mentioned before, this plays out on a "Mad Max" theme, with lots of very nasty, gun-toting men in leather gear and masks. And guns. Lots of guns, rocket launchers, pistols, shotguns, in every shape and size. There are ammo lockers and gun lockers everywhere, with money, first aid kits, and extra gear in addition to the hardware. It could be boiled down to just another "run and gun" game, except for the unique flair that the designers have introduced.

There are four different characters you can play - a grim sniper, a tough soldier, a hulking bruiser, and a gunslinging woman assassin. Each one has special skills that can supplement his/her c0mbat skills, which get stronger along three different "specialty tracks." As you shoot and kill your way (solving individual "quests"), you gain experience and can handle larger and more powerful guns. The plot is to find "The Vault", which only opens every 200 years. That's about as deep as the plot gets, and that suited me find. The few non-player characters in the game were quirky and individualistic, and in particular, Patricia Tannis was a really, really interesting character. You get to listen to her tape recordings here and there, and you eventually meet up with this mysterious scientist.

"I let a bandit approach my camp today before shooting him in the back several times. I instantly regretted this situations as, no matter how awkward it would have been, having the company would be nice. I decided to call him 'Leslie' and that he was made fun of as a child for having a girl's name which is what led him to a life of a bandit."

I tried the four character types, decided I liked the sniper the best. Each character speaks from time to time, like when you get a critical shot and the guy's head explodes, he cries out, "Boom!" When he gets into a car, he remarks, "Let's get my feet out of the dust." Each one has a unique (and somewhat disturbing) personality. Lots of fun, many hours of fun - unlike "Dragon Age Online," which, although beautifully rendered and relatively glitch-free, became annoying with the endless talking, the inability to use bows and crossbows to any advantage, and the failure of armor to really give any advantage. I don't think I'm going to finish that game. 

Oh, I forgot to mention - the game already has an expansion - downloadable content - for more shooting pleasure. The object of your guns - ZOMBIES! Aim for the head...

Continuing Bad Policy Decisions

Once again, there appear to be parts of the Obama administration who don't seem to understand that they can, in fact, reverse stupid decisions made in the previous administration. From Defense News (subscription required):

The United States and Poland have drawn up an accord regulating the stationing of U.S. troops in Poland, the Defense Ministry said Dec. 4, opening the way for the deployment of U.S. Patriot missiles.

The accord was given the final backing of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and will be signed Dec. 10 in Warsaw, ministry spokesman Robert Rochowicz told Agence France-Presse.

The Status of Forces Agreement is a prerequesite to setting up a U.S. ground-to-air missile base in Poland. U.S. officials say deployment should start next year.

Yes, this is an initiative to deploy Patriot missiles to protect the missile interceptor base aimed at Iran's non-existent nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles that President Obama decided against - or at least to delay - in part to demonstrate his respect to Russian sensitivities and because there was a much easier, cheaper, and more effective alternative available. Another article in Defense News discusses the US ballistic missile defense of Europe (because evidently NATO isn't serious enough in this area) and identifies a timeline of 2018 for putting a land-based SM-3 Block IIA site in Europe, possibly in Poland.

So exactly against what threat are the Patriot batteries protecting, if the interceptor base is no longer there? Iranian air attacks against Europe, when it has no ballistic missiles that can range European capitals? The Russian military, whose government says it is no longer threatened by a non-existent missile interceptor base?

Is this a serious attempt to calm jittery Polish government nerves about the grumbling Russian bear? Or is this a pay-off to ensure that the Polish troops currently deployed in Afghanistan stick around for a few more years? What it certainly is not - a serious military capability intended to deter Iran from "attacking" Europe or, as some extremely idiotic talking heads would have you believe, deter Iran from "attacking" America.

UPDATE: To clarify, I don't think the Patriots are an interim solution until the SM-3s get there, I thought the Patriots were a sweetner to the offer toward the Polish government. Just need to be straight on the proposed missile intercepter base (let's call it the BMD site) versus the US military ground-to-air missile defense capability (Patroits) that was added to counter Russian threats of attacking the BMD site.

Failure to Communicate

TalkingPointsMemo has been late in discovering this strategy model that attempts to depict the complex interactions that take place in a counterinsurgency campaign. Others in the blogosphere have commented on the spaghetti graphic that it appears to be (all hail to His mysterious creations), but TPM (and Richard Engel, the one who "discovered" the graphic) misinterpret its purpose.

Thanks to NBC's Richard Engel, we now have a visual representation of the military's plan. The above chart from the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Engel reports, lays out the counterinsurgency strategy to achieve three goals: "Influence insurgent-minded individuals to adopt a neutral disposition"; "Influence neutral-minded individuals to adopt a supportive disposition;" and "Retain supportive individuals."

No, it is not a visual representation of the plan, nor are the three "goals" indicative of the military's COIN operations. This is a working model by which planners can attempt to examine why it is that certain actions have certain consequences that may be beneficial or detrimental to their plans. It's a serious attempt by a reputable consulting firm to offer policy analysts a tool to better develop and implement plans that achieve tangible results, offering cost/benefit analyses. This is what serious planners are supposed to do, instead of making decisions based on "gut reactions." You have to understand the game before you can be a serious player. Otherwise, you don't belong on the field.

If you take the time to actually step through the methodology and see what can be done with the finished product, it's not so overwhelming. Is it hard? Sure it is. But life is like that. I've seen this model used elsewhere, it's valuable in addressing complex, dynamic issues and playing out "what if" scenarios. It's foolish for people to look at the one slide and groan, "oh, man, there they go with the powerpoint rangers again."

UPDATE: David Betz at "Kings of War" agrees.

UPDATE 2: Stephen Colbert says, "what could be simpler?" Stephen, it's not a "plan," but you can still play "Afghan Candyland" on it if you want.

Biothreat Strategy - the Inside Scoop

I've been told by fellow insurgents and progressive sympathizers that the failure of the National Strategy to Counter Biological Threats should not be blamed on the State or Defense staffers who actually do give a damn about this issue. The NSC does, in fact, have hold-overs from the previous administration who bulldozed this report through the system with little to no interagency input, with a very short suspense. Under Secretary of State Tauscher was not really interested in the details of the issue or in developing any nuances other than what was on the script. She is, at heart, a nuclear weapons advocate, not an arms control advocate.

The arms control and nonproliferation communities see this as just a check against the Graham-Talent WMD Commission's list of recommendations - nothing to be taken seriously. The same staffing process is about to happen to the Select Agent List, where the Senate Homeland Security Commission recommended a reshuffling/re-categorizing of the biological organisms - which amounts to busy work, again a check in the box, but no real change in day-to-day procedures. 

At the convention itself, there are a few optimists who believe that the Obama administration would not block negotiations to create a verification regime for the BWC, that this language represents areas that could, in the future, be worked out. Others say that while the tone is different from the previous administration, the actual policy differences are not apparent. Prevailing opinion is that the Bush policy is unchanged.

"Our long-term goal is to develop mechanisms to verify compliance with this convention," said Swedish Ambassador Magnus Hellgren, who was representing the 27-nation European Union.

Hellgren, one of about 100 diplomats who saw Tauscher's presentation, said the U.S. was making a "welcome contribution." But he told The Associated Press that he would reserve his verdict on the Obama administration's commitment to the process until 2011, when the entire convention will be reviewed.

Comments from Dr. Amy Smithson:

Tauscher tabled a modest, constructive set of proposals, but given the $49 billion in U.S. biodefense spending since 2001, the international community will want more in terms of transparency from Washington than just posting the US confidence-building declarations-already available to all member governments-on the web and inviting one person to Ft. Detrick. New money earmarked for building international disease surveillance and reporting capacities would have more emphatically conveyed U.S. support for thorough implementation of the International Health Regulations. If the Obama administration hopes to claim the leadership mantle in the biological nonproliferation arena, they will have to bring something much bolder to the table. The sooner they do, the better.

Comments from Dr. Jonathan Tucker:

Although none of the elements of the U.S. strategy are new, taken together they provide a comprehensive and cooperative approach to the prevention of biological threats, both natural and deliberate. The main disappointment is the strategy’s lack of ambition with regard to strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention, both with respect to the treaty’s institutional deficit and the festering suspicions of non-compliance by a few member states. The measures proposed to address compliance concerns—increased transparency, confidence-building measures, and bilateral diplomacy—appear too weak to make much of a difference.

More as the situation develops.

UPDATE: From Dr. Marie Isabelle Chevrier, Chair of the Board of Directors, Biological Weapons Prevention Project:

Ellen Tauscher’s speech to the Meeting of the States Parties of the Biological Weapons Convention was much anticipated by delegations. Yet there was little excitement or enthusiasm by the delegation following her speech. Delegations and NGO observers welcomed the change in tone from earlier US interventions during the Bush administration, contrasting it, in particular, with the strident address by John Bolton to the 5th Review Conference in 2001. Nevertheless the lack of specificity of proposals in Tauscher’s address was notable. People wondered about the meaning of language in the statement such as “compliance diplomacy” and “robust bilateral compliance discussion.” Optimists greeted the statement with hope that the statement will be followed by real engagement absent the arrogance of the past while pessimists found little if anything in the statement that would lead to real policy changes from the Bush administration. The inclusion of CBMs on an open website was generally welcome, as a small measure of transparency but not something that would likely lead to real confidence in compliance. Many NGOs are looking forward to greater transparency among all stakeholders rather than mere “bilateral…discussions.”

The Taliban Edge in Soldiering

Matt Ygelsias asks the question - how is it that Taliban soldiers are paid better than Afghani army soldiers, when the US coalition has so much more money than the Taliban warlords? More importantly, is there a flaw in our cost-effectiveness approach in that the Taliban soldiers can get armed, trained, and deployed so much quicker than the Afghan government's personnel?

I can think of a few reasons why, if the Afghan army is trained along the same fashion as the US Army, the Taliban seem to get armed, trained, and deployed more quickly.

1. No mandatory training on sexual harassment, consideration of others, violence in the workplace, operational security, etc.

2. No mandatory wearing of reflector belts while not in combat.

3. No need to to fill out multiple forms to requisition ammunition for training, and no time spent at training ranges.

4. Didn't have to wait for MRAPs to show up before moving into combat operations. Toyota 4Runners work fine. 

5. Don't have to worry about the wife threatening to leave - advantages of polygamy.

6. Don't have to buy a different style of combat uniform because the Chief of Staff had a great idea about a new camo pattern. For that matter, no need to buy those dress uniforms, either. 

7. Easier command and control - don't have to ask 42 other national governments for permission to use their troops.

8. Cheaper ammunition and weapon systems - no need to compete contracts for a new SAW or pistol. Or new fighter aircraft. Or amphibious vehicles. And so on.

9. No internal arguments about whether to use COIN or conventional warfare tactics.

10. No private security contractors making life harder for everyone else. 

Anything else come to mind?

Unbelieveable - The Ignorance

I become more and more frustrated with the seemingly inability for Democratic administration officials to think clearly about the issue of countering weapons of mass destruction or terrorist CBRN incidents without falling back on trite, overused, and inexcusable exaggerations developed by alarmists, extremists, and right-wing politicos. Ellen Tauscher has released her speech,Download UnderSecretaryTauscher-Address I don't have the text yet, and here's the highlights from Reuters:

President Barack Obama is sticking to the U.S. refusal to negotiate monitoring of biological weapons, the top U.S. arms official said on Wednesday.
-------------
Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, rejected a draft inspection protocol to the convention in 2001.

Tauscher said the Obama administration's National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats, released on Tuesday, recognised that there was no comprehensive strategy to deal with gaps in efforts to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons and scientific abuse.

"President Obama fully recognises that a major biological weapons attack on one of the world's major cities could cause as much death and economic and psychological damage as a nuclear attack could," she said.

Advances in the life sciences, which have put such weapons within the reach of groups as well as countries, meant the United States was more concerned about the possibility of bioterrorism than state-sponsored biological warfare.

Really? Do you really want to make that utterly ridiculous statement? My suspicions are that either there are Bush administration moles in the NSC and State Dept who want to subvert progress toward a rational approach to addressing biological warfare research, or that the NSC, State, and Defense Departments are too busy with Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan to really care about the quality of research being done for them.

Somewhere, Dr. O'Toole and former Senators Graham and Talent are dancing and celebrating their win against rationality and sober analysis.

UPDATE: More commentary from GSN:

The Obama administration will not seek to revive negotiations on a verification protocol to the convention," Tauscher said today. "We have carefully reviewed previous efforts to develop a verification protocol and have determined that a legally binding protocol would not achieve meaningful verification or greater security."

She said ensuring compliance is "extraordinarily difficult" because of the ease with which biological weapons programs could be disguised as legitimate activities. In addition, rapid advances in biological research make it harder to detect violations.

"We believe that a protocol would not be able to keep pace with the rapidly changing nature of the biological weapons threat," Tauscher said. She did not elaborate.

What horseshit. Embarrassing. Bush league, as it were. Only nuclear weapons count, children. Never forget this lesson.Again, here's the report.

Totally Rad, Man

The FAS Secrecy News blog finds that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) conducted an aerial radiological survey of downtown Washington DC in January 2009, prior to the presidential inauguration.

No statistically significant man-made radiological activity was detected in the survey.  Typical variations in natural background radiation were found, along with slightly elevated readings at the National World War II Memorial and elsewhere “caused by the building materials containing naturally occurring radioisotopes.”

See “Radiological Survey of Downtown Washington DC for the 2009 Presidential Inauguration” (large pdf), National Nuclear Security Administration, March 2009.

Looking at the report, it appears that they only covered the area where the authorities were starting to control the flow of people and vehicles going to the inauguration. Not clear if they addressed the rest of the city, where a nuclear device or dirty bomb still could have impacted events that day. But maybe this survey was done as a baseline in the event that a radiological or nuclear event did occur, then they would easily see the difference in scale.

Paranoia runs deep. But I suppose that's why the Secret Service gets paid to do their job.

McChrystal-Eikenberry Hearings

Work has been a little heavier than usual, perhaps as government agencies try to complete their projects before the Christmas holiday incapacitates Washington DC. So I'm glad that Spencer Ackerman is on the job, watching the congressional hearings on Afghanistan.

But both McChrystal and Eikenberry replied that the administration was ultimately providing a long-term commitment to Afghanistan, even if the U.S.-led combat phase would diminish over time. McChrystal said setting the date for beginning a “conditions-based” transition would help navigate Afghans’ complex feelings about the presence of foreign troops on their soil. “The guarantee that we, the coalition, will support them but not stay too long is actually a positive,” McChrystal testified. Eikenberry emphasized that the Obama administration envisioned a “long-term relationship with Afghanistan, a diplomatic relationship, a long-term economic assistance relationship” after the ultimate departure of U.S. troops.

The general said he expressed such confidence in his strategy because the Taliban was “not credible as a political entity,” earning acquiescence from Afghans only through the lack of a credible alternative from the Afghan government and its NATO allies. As the U.S. flows forces into southern and eastern Afghanistan to establish “contiguous security” for the population, “the next 18 months will likely be decisive,” McChrystal said. “Rolling back the Taliban is a prerequisite to the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda.”
-----------
In an attempt to quash media speculation about a chilly relationship between Eikenberry and McChrystal, the two men made a show of their professional partnership. Eikenberry saw his internal doubts about a U.S. troop increase leak to the media last month. But ambassador said that he firmly supported the administration’s strategy and was “exactly aligned with Gen. McChrystal.” The general returned the compliment by gesturing to Eikenberry and saying, “The person I listen to most is about three feet on my right.”

Ahhhhhh... harmony. Isn't it swell? Now if only the Republican politicians at the hearing would act as responsibly as those two, we might just get somewhere. But lost in this discussion, in the hearings and, who knows, perhaps even in the White House, is the damning fact that no number of additional troops in Afghanistan will fix the non-military factors that remain outstanding. Oh, yeah, and this guy is still running around free and easy after eight-plus years...

Obama's New Biodefense Strategy

The Washington Post reveals that Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher (Arms Control and International Security) is in Geneva, at the Biological Warfare Convention (BWC) talks, where she intends to reveal a new national strategy addressing biological threats. As is increasingly apparent with this administration, it's a good news, bad news story. On the one hand, the administration wants to address this threat. On the other hand, it has no intention of developing a much-needed verification regime for the BWC treaty.

The new strategy, according to a copy obtained by The Washington Post, envisions increased U.S. assistance to countries to develop systems to detect and respond to outbreaks of infectious disease, whether from natural causes, like the H1N1 flu, or from the release of a germ agent. The plan calls for promoting international guidelines for the handling of high-risk pathogens and supporting countries' efforts to criminalize the development of biological weapons.

It also says the U.S. government will promote universal membership in the Biological Weapons Convention.

On the domestic front, the strategy emphasizes improving intelligence on biological threats, enhancing policies to secure high-risk toxins and establishing better data-sharing among law enforcement and health professionals.

From the NY Times:

“It’s almost beyond the capacity of traditional arms control, which is why they are proposing these alternative means,” said Jonathan B. Tucker, an expert on biological weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “They would deal with it with a lot of indirect measures.”

Among these are joint law enforcement efforts and efforts to bolster surveillance of infectious-disease outbreaks.

Mr. Tucker said the administration would face criticism for “not addressing the fundamental weakness of the convention.” At the same time, he said it was offering a comprehensive approach that emphasized working with other countries, in contrast to the Bush administration.

I thought Jonathan Tucker was a chemical weapons expert, but I digress. He does know arms control issues, and certainly they are similar in addressing chemical and biological weapons. That's why it's so unfortunate that the administration is - once again - following the Bush administration's position rather than this faltering half-step. I'm not saying that the OPCW is an ideal organization - it's not, not by a long shot - but it is a model to allow for the process of verifying the existence and/or use of chemical weapons. We need the same for biological weapons.

It's sad, in a way. We ought to have the courage to "...do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills..." But I suppose Obama is really no Kennedy. Or maybe it's just that he has no staff equal to the challenge.

UPDATE: Here's the report.

Bob Graham Reads My Blog!

 Former Senator Bob Graham, half of the comedy team "Graham-Talent does World at Risk," referenced my blog in recent op-ed in the Miami Herald. I'm not sure whether to be pleased or annoyed. He was explaining how their little video decrying the use of eggs for vaccine development was a neat social experiment.

The shortage of H1N1 vaccine underscores the severe lack of U.S. preparedness in responding to pandemics, whether through natural disease or man-made bioterrorism. We rely on a 60-year-old production method, based on chicken eggs, which is a slow process. The United States needs to be able to produce vaccines and other medicines faster and less expensively.
 -----------
We launched in late October and have seen a cross-section of opinions -- voices of support and some attacks. There is a chaotic town hall quality, but everyone gets a turn.

Common questions have emerged.

Are vaccines safe? A lot of people don't trust vaccines. Or the government. Or pharmaceutical companies. PhilipB's post reflects the confusion, "I simply just want THE TRUTH.'' The fact is, vaccines save lives around the world, whether developed from chicken eggs or new methods. Safety is critical, and, as "J'' noted in a blog, we also need to support the Food and Drug Administration.

I did say that, and I do believe that it might be a good thing if pharmaceutical firms modernized their capabilities - on their own dime. I don't agree that they need federal funding, and I really don't agree with the biothreat scenario of killing more Americans than who died in World War 2 and costing $1.8 trillion in economic damages. But as George Smith mentioned to me, sometimes that's what lobbying groups do best - they grab one little statement and repeat it ad nauseum in every article they print. It's as if they think it will become true if the phrase is repeated a certain number of times. 

Well, at least conservative former political staffers want to believe it...