Hailing Dick Cheney as “Conservative of the Year” in the current issue of Human Events, former ambassador John Bolton makes this transparently false claim in reference to Cheney’s speech at the American Enterprise Institute last May:

So, a major Cheney speech at AEI shortly after leaving the vice presidency was neither surprising nor aimed at the new Oval Office occupant. What was surprising, unprecedented and even unpresidential, however, was the Obama Administration’s reaction. Instead of leaving it to allies in Congress, Cabinet officers, or the media to debate the former Vice President, the White House scheduled a speech by the President himself on precisely the same topic.

The idea that Cheney’s speech was not “aimed at the new Oval Office occupant” doesn’t even pass the laugh test. AEI itself billed the speech in precisely that way, and conservative outlets promoted it as essentially an emergency intervention into President Obama’s dangerous refusal to embrace torture as a tool of American national security.

Or, alternatively, you could take Cheney’s word for it. Here’s what he says about the speech in the Human Events interview that ran along with Bolton’s fan letter:

Q: What pushed you into giving that speech [at AEI in May] and making the points you made on interrogations and gathering of intelligence?

CHENEY: When I left government, I did not plan to be active in any political sense of the word. I didn’t have a plan to go out and engage in controversy or make political speeches. What got me here was the notion that they [the Obama administration] were going to do two things: One was to investigate and possibly prosecute the CIA personnel who carried out our policies. And the other was to go after the attorneys in the Justice Department.[...]

And I thought it was just plain wrong not to stand up and defend them as well as to defend what we’d done. And it didn’t look to me like anybody was going to do it if I didn’t do it. And I was perfectly happy to do it.

So even Dick Cheney is completely out front that the speech was, in fact, “aimed at the new Oval Office occupant.” As to why Bolton would assert otherwise, it’s just a necessary part of his through-the-looking-glass argument that there has been nothing at all unusual or unprecedented about Cheney’s relentless attempts to publicly undermine the new president and his policies, and that the only unusual thing is Obama’s puzzling concern with rebutting Cheney’s brave, selfless, and totally-uninterested-in-repairing-his-own-disastrous-legacy “truthtelling” as it’s been relentlessly amplified by right-wing media over the past year.

A North Central Texas Fusion Center which provides homeland security intelligence is warning local officials about the dangers associated with the presence of foreign soccer teams at a local stadium. The threat assessment warns, “foreign soccer teams from all over the world play at Pizza Hut Park. They can bring their local gang and political issues with them. Hooliganism associated with sporting events has occurred in Brazil and Italy.”

The assessment is written by Bob Johnson, a former chief scientist for defense contractor Raytheon Co. and the chief architect and operator of the fusion system. Johnson believes that since there is “great enthusiasm” for soccer in Central and South American countries, then there’s a good chance cartel members will attend local soccer games. Johnson also tried to strengthen his case by erroneously claiming that one of Mexico’s soccer teams is owned by a drug cartel. The only evidence of cartel-owned soccer teams that Melissa del Bosque of the Texas Observer could confirm is a minor league soccer team potentially owned by Wenceslao Álvarez, a reputed leader of the “La Familia” drug gang. However, Álvarez probably hasn’t been attending any soccer games since he was sent to prison in 2008.

Soccer hooliganism, or unruly and destructive behavior, is usually sparked by fanatical supporters of rival teams and is often associated with the “reclaiming” of the game by the working classes. Ultimately, even if some drug cartel members are really big soccer fans, chances are they’re not going to risk blowing their cover over their favorite team, let alone in support of the proletariat.

A recent piece by Robert Valencia of the Center for American Progress has identified the growing popularity of soccer in the U.S. not as a security threat, but rather as “clear evidence that immigrants are acculturating to our society.” Valencia writes, “Soccer is a clear example of Hispanics’ many contributions to fostering unity…The ball of multicultural awareness and respect is in everybody’s court, and mutual prosperity should be our common goal.”

Del Bosque points out that Johnson and his wife have received $1.1 million in no-bid government contracts.

Reuters reports that despite growing “mainstream attention,” the Latin music industry is “enduring its worst downturn in recent memory.” The music industry as a whole has been struggling for many years, but that doesn’t explain why Latin music’s decline is outpacing that of the rest of the market. Numerous executives now believe immigration raids and hardline immigration policies are exacerbating the challenges posed by an economic recession:

The reasons for the drop-off cited by numerous executives echo the challenges facing the market as a whole, but their effect is magnified in a Latin marketplace that often occupies a place parallel to the mainstream. Many retailers report that sales of all Latin products — including books and other non-music-related merchandise — have suffered. Because so many Latins work in construction and service industries, they may be disproportionately affected by the economic downturn and also by harsher anti-immigration policies…

More than the economy, raids aimed at illegal immigrants have been “fatal” for business, the managing director of one Los Angeles-based Latin retailer says. “Ninety percent of our business came from immigrants. That’s gone now.”

While many in the Latin music industry are now looking at “revving up a digital marketplace” and expanding outreach to “mom-and-pop stores,” the “glaring omission” of public support for immigration reform amongst industry remains. A 2008 Reuters article pointed out that Latin acts have been more than willing to express “vocal support for a wide array of causes,” yet immigration reform has remained largely absent from their laundry list of political causes. Many industry figures say they favor immigration reform and sympathize with the plight of illegal immigrants, but few have organized broader efforts to back the cause and help “many of the people who support their music [and] are here illegally and under siege.”

Major General Anthony Cucolo, who is responsible for operations in northern Iraq, has issued a controversial new policy — which went into effect on Nov. 4 — that allows throwing women servicemembers on active duty in jail if they become pregnant:

Under the new policy, troops expecting a baby face court martial and a possible prison term – and so do the men who made them pregnant.
And the rule applies to married couples at war together, who are expected to make sure their love lives do not interfere with duty.

Usual US Army policy is to send pregnant soldiers home from combat zones within 14 days.

But Major General Anthony Cucolo, who runs US operations in northern Iraq, issued the new orders because he said he was losing too many women with critical skills. He needed the threat of court martial and jail time as an extra deterrent, he said.

All troops under his command are covered by the extension to the military’s legal code — the first time the US Army has made pregnancy a punishable offence.

Military staff judge advocates for the Army have reviewed and approved the policy. The policy is legal under military law, but it raises “a mare’s nest of legal, ethical and policy issues.” For example, while the policy does say that a man who impregnates a woman will receive equal punishment, it may be difficult to identify him unless the woman reveals who he is.

Additionally, it’s unclear what will happen to a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant. She would technically be eligible for jailtime, but if she is unable to identify her attacker(s), they may go free. Rape and other forms of sexual assault are severe problems in the military. In May, the Pentagon reported that it had “received 2,923 reports of sexual assault across the military in the 12 months ending Sept. 30 2008. That’s about a 9 percent increase over the totals reported the year before, but only a fraction of the crimes presumably being committed.”

With the military resorting to these extreme tactics to retain soldiers with “critical skills,” it’s another reminder about why the Obama administration needs to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.