Saturday, May 28, 2005

State Struggles to Meet Pension Obligations

abcnews.com
State Struggles to Meet Pension Obligations

CHARLESTON, W.Va., May 28, 2005 — Ellen Allman, an 89-year-old retired teacher, is struggling to make ends meet.

"Sometimes I get angry, and sometimes I get resentful," she said. "And sometimes I just am worried, very worried."

Despite decades as a public school teacher, her pension does not cover her bills.

"You just have to watch every penny you have, and most of the months the money runs out before you get through a week," she said.

Allman is among more than 45,000 West Virginia educators guaranteed a retirement benefit by the state. But years of underfunding by the legislature has left the teachers retirement plan more than $5 billion in debt.

"We can't continue as we are today," West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin III said.

Manchin, who says his state is now spending more than 12 percent of its budget on pensions, wants to sell enough bonds to cover the gap.

"We'll be one of the first states that has totally bellied up to the table and said we have taken care of our unmanaged, unfunded liabilities," Manchin said.

45 States

West Virginia is not alone. Forty-five states are struggling to close a combined $260 billion gap between their assets and the benefits they owe current and future retirees.


"There is an impending train wreck waiting to happen if action is not taken soon," said Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association, a Washington lobbying group for investors.

For some, the solution is to dump guaranteed benefits and let individuals, not the state, take responsibility for investing.

"The answer is not to get rid of the plan," said Keith Brainard, a public pension analyst. "If your car needs a tune-up, you tune it up. If it needs the brakes changed, you change the brakes. You don't throw out the car."

West Virginia is sticking with its current system, but even if voters approve the $5.5 billion bailout next month, the state still cannot afford cost of living adjustments for struggling retirees like Ellen Allman.

"I just feel greatly disappointed that we are not respected more than we are," Allman said.

ABC News' Geoff Morrell originally reported this story May 22, 2005, on "World News Tonight."

Read More...

Analysts Linked to Intel Failures Rewarded

Yahoo! News

Awards for analysts behind Iraq finding report

Sat May 28, 2:02 AM ET

Two U.S. Army analysts whose work was cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq have received job performance awards for the past three years, The Washington Post reported on Saturday.


The civilian analysts work at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center, an agency criticized by President Bush's commission investigating U.S. intelligence.

Ahead of the U.S. attack on Iraq, the analysts concluded it was unlikely that aluminum tubes sought by Baghdad were for use in Iraq's rocket arsenal. The Bush administration used that finding as evidence that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding Iraq's nuclear weapons program, the paper said.

The intelligence commission said the analysts failed to seek or get information from the Energy Department and elsewhere indicating the tubes were the kind used as rocket-motor cases by the Iraqi military.

A Pentagon spokesman said the awards to the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job.

But some unnamed current and formal officials said granting such awards shows how the administration has not held people accountable for mistakes on prewar intelligence, the paper wrote.

Read More...

Friday, May 27, 2005

U.S. Arms Sales to Undemocratic Countries Has Increased Sharply Since 9/11

The New York Times
May 27, 2005
U.S. Has Loosened Rules for Arms Sales, Study Says
By LESLIE WAYNE

The sale of military weapons to other countries, including many that were once barred from making such purchases, has increased sharply since the attacks on Sept. 11, according to a study by a New York research group.

As the United States is trying to secure new allies in its fight against terrorism, the study by the World Policy Institute - a research group based at the New School University - says that the nation has expanded the sales of weapons to countries that were once prohibited from receiving American-made goods because of their poor human rights records.

Among the countries are Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as Algeria and Uzbekistan. Some two dozen countries have either become first-time recipients since Sept. 11 or have been readmitted to the program after long absences.

The study found that the largest aid program, Foreign Military Financing, increased 68 percent from 2001 to 2003, to reach $6 billion - a peak amount - before trending back to a current $4.5 billion.

More than half of the top 25 recipients in 2003, either through the commercial sales program or through foreign military sales, were countries that the State Department has defined as undemocratic.

They included Saudi Arabia (purchases of $1.1 billion); Egypt ($1 billion); Kuwait ($153 million); and the United Arab Emirates ($110 million).

In other cases, weapons were sold to countries having internal conflicts, including Angola, Chad and Ethiopia, or where the human rights record was "poor," according to the State Department; this category included Nigeria, Tunisia and Nepal.


Policy makers in Washington have said that the aid is necessary to secure overseas military bases or reward allies.

But the author of the report, William Hartung, said the equipment could end up "fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries."

Charles Pena, a military specialist at the Cato Institute, a Washington research group that promotes free-market policies, said that while arms transfers were preferable to sending troops, there are risks.

"If a regime can use these arms to subdue their own population," Mr. Pena said, "this could come back to haunt us. We need to be more mindful of the long-term implications, especially in the Muslim world."

While the overall increase in these military sales may make for some good strategic policy, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military specialist at the Brookings Institution, the approach could be a "missed opportunity" if not accompanied by other forms of aid.

Read More...

Jones Gets Iraq War Indigestion

thinkprogress.org
Jones Gets Iraq War Indigestion

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), the congressman who demanded Capitol Hill restaurants change their menus to read “freedom fries” and “freedom toast,” has lost his appetite for the Iraq war. According to the Guardian:

Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war “with no justification”.


Asked by a reporter for the North Carolina News and Observer about the name-change campaign - an idea Mr Jones said at the time came to him by a combination of God’s hand and a constituent’s request - he replied: “I wish it had never happened.”

Although he voted for the war, he has since become one of its most vociferous opponents on Capitol Hill, where the hallway outside his office is lined with photographs of the “faces of the fallen".

“If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong,” he told the newspaper. “Congress must be told the truth.”


Read More...

May 17, 2005: Pentagon Spokesman Lies to Press

thinkprogress.org
May 17, 2005: Pentagon Spokesman Lies to Press

During a 5/17 press conference, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita was asked about the mistreatment of the Koran by guards and interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. DiRita replied:

[W]hen a specific, credible allegation of this nature were to be received, we would take it quite seriously. But we’ve not seen specific, credible allegations.

Now, we learn that there were at least five confirmed incidents of Koran mistreatment. We’ve also learned this from Brigadier General Jay Hood via the Washington Post:


[A] soldier was reassigned after one recent accidental mishandling of the Koran, and another soldier faced an unspecified disciplinary action for an incident some time ago.

This proves DiRita’s statement was completely false. Not only have there been credible allegations of Koran mistreatment but those allegations were substantiated and at least one individual was punished.

Read More...

Flashback: Frist Said Filibustering to Get More Info Is Legitimate

thinkprogress.org
Flashback: Frist Said Filibustering to Get More Info Is Legitimate

To defend his March 8, 2000, filibuster of Judge Richard Paez, Majority Leader Bill Frist said that voting against cloture to get more information is OK and should be distinguished from an ordinary filibuster. Here’s Frist on the 11/14/04 Face the Nation:

Filibuster, cloture, it gets confusing–as a scheduling or to get more information is legitimate.

Yesterday, Frist described voting against cloture to get more information on ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton as “partisan sniping.” Frist took pains to emphasize that there was no difference between delaying a nomination to get more information and a filibuster:


It certainly sounds like a filibuster…. It quacks like a filibuster.

Of course, when Frist voted against cloture of Paez, the nomination had been pending for four years and he was looking to block the nomination, not get more information. In this case, the Bush administration is refusing to release critical documents regarding Bolton’s conduct in the State Department.

Read More...

Former aide to Sen. Clinton acquitted

floridatoday.com
Former aide to Sen. Clinton acquitted

By PAUL CHAVEZ
Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The former national finance director for Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign was acquitted Friday of lying to the government about a lavish 2000 Hollywood fundraising gala.

David Rosen was charged with two counts of making false statements to the Federal Election Commission about the cost of the star-studded gala, which attracted such celebrities as Cher, Melissa Ethridge, Toni Braxton, Diana Ross, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston.

The jury deliberated about six hours before reaching its verdict.

Clinton was not charged, but Republicans closely monitored the trial, hoping fallout from it might damage the New York Democrat's 2006 re-election bid and scuttle any hopes for a possible presidential campaign in 2008.


Prosecutors said Rosen, 38, panicked over the mounting costs for the fundraiser and lied to conceal its true cost from both the Clinton campaign and the government. They said Clinton was unaware of any wrongdoing.

Prosecutors said he filed a federal campaign finance report to claim "in-kind" contributions of about $400,000, when he knew that actual contributions for the event exceeded $1.1 million.

It is not illegal for campaigns to accept in-kind contributions, such as the use of cars, hotel rooms, and sound systems, but election law requires such items be reported so the public knows who is helping a candidate.

Prosecutors say Rosen was trying to duck federal financing rules so Clinton's campaign would have more money to spend on her 2000 Senate race against Rick Lazio.

The fundraiser took place at a tony, 112-acre private estate, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Zeidenberg told jurors it cost $90,000 just to get the celebrities and their entourages there. Zeidenberg said organizers spent $35,000 more to provide attendees with souvenir director's chairs from the event and another $50,000 to produce CDs that were included in the gift bags.

Rosen testified that he mistakenly thought some in-kind contributions, including the Porsche he used while in Los Angeles to organize the event, were simply gifts.

"If I executed poor judgment in that decision, I made a mistake, but I certainly didn't intend to hide anything," he testified.

Rosen also said he was mainly involved in raising money for the event and left the actual organizing to others.

The event, which netted just $91,000, was bankrolled by Peter F. Paul, a three-time convicted felon who pleaded guilty in March to separate securities fraud charges.

Read More...

Vindication for Newsweek

huffingtonpost.com
Richard Bradley: Vindication for Newsweek

With today's Pentagon report on mishandling of the Koran at Guantanomo Bay, Newsweek starts to look, if not entirely absolved, at least credible again—whereas the White House's selective outrage looks ever more disingenuous.

First, the very existence of a military investigation undercuts White House press secretary Scott McCellan's criticism of Newsweek. If the military couldn't deny the Newsweek report without further investigation, why did the White House go ballistic?

Second, the military found five examples of "mishandling" of the Koran—two unintentional, three deliberate. That's a shot in the arm for Newsweek.

True, the inquiry found "no credible evidence" that anyone flushed the Koran down a toilet. But the investigators did interview a prisoner who had made such a claim.


Meanwhile, the results of a broader investigation, featuring FBI interviews, are forthcoming, and they'll probably corrobate this report.

So let's review. Newsweek's most provocative claim can't be supported. But on the question of whether the military personnel had deliberately mocked Muslims by "mishandling" the Koran, the magazine was correct. Which, to me, makes Newsweek more right than wrong. The White House pressured Newsweek to retract its story. Will it now retract its over-the-top outrage?

Read More...

Bill Moyers and The Right Wing Goon Squad

huffingtonpost.com
Josh Silver: Bill Moyers and The Right Wing Goon Squad

During the last two weeks, Bill Moyers’ historic speech at the National Conference for Media Reform ( http://www.freepress.net/conference ) has ricocheted across the nation with it’s brilliant analysis of what’s wrong with our media system and why the radical right’s most recent attack on public broadcasting is cause for serious alarm. Moyers railed against Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson’s efforts to make PBS more “fair and balanced” and his perceived “liberal bias” on the network. Tomlinson, a partisan hack and close friend of the Bush administration, suppressed a 2003 survey commissioned by the CPB that found Americans do not perceive PBS to be too liberal. In his speech, Moyers challenged Tomlinson to join him on PBS to debate the facts. Meanwhile, more than 80,000 Americans have signed a petition calling for Tomlinson to resign. (Add your name: http://www.freepress.net/action/pbs )

The speech has provoked a rabid and relentless response from the far-right media goon squad of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter, who has been on nearly every cable network engaging in pathetic name calling in lieu of facts or reason. Limbaugh called him “insane” and “unhinged.” Coulter called him an “insufferable jerk” and a “crazy megalomaniac.”

So why all of the vitriol? Moyers has clearly touched a nerve and Coulter & Co. are nervous. Moyers is a principled, enlightened journalist who has been speaking truth to power for decades and winning countless Emmy, Polk and other awards along the way. He knows how to communicate with regular folks about the most critical issues better than anyone alive, as he exposes the radical right's lies dutifully channeled daily by a complacent and unquestioning corporate media.


Millions of Americans, including the 2500 or so who were on hand in St. Louis are gathering strength as a potent and organized movement for media reform. They are taking action to block media consolidation, protect PBS from partisan gamesmanship, ensure competitive, affordable Internet access, and promote independent media that questions – rather than promotes – the powers that be.

This is bad news for the radical right wing pundits and their friends at the White House, but its good news for Moyers and the rest of us concerned with quality education for our kids, affordable health care, tax policy that helps working people, judicial independence, clean environment and the list goes on. These are not liberal values per se. They are universal human values. Lacking principles and the truth, Coulter et all will continue to name call and the corporate media will continue to provide the megaphone.

It’s up to us to organize massive public support for structural reform that will transform our broken media system. Moyers is perhaps America’s greatest advocate for this essential work, and the more effective he is, the louder will be the mouthpieces of the radical right.

Oh, in case you’re wondering, while Coulter & Co. keep ranting unchallenged, Tomlinson declined to debate the facts with Moyers on TV. Surprised?

Read More...

Running Out of Bubbles

nytimes.com

Running Out of Bubbles

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Remember the stock market bubble? With everything that's happened since
2000, it feels like ancient history. But a few pessimists, notably
Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, argue that we have not yet paid the
price for our past excesses.

I've never fully accepted that view. But looking at the housing market,
I'm starting to reconsider.

In July 2001, Paul McCulley, an economist at Pimco, the giant bond
fund, predicted that the Federal Reserve would simply replace one
bubble with another. "There is room," he wrote, "for the Fed to create
a bubble in housing prices, if necessary, to sustain American hedonism.
And I think the Fed has the will to do so, even though political
correctness would demand that Mr. Greenspan deny any such thing."

As Mr. McCulley predicted, interest rate cuts led to soaring home
prices, which led in turn not just to a construction boom but to high
consumer spending, because homeowners used mortgage refinancing to go
deeper into debt. All of this created jobs to make up for those lost
when the stock bubble burst.

Now the question is what can replace the housing bubble.

Nobody thought the economy could rely forever on home buying and
refinancing. But the hope was that by the time the housing boom petered
out, it would no longer be needed.

But although the housing boom has lasted longer than anyone could have
imagined, the economy would still be in big trouble if it came to an
end. That is, if the hectic pace of home construction were to cool, and
consumers were to stop borrowing against their houses, the economy
would slow down sharply. If housing prices actually started falling,
we'd be looking at a very nasty scene, in which both construction and
consumer spending would plunge, pushing the economy right back into
recession.

That's why it's so ominous to see signs that America's housing market,
like the stock market at the end of the last decade, is approaching the
final, feverish stages of a speculative bubble.


Some analysts still insist that housing prices aren't out of line. But
someone will always come up with reasons why seemingly absurd asset
prices make sense. Remember "Dow 36,000"? Robert Shiller, who argued
against such rationalizations and correctly called the stock bubble in
his book "Irrational Exuberance," has added an ominous analysis of the
housing market to the new edition, and says the housing bubble "may be
the biggest bubble in U.S. history"

In parts of the country there's a speculative fever among people who
shouldn't be speculators that seems all too familiar from past bubbles
- the shoeshine boys with stock tips in the 1920's, the beer-and-pizza
joints showing CNBC, not ESPN, on their TV sets in the 1990's.

Even Alan Greenspan now admits that we have "characteristics of
bubbles" in the housing market, but only "in certain areas." And it's
true that the craziest scenes are concentrated in a few regions, like
coastal Florida and California.

But these aren't tiny regions; they're big and wealthy, so that the
national housing market as a whole looks pretty bubbly. Many home
purchases are speculative; the National Association of Realtors
estimates that 23 percent of the homes sold last year were bought for
investment, not to live in. According to Business Week, 31 percent of
new mortgages are interest only, a sign that people are stretching to
their financial limits.

The important point to remember is that the bursting of the stock
market bubble hurt lots of people - not just those who bought stocks
near their peak. By the summer of 2003, private-sector employment was
three million below its 2001 peak. And the job losses would have been
much worse if the stock bubble hadn't been quickly replaced with a
housing bubble.

So what happens if the housing bubble bursts? It will be the same thing
all over again, unless the Fed can find something to take its place.
And it's hard to imagine what that might be. After all, the Fed's
ability to manage the economy mainly comes from its ability to create
booms and busts in the housing market. If housing enters a post-bubble
slump, what's left?

Mr. Roach believes that the Fed's apparent success after 2001 was an
illusion, that it simply piled up trouble for the future. I hope he's
wrong. But the Fed does seem to be running out of bubbles.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Read More...

Just Shut It Down

nytimes.com

Just Shut It Down

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

London

Shut it down. Just shut it down.

I am talking about the war-on-terrorism P.O.W. camp at Guantánamo Bay.
Just shut it down and then plow it under. It has become worse than an
embarrassment. I am convinced that more Americans are dying and will
die if we keep the Gitmo prison open than if we shut it down. So,
please, Mr. President, just shut it down.

If you want to appreciate how corrosive Guantánamo has become for
America's standing abroad, don't read the Arab press. Don't read the
Pakistani press. Don't read the Afghan press. Hop over here to London
or go online and just read the British press! See what our closest
allies are saying about Gitmo. And when you get done with that, read
the Australian press and the Canadian press and the German press.

It is all a variation on the theme of a May 8
article0,6903,1479040,00.html> in The Observer of London that begins, "An
American soldier has revealed shocking new details of abuse and sexual
torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay in the first high-profile
whistle-blowing account to emerge from inside the top-secret base."
Google the words "Guantánamo Bay and Australia" and what comes up is an
Australian ABC radio report
that begins: "New
claims have emerged that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are being tortured
by their American captors, and the claims say that Australians David
Hicks and Mamdouh Habib are among the victims."

Just another day of the world talking about Guantánamo Bay.

Why care? It's not because I am queasy about the war on terrorism. It
is because I want to win the war on terrorism. And it is now obvious
from reports in my own paper and others that the abuse at Guantánamo
and within the whole U.S. military prison system dealing with terrorism
is out of control. Tell me, how is it that over 100 detainees have died
in U.S. custody so far? Heart attacks? This is not just deeply immoral,
it is strategically dangerous.


I can explain it best by analogy. For several years now I have argued
that Israel needed to get out of the West Bank and Gaza, and behind a
wall, as fast as possible. Not because the Palestinians are right and
Israel wrong. It's because Israel today is surrounded by three large
trends. The first is a huge population explosion happening all across
the Arab world. The second is an explosion of the worst interpersonal
violence between Israelis and Palestinians in the history of the
conflict, which has only recently been defused by a cease-fire. And the
third is an explosion of Arabic language multimedia outlets - from the
Internet to Al Jazeera.

What was happening around Israel at the height of the intifada was that
the Arab multimedia explosion was taking the images of that intifada
explosion and feeding them to the Arab population explosion, melding in
the minds of a new generation of Arabs and Muslims that their enemies
were J.I.A. - "Jews, Israel and America." That is an enormously toxic
trend, and I hope Israel's withdrawal from Gaza will help deprive it of
oxygen.

I believe the stories emerging from Guantánamo are having a similar
toxic effect on us - inflaming sentiments against the U.S. all over the
world and providing recruitment energy on the Internet for those who
would do us ill.

Husain Haqqani, a thoughtful Pakistani scholar now teaching at Boston
University, remarked to me: "When people like myself say American
values must be emulated and America is a bastion of freedom, we get
Guantánamo Bay thrown in our faces. When we talk about the America of
Jefferson and Hamilton, people back home say to us: 'That is not the
America we are dealing with. We are dealing with the America of
imprisonment without trial.' "

Guantánamo Bay is becoming the anti-Statue of Liberty. If we have a
case to be made against any of the 500 or so inmates still in
Guantánamo, then it is high time we put them on trial, convict as many
possible (which will not be easy because of bungled interrogations) and
then simply let the rest go home or to a third country. Sure, a few may
come back to haunt us. But at least they won't be able to take
advantage of Guantánamo as an engine of recruitment to enlist thousands
more. I would rather have a few more bad guys roaming the world than a
whole new generation.

"This is not about being for or against the war," said Michael Posner,
the executive director of Human Rights First, which is closely
following this issue. "It is about doing it right. If we are going to
transform the Middle East, we have to be law-abiding and uphold the
values we want them to embrace - otherwise it is not going to work."

Read More...

Helen Thomas Rides White House Press Sec: 'Were we invited into Iraq?'

The DrudgeReport

Helen Thomas Rides White House Press Sec: 'Were we invited into Iraq?'

Wire Queen Helen Thomas today ripped into White House spokesman Scott McClellan over his claims the United States is in Afghanistan and Iraq -- by invitation.

Joined in progess...

Q The other day -- in fact, this week, you said that we, the United States, is in Afghanistan and Iraq by invitation. Would you like to correct that incredible distortion of American history --


MR. McCLELLAN: No, we are -- that's where we currently --

Q -- in view of your credibility is already mired? How can you say that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I think everyone in this room knows that you're taking that comment out of context. There are two democratically-elected governments in Iraq and --

Q Were we invited into Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are two democratically-elected governments now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments, and we are there today --

Q You mean if they had asked us out, that we would have left?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, I'm talking about today. We are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments -- Q I'm talking about today, too.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are doing all we can to train and equip their security forces so that they can provide for their own security as they move forward on a free and democratic future. Q Did we invade those countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve.

END

originally published May 25 2005

Read More...

Major newspapers largely ignored White House rejection of senators' call for consultation on judicial nominees

mediamatters.org
Major newspapers largely ignored White House rejection of senators' call for consultation on judicial nominees

A Media Matters for America review of major newspaper coverage of the past two days has found that, with the exception of The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Reuters news service and the San Francisco Chronicle, the print media have largely ignored the White House's rejection of a bipartisan call for greater consultation on federal judicial nominees.

The bipartisan group of 14 senators announced their compromise the evening of May 23. Aside from the portion of the agreement that preserved the filibuster, the agreement also called for President Bush to "return to the early practices" of consulting with senators before making judicial nominations:

We believe that, under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

In response, White House press secretary Scott McClellan has twice signaled during his daily meetings with the press that Bush has no intention of changing the process by which he submits judicial nominations to the Senate.

In the May 24 press gaggle, McClellan said, "we have, we do, and we will continue to consult with the Senate on judicial nominees." The following day, he expanded on this statement during his press briefing: "Well, I mean, the president -- we have -- the White House has and will continue to consult the Senate on judicial nominees. We welcome opportunities to listen to any views they have. But the president is going to continue to move forward on appointing individuals who have a conservative judicial philosophy and believe in interpreting the law, not making law from the bench. And that's what I would expect them to do. That's something he ran on when he first ran for office, and when he ran for re-election, as well."

At least one Republican senator has disputed McClellan's suggestion that the White House has up to now engaged in meaningful consultation with senators before sending nominations to the Senate. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated that as a result of the compromise, the "White House is going to get more involved and they are going to listen to us more."

Major newspapers have largely failed to note the White House's rejection of the senators' request. A search of the Nexis and Factiva databases* of major newspapers has found only four news reports that mentioned the White House's reaction:

* Leading Democrats and their allies were highlighting another part of the agreement: what they asserted was a clear signal to President Bush that he needed to engage in ''true consultation and cooperation'' with both parties before naming future court nominees, particularly to the Supreme Court.

[...]

Administration officials and their allies pushed back, saying the agreement would have no effect on their powers to pick a nominee. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said the administration would consult as it always had, signaling that it did not intend to change in any substantive way its method of selecting, vetting and nominating candidates for the federal bench, including the Supreme Court. [The New York Times, 5/25/05]
* White House spokesman Scott McClellan gave no indication that Bush would back down from naming ardent conservatives to the federal judiciary.

McClellan said Bush is "going to continue moving forward on appointing highly qualified individuals to the bench. That's what he has done and that's what he will continue to do." [San Francisco Chronicle, 5/25/05]
* President Bush will pick judges who have a "conservative judicial philosophy," the White House said on Wednesday, in a sign that a bitter fight in the Senate over judicial appointments will erupt again over the selection of new members of the Supreme Court.

The White House gave the first clear indication of Bush's intentions following a Senate compromise this week that ended a lengthy standoff over judicial nominees considered too conservative by Democrats.

"The president is going to continue to move forward on appointing individuals who have a conservative judicial philosophy and believe in interpreting the law, not making law from the bench," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. [Reuters, 5/25/05]
* Administration aides, speaking on condition of anonymity while discussing White House strategy, rejected the suggestions that Bush needed to consult more with the Senate or pick less controversial judicial nominees. "You're not going to see the president change his ideology," one said.

If that means Bush's future nominees divide the parties as sharply as those in the current group, this deal may promise the Senate not a lasting peace but just a break in the battle. [Los Angeles Times, 5/25/05]

*Nexis search was "(McClellan or white house or bush) and (jud! or nomin!) and consult!" from 5/25/04 through 5/26/05 (inclusive) on the "Major Newspapers" database. Factiva search was "(McClellan or white house or bush) and (jud* or nomin*) and consult*" from 5/24/05 to 5/26/05 in Factiva library.In the May 24 press gaggle, McClellan said, "we have, we do, and we will continue to consult with the Senate on judicial nominees." The following day, he expanded on this statement during his press briefing: "Well, I mean, the president -- we have -- the White House has and will continue to consult the Senate on judicial nominees. We welcome opportunities to listen to any views they have. But the president is going to continue to move forward on appointing individuals who have a conservative judicial philosophy and believe in interpreting the law, not making law from the bench. And that's what I would expect them to do. That's something he ran on when he first ran for office, and when he ran for re-election, as well."

At least one Republican senator has disputed McClellan's suggestion that the White House has up to now engaged in meaningful consultation with senators before sending nominations to the Senate. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated that as a result of the compromise, the "White House is going to get more involved and they are going to listen to us more."

Major newspapers have largely failed to note the White House's rejection of the senators' request. A search of the Nexis and Factiva databases* of major newspapers has found only four news reports that mentioned the White House's reaction:

* Leading Democrats and their allies were highlighting another part of the agreement: what they asserted was a clear signal to President Bush that he needed to engage in ''true consultation and cooperation'' with both parties before naming future court nominees, particularly to the Supreme Court.

[...]

Administration officials and their allies pushed back, saying the agreement would have no effect on their powers to pick a nominee. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said the administration would consult as it always had, signaling that it did not intend to change in any substantive way its method of selecting, vetting and nominating candidates for the federal bench, including the Supreme Court. [The New York Times, 5/25/05]
* White House spokesman Scott McClellan gave no indication that Bush would back down from naming ardent conservatives to the federal judiciary.

McClellan said Bush is "going to continue moving forward on appointing highly qualified individuals to the bench. That's what he has done and that's what he will continue to do." [San Francisco Chronicle, 5/25/05]
* President Bush will pick judges who have a "conservative judicial philosophy," the White House said on Wednesday, in a sign that a bitter fight in the Senate over judicial appointments will erupt again over the selection of new members of the Supreme Court.

The White House gave the first clear indication of Bush's intentions following a Senate compromise this week that ended a lengthy standoff over judicial nominees considered too conservative by Democrats.

"The president is going to continue to move forward on appointing individuals who have a conservative judicial philosophy and believe in interpreting the law, not making law from the bench," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. [Reuters, 5/25/05]
* Administration aides, speaking on condition of anonymity while discussing White House strategy, rejected the suggestions that Bush needed to consult more with the Senate or pick less controversial judicial nominees. "You're not going to see the president change his ideology," one said.

If that means Bush's future nominees divide the parties as sharply as those in the current group, this deal may promise the Senate not a lasting peace but just a break in the battle. [Los Angeles Times, 5/25/05]

*Nexis search was "(McClellan or white house or bush) and (jud! or nomin!) and consult!" from 5/25/04 through 5/26/05 (inclusive) on the "Major Newspapers" database. Factiva search was "(McClellan or white house or bush) and (jud* or nomin*) and consult*" from 5/24/05 to 5/26/05 in Factiva library.

Read More...

White House Tries to Redefine Filibuster Deal

thinkprogress.org
White House Tries to Redefine Filibuster Deal

Before the ink had even dried on the filibuster deal, conservatives began inventing exceptions and loopholes so at a later date they could push their agenda through with a clear conscience or cry foul when things don’t work in their favor. First Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH). Then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). And now the White House.


At today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked how the President felt about the fact that some of his nominees were being given passage while others were not. McClellan responded, "It’s my understanding the agreement was silent on those [two nominees]." Actually, far from remaining "silent" on the two nominees, the agreement names them specifically and states: "Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Sadd (6th Circuit)." In acknowleding the right of senators to filibuster at least in "extraordinary circumstances," the signatories agreed these two Bush nominees meet that standard and should be withdrawn or subject to filibuster.

It’s hard to trust that someone is going to keep to his word when there are people who keep trying to change those words.

Read More...

What Bush is saying when he's talking

USA TODAY
What Bush is saying when he's talking

President Bush, who held just 14 formal, solo news conferences between his 2001 inauguration and the 2004 election, has faced reporters' questions every month since his re-election last November.

The news conferences have usually come at the end of the month, and if that pattern holds, he's due for one.

White House reporter Judy Keen has covered Bush since 1997 and has watched him spar with journalists at scores of news events.

Keen combined her eight years of close observation with insights from former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

The result: a guide to help viewers interpret Bush's words.


Repeat offender

President Bush uses some phrases over and over:














































What he saysWhen he says itWhy he says it
"I appreciate that question."Several times in every news conference, usually immediately after a complex or tricky question.This means he needs a second to collect his thoughts.
"Thank you for giving me a chance to come by and say hello."At the beginning or end of a news conference.He's signaling that, although this is part of his job, it isn't his favorite part.
"We're making progress."When he's pressed on difficult issues, such as overhauling Social Security or ending North Korea's nuclear program.He's saying that he's working on it.
"I look forward to working with (Congress, Democrats, Russians, Iraq's government, etc.)."In response to questions about the lack of progress on changes to Social Security, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, immigration laws, nuclear proliferation. Bush is suggesting that others aren't playing ball yet, but he'll get what he wants eventually.
"I'm going to continue to speak directly to the American people about this issue." Variations: "I'm going to continue to work on this issue" and "I'm going to continue reminding people."When he's asked what he can do to reduce gas prices, spur more democracy in Russia, change the partisan tone in Washington, end Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs, prompt action on his Social Security proposals.He wants people to know that he's on the case.
"Now is the time to act."When Social Security is the topic.He's signaling that he won't drop it.
"My job is to confront tough issues."When he's asked about slow progress on his proposals to change Social Security and immigration and medical malpractice laws.He's explaining that although it looks like nothing is happening, that's how politics works.


Leave them laughing

Aiming to disarm reporters, he tries teasing humor:

•Surprising a reporter by calling on him: "If you don't raise your hand, does that mean you don't have a question?"

•After he referred to a reporter's daughter when, in fact, the child is a boy: "Excuse me. I should have done the background check."

•Teasing a TV reporter: "He's a sensitive guy. Well-centered, though."

•Bidding farewell to reporters as he prepares to go to his Texas ranch for a holiday: "I look forward to not seeing you down there."

That's all folks

To connect with viewers, he tries folksy remarks:

•"In this job, you've got a lot on your plate. ... You don't have much time to sit around and wander, lonely, in the Oval Office, kind of asking different portraits, 'How do you think my standing (in history) will be?' "

•"I readily concede I'm out of my lane (discussing complex Medicare issues). I'm not pretending to be an actuary."

•"The Crawford Pirates are the (Texas) state 2A, Division II champs, and we look forward, don't we, to wave the championship banner above the Crawford High School."

•"The Oval Office is the kind of place where people ... walk in and get overwhelmed in the atmosphere, and they say, 'Man, you're looking pretty.' "

Read More...

More on the Pentagon's Koran Fib

The Nation

More on the Pentagon's Koran Fib
David Corn

Let's consider a Tale of Two Pentagon Press Briefings.

Last week, amidst the fury over Newsweek's Koran-in-a-john item, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told the Pentagon press corps that the Defense Department had received no credible allegations of Koran desecration at Guantanamo. Roll the tape:

Q: Larry, just to be clear, there have been numerous allegations by detainees who have been released --

MR. DI RITA: Mm-hmm.

Q : -- by attorneys who have talked to detainees, alleging mistreatment of the Koran, including instances where it was supposedly thrown into a toilet. Are you saying that none of those allegations were credible, and that none of them have -- have any of them been investigated, and were any substantiated?

MR. DI RITA: We've found nothing that would substantiate precisely -- anything that you just said about the treatment of a Koran. We have -- other than what we've seen, that it's possible detainees themselves have done with pages of the Koran -- and I don't want to overstate that either because it's based on log entries that have to be corroborated.

That was a pretty clear, categorical statement. Credible allegations of Koranic abuse? Nada, said Di Rita. The next day--as I noted here and elsewhere--the International Committee of the Red Cross blew apart Di Rita's spin when its officials told reporters that in 2002 and 2003 they had reported to the Pentagon that Gitmo detainees were saying that US officials there had dissed the Koran and that the Red Cross considered these accusations credible. Then yesterday, the ACLU released FBI records it had obtained noting that Guantanamo prisoners had complained of disrespectful handling of the Koran. So none of this was credible? Let's be generous to Di Rita and stipulate that. How then does Di Rita explain what was said in the Pentagon press room today when Brigadier General Jay Hood, commander of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay, briefed the journalistic troops. Roll the next tape:

First off, I'd like you to know that we have found no credible evidence that a member of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay ever flushed a Koran down a toilet. We did identify 13 incidents of alleged mishandling of the Koran by Joint Task Force personnel. Ten of those were by a guard and three by interrogators.



We found that in only five of those 13 incidents, four by guards and one by an interrogator, there was what could be broadly defined as mishandling of a Koran. None of these five incidents was a result of a failure to follow standard operating procedures in place at the time the incident occurred.

We have determined that in six additional incidents involving guards that the guard either accidentally touched the Koran, touched it within the scope of his duties, or did not actually touch the Koran at all. We consider each of these incidents resolved.

Waitaminute. Last week Di Rita said there were no credible allegations and, thus, nothing to investigate. Yet today Hood disclosed there were 13 "incidents of alleged mishandling of the Koran," and five were confirmed. It turns out that not only were there credible allegations, there were actual "incidents." Would Di Rita care to explain this? Would he care to retract his briefing, apologize, and promise to do better? Anyone in the WHite House care to express outrage over Di Rita's untruthful assertion?

Read More...

House lawmakers clash over digital TV subsidy

Reuters

House lawmakers clash over digital TV subsidy
Thu May 26, 2005 2:54 PM ET

By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers clashed on Thursday over whether the government should aid those American households that will be left in the dark after television broadcasters switch to higher quality digital signals.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is considering legislation that would require broadcasters to turn off their analog signals and only air digital starting Jan. 1, 2009.

But an estimated 21 million households watch TV solely using an antenna, not subscribing to cable or satellite. And, few Americans own a television set that can receive the new digital signals or a box that converts the signal.

Digital televisions typically cost more than $500 while a box to convert the digital signal back to analog, which would avoid millions of sets becoming obsolete, is expected to cost $50 when produced in mass quantities.

Most Republicans on the committee expressed support for a limited subsidy program to help low-income families while most Democrats urged the plan cover all of those 21 million homes.


Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the committee and a Texas Republican, led crafting the measure but he left out a subsidy program despite supporting one for low-income families.

"I myself would support a limited subsidy," he said. But Barton noted that giving broadcasters until 2009 to switch off analog and accelerating a mandate that television manufacturers include digital receivers in new sets lessened the need.

"But I am also here to listen ... tell me what you think works," Barton said.

His Republican colleague from Florida, Rep. Cliff Stearns, doubted the need for any assistance.

"I'm not convinced a subsidy is absolutely necessary," he said. Stearns also raised concerns that a program could be unwieldy to manage.

But Democrats and a few Republicans noted that without some subsidy program, they could be quickly run out of office when millions of television screens go blank on Jan. 1, 2009.

"I'm confident we will have a subsidy otherwise the legislation will be DOA, dead on arrival," said Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat. "You do not mess with America's car or America's television."

Democrats, who so far have refused to back the draft legislation, said the subsidy could be funded by the billions of dollars the government is expected to raise by selling the broadcasters' old analog spectrum to wireless companies.

"There's more than enough money to make all affected consumers whole who are unfairly blacked out by this policy," said Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat.

The Congressional Budget Office has unofficially suggested the sale of the airwaves could raise about $10 billion, but private estimates vary.

"Forcing people to spend extra money for their television set isn't the way to go," said Rep. Barbara Cubin, a Wyoming Republican.

Read More...

Judge's ruling fuels DeLay's ethics woes

Reuters

Judge's ruling fuels DeLay's ethics woes
Thu May 26, 2005 7:10 PM ET

By Mark Babineck

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A political committee formed by U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay broke Texas law by not disclosing more than $600,000 in mostly corporate contributions, a judge ruled in a case that adds to ethics questions swirling around the powerful Republican.

State District Judge Joe Hart in Austin made the ruling on Thursday in a lawsuit filed by five Democratic candidates defeated in 2002 by Republicans who received money from Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee founded by DeLay to help his party capture the Texas Legislature.

Hart awarded the Democrats a total of $196,660 in damages.

DeLay, the second-ranking Republican in the House, was not a defendant in the suit, which was filed against committee treasurer Bill Ceverha.

But the ruling was the latest setback for DeLay, who has been under fire recently over ethics questions involving fund-raising, foreign travel and his relationships with lobbyists. The finding could be a harbinger of the outcome of a criminal probe into the committee's activities, said the head of a campaign-finance watchdog group.


DeLay has said he was not involved in daily operations of the committee, created before the 2002 elections, and has accused Democrats of using partisan attacks to weaken him politically.

His attorney, Bobby Burchfield, said of Hart's ruling: "Tom DeLay is not mentioned anywhere in the decision, nor should he be. He wasn't involved at all in the case."

The Democrats charged that the committee did not report the corporate money and that it was used illegally, because Texas law forbids the use of corporate donations in political campaigns.

Ceverha argued that the money went toward administrative costs, not campaigns.

SHIFT IN CONTROL

The committee's efforts helped Republicans capture the Texas Legislature for the first time since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War. The shift led to a remapping of the state's congressional districts which ultimately increased the party's majority in the U.S. House.

Contributions to the committee should have been reported to the Texas Ethics Commission because "they were used in connection with a campaign for elective office," Hart wrote in his decision, which followed a trial in March.

He did not rule on whether the money was raised and spent illegally, but did find that most of the campaign contributions "were not, in fact, to finance the ... administration" of the committee.

The decision was a victory for clean politics, said Joe Crews, attorney for the Democrats.

"This is the first step in upholding the integrity of the Texas electoral process," Crews said. "It sends a very clear message to corporations and lobbyists and other folks that this sort of secretive, underhanded activity is against the law."

Ceverha attorney Terry Scarborough said in a statement that Hart's decision was "wrong" and would be appealed.

"Our client was exercising his constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association," he said.

The national Democratic Party, which has made DeLay a top target in the 2006 election, welcomed the decision.

"The long arm of the law finally caught up to the rule-breaking, power-abusing Tom DeLay," spokesman Josh Earnest said. "Tom DeLay can no longer assert that the rules of law and justice don't apply to him.

Although DeLay, who represents a Houston area district, was not a defendant in the suit, he is under investigation by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle in Austin for his part in the committee's activities.

He has not been charged, but three men with close ties to DeLay have been indicted for illegal fund-raising activities by the committee.

Hart's decision could be a harbinger of the criminal investigation because it found illegal actions by the committee, said Craig McDonald, head of Texans for Public Justice, a research group that tracks money in politics.

"I think this just bodes very badly for the criminal case and will have a major political impact on DeLay down the road," McDonald said.

Read More...

Two Bush nominees get panel's quick OK

Two Bush nominees get panel's quick OK

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two of President Bush's blocked judicial nominees, cleared for confirmation by this week's Senate compromise on filibusters, gained quick approval Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The nominations of Richard Griffin and David McKeague for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati were approved by voice vote without debate. The nominees now move to the full Senate for confirmation votes.

Democrats had blocked Griffin and McKeague at the request of Michigan's two Democratic senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. But they agreed not to hold up the nominations anymore as part of the discussion over the use of judicial filibusters.

To avert a partisan showdown, seven Democrats and seven Republicans signed a pact Monday pledging not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. At the same time, they agreed to oppose attempts by Republican leaders to change filibuster procedures.


The 14 signers, while a small minority of the Senate, hold enough leverage to stop future Democratic filibusters or block any attempt to impose new procedures to end judicial filibusters.

Democrats also agreed not to filibuster Priscilla Owen, who won confirmation Wednesday, and William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown. Apart from the judicial nominees named in the agreement, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Democrats also would clear the way for votes on McKeague, Griffin and Susan Neilson.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he expected the Senate to start the confirmation process on Brown and Pryor on June 7 after the Senate returns from its Memorial Day recess.

Democrats made no such agreement on a fourth Michigan nominee, Henry Saad. Reid has said Saad would likely be filibustered.

Neilson's nomination was not mentioned during the committee hearing.

Levin and Stabenow had blocked the nominations of Griffin and McKeague for years because they were upset that President Clinton's nominees to that court were never given a confirmation hearing by Republicans.

Votes on North Carolina judge Terrence Boyle and White House staff secretary Brett Kavanaugh, who also want lifetime seats on the U.S. Appeals Court, were delayed by the committee.

---

On the Net:

Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov

Read More...

Times Co. plans to ax 190 jobs

nydailynews.com
Times Co. plans to ax 190 jobs

# The New York Times Co. said it is cutting 190 jobs at its flagship newspaper and its New England publishing group, which includes The Boston Globe. The cuts represent about 1.5% of its total workforce.

About two-thirds of the job cuts will occur at The Times, with less than two dozen coming from the newsroom, the company said. The newsroom jobs will be eliminated through a voluntary program.


Toby Usnik, a company spokesman, called the cuts "part of an ongoing effort to streamline our operations and lower costs. It's partly a reflection of the advertising climate, which has been difficult over the past couple of years."

The Times last made significant job cuts in April 2001, when it eliminated 9% of its staff, or about 1,200 jobs, Usnik said.

Read More...

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs

The Indianapolis Star
Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs

Father appeals order in divorce decree that prevents couple from exposing son to Wicca.

By Kevin Corcoran
kevin.corcoran@indystar.com
May 26, 2005


An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.

Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple's divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.

Bradford refused to remove the provision after the 9-year-old boy's outraged parents, Thomas E. Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie U. Bristol, protested last fall.

Through a court spokeswoman, Bradford said Wednesday he could not discuss the pending legal dispute.

The parents' Wiccan beliefs came to Bradford's attention in a confidential report prepared by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which provides recommendations to the court on child custody and visitation rights. Jones' son attends a local Catholic school.

"There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report.

But Jones, 37, Indianapolis, disputes the bureau's findings, saying he attended Bishop Chatard High School in Indianapolis as a non-Christian.

Jones has brought the case before the Indiana Court of Appeals, with help from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. They filed their request for the appeals court to strike the one-paragraph clause in January.

"This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge's whim," said Jones, who has organized Pagan Pride Day events in Indianapolis. "It is upsetting to our son that he cannot celebrate holidays with us, including Yule, which is winter solstice, and Ostara, which is the spring equinox."


The ICLU and Jones assert the judge's order tramples on the parents' constitutional right to expose their son to a religion of their choice. Both say the court failed to explain how exposing the boy to Wicca's beliefs and practices would harm him.

Bristol is not involved in the appeal and could not be reached for comment. She and Jones have joint custody, and the boy lives with the father on the Northside.

Jones and the ICLU also argue the order is so vague that it could lead to Jones being found in contempt and losing custody of his son.

"When they read the order to me, I said, 'You've got to be kidding,' " said Alisa G. Cohen, an Indianapolis attorney representing Jones. "Didn't the judge get the memo that it's not up to him what constitutes a valid religion?"

Some people have preconceived notions about Wicca, which has some rituals involving nudity but mostly would be inoffensive to children, said Philip Goff, director of the Center for the Study of Religion & American Culture at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

"Wiccans use the language of witchcraft, but it has a different meaning to them," Goff said. "Their practices tend to be rather pacifistic. They tend to revolve around the old pagan holidays. There's not really a church of Wicca. Practices vary from region to region."

Even the U.S. military accommodates Wiccans and educates chaplains about their beliefs, said Lawrence W. Snyder, an associate professor of religious studies at Western Kentucky University.

"The federal government has given Wiccans protection under the First Amendment," Snyder said. "Unless this judge has some very specific information about activities involving the child that are harmful, the law is not on his side."

At times, divorcing parents might battle in the courts over the religion of their children. But Kenneth J. Falk, the ICLU's legal director, said he knows of no such order issued before by an Indiana court. He said his research also did not turn up such a case nationally.

"Religion comes up most frequently when there are disputes between the parents. There are lots of cases where a mom and dad are of different faiths, and they're having a tug of war over the kids," Falk said. "This is different: Their dispute is with the judge. When the government is attempting to tell people they're not allowed to engage in non-mainstream activities, that raises concerns."

Indiana law generally allows parents who are awarded physical custody of children to determine their religious training; courts step in only when the children's physical or emotional health would be endangered.

Getting the judge's religious restriction lifted should be a slam-dunk, said David Orentlicher, an Indiana University law professor and Democratic state representative from Indianapolis.

"That's blatantly unconstitutional," Orentlicher said. "Obviously, the judge can order them not to expose the child to drugs or other inappropriate conduct, but it sounds like this order was confusing or could be misconstrued."

The couple married in February 1995, and their divorce was final in February 2004.

As Wiccans, the boy's parents believe in nature-based deities and engage in worship rituals that include guided meditation that Jones says improved his son's concentration. Wicca "is an understanding that we're all connected, and respecting that," said Jones, who is a computer Web designer.

Jones said he does not consider himself a witch or practice anything resembling witchcraft.

During the divorce, he told a court official that Wiccans are not devil worshippers. And he said he does not practice a form of Wicca that involves nudity.

"I celebrate life as a duality. There's a male and female force to everything," Jones said. "I feel the Earth is a living creature. I don't believe in Satan or any creature of infinite evil."


Read More...

Threat to Base Sends Senator on Maneuvers

NY Times
Threat to Base Sends Senator on Maneuvers

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, May 25 - Senator John Thune has long been a darling of the
White House, handpicked by President Bush as a rising Republican star.
But just months after winning election by telling voters that his ties
to Mr. Bush would help save their military base, Mr. Thune is facing a
new reality.

At home in South Dakota, he is feeling the heat from his constituents,
who are furious over the Pentagon's plans to close Ellsworth Air Force
Base, the state's second-largest employer. But in the Senate there are
only so many options available to a freshman - even if that freshman is
Mr. Thune, who became a Republican celebrity by unseating the
Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, last November.

One of those options is sending subtle messages to the White House that
the base-closing recommendations are more important than party loyalty,
which is exactly what Mr. Thune is doing.

"I've said all along that I'm going to play whatever cards I have to
get the best possible outcome I can for my base," Mr. Thune said on
Wednesday. In an interview with a South Dakota newspaper, The Rapid
City Journal, he put it more succinctly: "What goes around, comes
around."

Right now, Mr. Thune's cards include hedging on a matter of utmost
importance to Mr. Bush, the vote on the nomination of John R. Bolton as
ambassador to the United Nations, which could come as early as
Thursday. He has also not taken a public position on the Central
American Free Trade Agreement, which Congress has yet to vote on, and
on Wednesday he implied that he might waver on Mr. Bush's judicial
candidates, although he did vote to confirm Justice Priscilla R. Owen
to the appellate bench.

"I'm undecided on Bolton," Mr. Thune said, "and I guess that's where I
would leave it."

His reasons? "My reasons are my reasons," he said.

But if Mr. Thune was being cagey, his point was obvious, coming as it
did in the context of a lengthy interview about the Ellsworth base and
how he is trying to save it. And at least one Republican aide said
Wednesday that Mr. Thune had told a fellow senator he was contemplating
voting against Mr. Bolton to send a message to the White House about
the base.

It is not as if he believes that Mr. Bush picked the wrong man for the
job. Though he has never said outright that he would vote for Mr.
Bolton, Mr. Thune has made supportive comments. Last month, on the
MSNBC program "Hardball," he said of Mr. Bolton: "He is a guy who
shakes things up. And I think the U.N. needs that."

Just what President Bush can do for Mr. Thune is unclear. As Mr. Thune
said, "Their general posture has been, throughout this entire process,
that these are military decisions based on military value." But people
"in the hinterlands," he said, do not really believe that.

"There are a lot of folks out there," he said, "who, I think, perceive
this process to be like most processes in Washington, to have a
political component to it."

Mr. Thune's dilemma underscores the excruciating political reality that
senators have faced during the base closing process. On Wednesday, he
and Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Republican of Maine who is fighting
three proposed base closings in her state, introduced legislation that
would force the Pentagon to release the data behind the recommended
closings, which the Base Realignment and Closure Commission has said it
intends to do.

On Thursday, Mr. Thune and several Senate Democrats, including Joseph
I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Jon Corzine of New Jersey, will hold a
news conference on another bill, introduced last week, to delay the
base closings, though such bills have had little effect in the past.
And he plans to introduce a third bill, this one to allow uniformed
officers to testify at hearings on base closings.

Back in South Dakota, Mr. Thune's Democratic foes are busy saying "I
told you so," and last year's campaign has come alive again in the
press.

During the race, Mr. Daschle argued that, as minority leader of the
Senate, he would have a seat on the base closing commission and could
help spare Ellsworth, as he did 10 years ago when Bill Clinton was
president. Mr. Thune countered that as a Republican, he would have the
president's ear.


"John Thune said he had the ear of the president," Steve Hildebrand,
Mr. Daschle's campaign manager, said Wednesday. "People are saying
that, obviously, it was a deaf ear."

Mr. Thune also played up his Republican ties when he campaigned with
Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader. On a blustery day last May,
the two men stood in a barren parking lot outside the Ellsworth base,
against the backdrop of some retired jets. Dr. Frist told reporters
that he could see a broader mission for Ellsworth and would work to
protect the base from closing.

"As majority leader, I have come here to South Dakota to discuss this
with John Thune," Dr. Frist said, adding, "I will share it in my
discussions with the president of the United States."

Mr. Daschle has been diplomatic about the Ellsworth closing, saying
only that he would work if he could to reverse it. But on the day the
decision was announced, Mr. Hildebrand, still stinging, sent reporters
an e-mail message. Under the title "what power in Washington really
means," he wrote that Tennessee, the home state of Dr. Frist, would
gain 1,088 jobs under the recommendations, while Nevada, the home state
of the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, would gain 1,059 jobs.

But Mr. Hildebrand concluded, "South Dakota, home of presidential
ear-whisperer John Thune, loses 3,797 jobs and has a major closure in
Ellsworth Air Force Base."

On Wednesday, Mr. Thune refused to detail what kind of whispering he
was doing now with the White House.

"Let's just say there are ongoing discussions," he said. "I'm not going
to characterize anything that is going on. The judges, the Bolton
nomination, these are serious issues. I'm very serious about doing the
right thing. The base situation in my state is also a serious matter
for me, and I'm going to make sure I'm doing the right thing there."

Read More...

With the Gloves Off

NY Times
With the Gloves Off

By BOB HERBERT

A photo of President Bush gingerly holding a month-old baby was on the front
page of yesterday's New York Times. Mr. Bush is in the habit of telling
us how precious he thinks life is, all life.

The story was about legislation concerning embryonic stem cell research
, and it
included a comment from Tom DeLay urging Americans to reject "the
treacherous notion that while all human lives are sacred, some are more
sacred than others."

Ahh, pretty words. Now I wonder when Mr. Bush and Mr. DeLay will find
the time to address - or rather, to denounce - the depraved ways in
which the United States has dealt with so many of the thousands of
people (many of them completely innocent) who have been swept up in the
so-called war on terror.

People have been murdered, tortured, rendered to foreign countries to
be tortured at a distance, sexually violated, imprisoned without trial
or in some cases simply made to "disappear" in an all-American version
of a practice previously associated with brutal Latin American
dictatorships. All of this has been done, of course, in the name of
freedom.

The government would prefer to keep these matters secret, but we're
living in a digital age of near-instantaneous communication. Evidence
of atrocities tend to emerge sooner rather than later, frequently
illustrated with color photos or videos.



A recent report from Physicians for Human Rights is the first to
comprehensively examine the use of psychological torture by Americans
against detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The
employment of psychological torture, the report says, was a direct
result of decisions developed by civilian and military leaders to "take
the gloves off" during interrogations and "break" prisoners through the
use of techniques like "sensory deprivation, isolation, sleep
deprivation, forced nudity, the use of military working dogs to instill
fear, cultural and sexual humiliation, mock executions, and the threat
of violence or death toward detainees or their loved ones."

"Although the evidence is far from complete," the report says, "what is
known warrants the inference that psychological torture was central to
the interrogation process and reinforced through conditions of
confinement."

In other words, this insidious and deeply inhumane practice was not the
work of a few bad apples. As we have seen from many other
investigations, the abuses flowed inexorably from policies promulgated
at the highest levels of government.

Warfare, when absolutely unavoidable, is one thing. But it's a little
difficult to understand how these kinds of profoundly dehumanizing
practices - not to mention the physical torture we've heard so much
about - could be enthusiastically embraced by a government headed by
men who think all life is sacred. Either I'm missing something, or
President Bush, Tom DeLay and their ilk are fashioning whole new zones
of hypocrisy for Americans to inhabit.

There's nothing benign about psychological torture. The personality of
the victim can disintegrate entirely. Common effects include memory
impairment, nightmares, hallucinations, acute stress disorder and
severe depression with vegetative symptoms. The damage can last for
many years.

Torturing prisoners, rather than making the U.S. safer, puts us all in
greater danger. The abuses of detainees at places like Guantánamo and
the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have come to define the United States in
the minds of many Muslims and others around the world. And the world
has caught on that large percentages of the people swept up and
incarcerated as terrorists by the U.S. were in fact innocent of
wrongdoing and had no connection to terrorism at all.

Bitterness against the U.S. has increased exponentially since the
initial disclosures about the abuse of detainees. What's the upside of
policies that demean the U.S. in the eyes of the world while at the
same time making us less rather than more secure?

The government, like an addict in denial, will not even admit that we
have a problem.

"We're in this Orwellian situation," said Leonard Rubenstein, the
executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, "where the
statements by the administration, by the president, are unequivocal:
that the United States does not participate in, or condone, torture.
And yet it has engaged in legal interpretations and interrogation
policies that undermine that absolutist stance."

E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

Read More...

Administration Has Eroded U.S. Moral Authority on Human Rights

americanprogressaction.org

Administration Has Eroded U.S. Moral Authority on Human Rights

FBI documents released yesterday provide detailed summaries of alleged abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba including physical abuse and disrespectful use of the Koran. Although these stories have not been fully corroborated, they come on the heels of the disclosure of other FBI documents that include eyewitness accounts by FBI agents of harsh and potentially illegal interrogations at the camp. In another development, Amnesty International, the renowned human rights organization, released a hard-hitting report accusing the Bush administration of condoning “atrocious” violations of human rights at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Make no mistake about it: America’s moral authority has been seriously eroded by the administration’s handling of prisoners.


* The Bush administration has condoned torture and abuse of prisoners. The Amnesty report details how the U.S. has systematically evaded its obligations under human rights accords and justified illegal, abusive interrogation techniques of prisoners. The administration’s “rendition” of prisoners to countries known for torture makes a mockery of the administration’s claim to uphold the rule of law and promote the “cause of liberty” throughout the world.

* The administration’s blatant disregard for human rights has undermined U.S. standing in the world and fostered a culture of widespread abuse in other countries. The U.S. has been the world’s leading moral and legal authority throughout much of its history. But the administration’s blatant disregard for our own ethical standards and commitment to international law is now being used by other countries as justification for their own human rights abuses. Their rationale is not hard to figure out: “If the U.S. says it’s okay to string up prisoners with electrical wires and use all forms of psychological and physical abuse, then it must be okay for us as well.”

* Congress must appoint a genuinely independent and impartial commission to investigate the administration’s handling of prisoners. The administration cannot be trusted to honestly and thoroughly investigate its own actions on human rights. Congress must exercise its independent authority to check the executive branch’s behavior in these matters. America’s moral authority will not be restored unless we fully investigate all allegations of torture and appropriately punish all those who bear responsibility for this shameful part of our recent history.

Read More...

"Liberal Media" is a myth

theopedpage.blogspot.com

"Liberal Media" is a myth
by Richard Kuper

It's time, once and for all, to end the fallacious term "Liberal Media" when describing the US Press.



Read the full article here:
http://theopedpage.blogspot.com/2005/05/liberal-media-is-myth.html

Read More...

The Secret Way to War

The New York Review of Books
Volume 52, Number 10 · June 9, 2005

The Secret Way to War
By Mark Danner
1.

It was October 16, 2002, and the United States Congress had just voted to authorize the President to go to war against Iraq. When George W. Bush came before members of his Cabinet and Congress gathered in the East Room of the White House and addressed the American people, he was in a somber mood befitting a leader speaking frankly to free citizens about the gravest decision their country could make.

The 107th Congress, the President said, had just become "one of the few called by history to authorize military action to defend our country and the cause of peace." But, he hastened to add, no one should assume that war was inevitable. Though "Congress has now authorized the use of force," the President said emphatically, "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary." The President went on:

Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America. Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action. Yet, if Iraq is to avoid military action by the international community, it has the obligation to prove compliance with all the world's demands. It's the obligation of Iraq.

Iraq, the President said, still had the power to prevent war by "declaring and destroying all its weapons of mass destruction"—but if Iraq did not declare and destroy those weapons, the President warned, the United States would "go into battle, as a last resort."

It is safe to say that, at the time, it surprised almost no one when the Iraqis answered the President's demand by repeating their claim that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction. As we now know, the Iraqis had in fact destroyed these weapons, probably years before George W. Bush's ultimatum: "the Iraqis"—in the words of chief US weapons inspector David Kay—"were telling the truth."

As Americans watch their young men and women fighting in the third year of a bloody counterinsurgency war in Iraq—a war that has now killed more than 1,600 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis—they are left to ponder "the unanswered question" of what would have happened if the United Nations weapons inspectors had been allowed—as all the major powers except the United Kingdom had urged they should be—to complete their work. What would have happened if the UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to prove, before the US went "into battle," what David Kay and his colleagues finally proved afterward?

Thanks to a formerly secret memorandum published by the London Sunday Times on May 1, during the run-up to the British elections, we now have a partial answer to that question. The memo, which records the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair's senior foreign policy and security officials, shows that even as President Bush told Americans in October 2002 that he "hope[d] the use of force will not become necessary"—that such a decision depended on whether or not the Iraqis complied with his demands to rid themselves of their weapons of mass destruction—the President had in fact already definitively decided, at least three months before, to choose this "last resort" of going "into battle" with Iraq. Whatever the Iraqis chose to do or not do, the President's decision to go to war had long since been made.


On July 23, 2002, eight months before American and British forces invaded, senior British officials met with Prime Minister Tony Blair to discuss Iraq. The gathering, similar to an American "principals meeting," brought together Geoffrey Hoon, the defense secretary; Jack Straw, the foreign secretary; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general; John Scarlett, the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which advises the prime minister; Sir Richard Dearlove, also known as "C," the head of MI6 (the equivalent of the CIA); David Manning, the equivalent of the national security adviser; Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the Defense Staff (or CDS, equivalent to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs); Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Alastair Campbell, director of strategy (Blair's communications and political adviser); and Sally Morgan, director of government relations.

After John Scarlett began the meeting with a summary of intelligence on Iraq—notably, that "the regime was tough and based on extreme fear" and that thus the "only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action," "C" offered a report on his visit to Washington, where he had conducted talks with George Tenet, his counterpart at the CIA, and other high officials. This passage is worth quoting in full:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Seen from today's perspective this short paragraph is a strikingly clear template for the future, establishing these points:

1. By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

2. Bush had decided to "justify" the war "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."

3. Already "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

4. Many at the top of the administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going "the UN route").

5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war.

We have long known, thanks to Bob Woodward and others, that military planning for the Iraq war began as early as November 21, 2001, after the President ordered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to look at "what it would take to protect America by removing Saddam Hussein if we have to," and that Secretary Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks, who headed Central Command, were briefing American senior officials on the progress of military planning during the late spring and summer of 2002; indeed, a few days after the meeting in London leaks about specific plans for a possible Iraq war appeared on the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

What the Downing Street memo confirms for the first time is that President Bush had decided, no later than July 2002, to "remove Saddam, through military action," that war with Iraq was "inevitable"—and that what remained was simply to establish and develop the modalities of justification; that is, to come up with a means of "justifying" the war and "fixing" the "intelligence and facts...around the policy." The great value of the discussion recounted in the memo, then, is to show, for the governments of both countries, a clear hierarchy of decision-making. By July 2002 at the latest, war had been decided on; the question at issue now was how to justify it—how to "fix," as it were, what Blair will later call "the political context." Specifically, though by this point in July the President had decided to go to war, he had not yet decided to go to the United Nations and demand inspectors; indeed, as "C" points out, those on the National Security Council—the senior security officials of the US government—"had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusi-asm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record." This would later change, largely as a result of the political concerns of these very people gathered together at 10 Downing Street.

After Admiral Boyce offered a brief discussion of the war plans then on the table and the defense secretary said a word or two about timing—"the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections"—Foreign Secretary Jack Straw got to the heart of the matter: not whether or not to invade Iraq but how to justify such an invasion:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss [the timing of the war] with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Given that Saddam was not threatening to attack his neighbors and that his weapons of mass destruction program was less extensive than those of a number of other countries, how does one justify attacking? Foreign Secretary Straw had an idea:

We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The British realized they needed "help with the legal justification for the use of force" because, as the attorney general pointed out, rather dryly, "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action." Which is to say, the simple desire to overthrow the leadership of a given sovereign country does not make it legal to invade that country; on the contrary. And, said the attorney general, of the "three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or [United Nations Security Council] authorization," the first two "could not be the base in this case." In other words, Iraq was not attacking the United States or the United Kingdom, so the leaders could not claim to be acting in self-defense; nor was Iraq's leadership in the process of committing genocide, so the United States and the United Kingdom could not claim to be invading for humanitarian reasons.[1] This left Security Council authorization as the only conceivable legal justification for war. But how to get it?

At this point in the meeting Prime Minister Tony Blair weighed in. He had heard his foreign minister's suggestion about drafting an ultimatum demanding that Saddam let back in the United Nations inspectors. Such an ultimatum could be politically critical, said Blair—but only if the Iraqi leader turned it down:

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD.... If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

Here the inspectors were introduced, but as a means to create the missing casus belli. If the UN could be made to agree on an ultimatum that Saddam accept inspectors, and if Saddam then refused to accept them, the Americans and the British would be well on their way to having a legal justification to go to war (the attorney general's third alternative of UN Security Council authorization).

Thus, the idea of UN inspectors was introduced not as a means to avoid war, as President Bush repeatedly assured Americans, but as a means to make war possible. War had been decided on; the problem under discussion here was how to make, in the prime minister's words, "the political context ...right." The "political strategy"—at the center of which, as with the Americans, was weapons of mass destruction, for "it was the regime that was producing the WMD"—must be strong enough to give "the military plan the space to work." Which is to say, once the allies were victorious the war would justify itself. The demand that Iraq accept UN inspectors, especially if refused, could form the political bridge by which the allies could reach their goal: "regime change" through "military action."

But there was a problem: as the foreign secretary pointed out, "on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences." While the British considered legal justification for going to war critical—they, unlike the Americans, were members of the International Criminal Court—the Americans did not. Mr. Straw suggested that given "US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum." The defense secretary, Geoffrey Hoon, was more blunt, arguing

that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

The key negotiation in view at this point, in other words, was not with Saddam over letting in the United Nations inspectors—both parties hoped he would refuse to admit them, and thus provide the justification for invading. The key negotiation would be between the Americans, who had shown "resistance" to the idea of involving the United Nations at all, and the British, who were more concerned than their American cousins about having some kind of legal fig leaf for attacking Iraq. Three weeks later, Foreign Secretary Straw arrived in the Hamptons to "discreetly explore the ultimatum" with Secretary of State Powell, perhaps the only senior American official who shared some of the British concerns; as Straw told the secretary, in Bob Woodward's account, "If you are really thinking about war and you want us Brits to be a player, we cannot be unless you go to the United Nations."[2]
2.

Britain's strong support for the "UN route" that most American officials so distrusted was critical in helping Powell in the bureaucratic battle over going to the United Nations. As late as August 26, Vice President Dick Cheney had appeared before a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and publicly denounced "the UN route." Asserting that "simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction [and] there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," Cheney advanced the view that going to the United Nations would itself be dangerous:

A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with UN resolutions. On the contrary, there is great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow "back in the box."

Cheney, like other administration "hard-liners," feared "the UN route" not because it might fail but because it might succeed and thereby prevent a war that they were convinced had to be fought.

As Woodward recounts, it would finally take a personal visit by Blair on September 7 to persuade President Bush to go to the United Nations:

For Blair the immediate question was, Would the United Nations be used? He was keenly aware that in Britain the question was, Does Blair believe in the UN? It was critical domestically for the prime minister to show his own Labour Party, a pacifist party at heart, opposed to war in principle, that he had gone the UN route. Public opinion in the UK favored trying to make international institutions work before resorting to force. Going through the UN would be a large and much-needed plus.[3]

The President now told Blair that he had decided "to go to the UN" and the prime minister, according to Woodward, "was relieved." After the session with Blair, Bush later recounts to Woodward, he walked into a conference room and told the British officials gathered there that "your man has got cojones." ("And of course these Brits don't know what cojones are," Bush tells Woodward.) Henceforth this particular conference with Blair would be known, Bush declares, as "the cojones meeting."

That September the attempt to sell the war began in earnest, for, as White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card had told The New York Times in an unusually candid moment, "You don't roll out a new product in August." At the heart of the sales campaign was the United Nations. Thanks in substantial part to Blair's prodding, George W. Bush would come before the UN General Assembly on September 12 and, after denouncing the Iraqi regime, announce that "we will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions." The main phase of public diplomacy—giving the war a "political context," in Blair's phrase—had begun. Though "the UN route" would be styled as an attempt to avoid war, its essence, as the Downing Street memo makes clear, was a strategy to make the war possible, partly by making it politically palatable.

As it turned out, however—and as Cheney and others had feared—the "UN route" to war was by no means smooth, or direct.

Though Powell managed the considerable feat of securing unanimous approval for Security Council Resolution 1441, winning even Syria's sup-port, the allies differed on the key question of whether or not the resolution gave United Nations approval for the use of force against Saddam, as the Americans contended, or whether a second resolution would be required, as the majority of the council, and even the British, conceded it would. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the UN, put this position bluntly on November 8, the day Resolution 1441 was passed:

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers"— the concerns that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action.... Let me be equally clear.... There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required.... We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.

Vice President Cheney could have expected no worse. Having decided to travel down "the UN route," the Americans and British would now need a second resolution to gain the necessary approval to attack Iraq. Worse, Saddam frustrated British and American hopes, as articulated by Blair in the July 23 meeting, that he would simply refuse to admit the inspectors and thereby offer the allies an immediate casus belli. Instead, hundreds of inspectors entered Iraq, began to search, and found...nothing. January, which Defence Secretary Hoon had suggested was the "most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin," came and went, and the inspectors went on searching.

On the Security Council, a majority —led by France, Germany, and Russia —would push for the inspections to run their course. President Jacques Chirac of France later put this argument succinctly in an interview with CBS and CNN just as the war was about to begin:

France is not pacifist. We are not anti-American either. We are not just going to use our veto to nag and annoy the US. But we just feel that there is another option, another way, another more normal way, a less dramatic way than war, and that we have to go through that path. And we should pursue it until we've come [to] a dead end, but that isn't the case.[4]

Where would this "dead end" be found, however, and who would determine that it had been found? Would it be the French, or the Americans? The logical flaw that threatened the administration's policy now began to become clear. Had the inspectors found weapons, or had they been presented with them by Saddam Hussein, many who had supported the resolution would argue that the inspections regime it established had indeed begun to work—that by multilateral action the world was succeeding, peacefully, in "disarming Iraq." As long as the inspectors found no weapons, however, many would argue that the inspectors "must be given time to do their work" —until, in Chirac's words, they "came to a dead end." However that point might be determined, it is likely that, long before it was reached, the failure to find weapons would have undermined the administration's central argument for going to war—"the conjunction," as 'C' had put it that morning in July, "of terrorism and WMD." And as we now know, the inspectors would never have found weapons of mass destruction.

Vice President Cheney had anticipated this problem, as he had explained frankly to Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, during an October 30 meeting in the White House. Cheney, according to Blix,

stated the position that inspections, if they do not give results, cannot go on forever, and said the US was "ready to discredit inspections in favor of disarmament." A pretty straight way, I thought, of saying that if we did not soon find the weapons of mass destruction that the US was convinced Iraq possessed (though they did not know where), the US would be ready to say that the inspectors were useless and embark on disarmament by other means.[5]

Indeed, the inspectors' failure to find any evidence of weapons came in the wake of a very large effort launched by the administration to put before the world evidence of Saddam's arsenal, an effort spearheaded by George W. Bush's speech in Cincinnati on October 7, and followed by a series of increasingly lurid disclosures to the press that reached a crescendo with Colin Powell's multimedia presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003. Throughout the fall and winter, the administration had "rolled out the product," in Card's phrase, with great skill, making use of television, radio, and all the print press to get its message out about the imminent threat of Saddam's arsenal. ("Think of the press," advised Josef Goebbels, "as a great keyboard on which the government can play.")

As the gap between administration rhetoric about enormous arsenals— "we know where they are," asserted Donald Rumsfeld—and the inspectors' empty hands grew wider, that gap, as Cheney had predicted, had the effect in many quarters of undermining the credibility of the United Nations process itself. The inspectors' failure to find weapons in Iraq was taken to discredit the worth of the inspections, rather than to cast doubt on the administration's contention that Saddam possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Oddly enough, Saddam's only effective strategy to prevent war at this point might have been to reveal and yield up some weapons, thus demonstrating to the world that the inspections were working. As we now know, however, he had no weapons to yield up. As Blix remarks, "It occurred to me [on March 7] that the Iraqis would be in greater difficulty if...there truly were no weapons of which they could 'yield possession.'" The fact that, in Blix's words, "the UN and the world had succeeded in disarming Iraq without knowing it"—that the UN process had been successful—meant, in effect, that the inspectors would be discredited and the United States would go to war.

President Bush would do so, of course, having failed to get the "second resolution" so desired by his friend and ally, Tony Blair. Blair had predicted, that July morning on Downing Street, that the "two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work." He seems to have been proved right in this. In the end his political strategy only half worked: the Security Council's refusal to vote a second resolution approving the use of force left "the UN route" discussed that day incomplete, and Blair found himself forced to follow the United States without the protection of international approval. Had the military plan "worked"—had the war been short and decisive rather than long, bloody, and inconclusive—Blair would perhaps have escaped the political damage the war has caused him. A week after the Downing Street memo was published in the Sunday Times, Tony Blair was reelected, but his majority in Parliament was reduced, from 161 to 67. The Iraq war, and the damage it had done to his reputation for probity, was widely believed to have been a principal cause.

In the United States, on the other hand, the Downing Street memorandum has attracted little attention. As I write, no American newspaper has published it and few writers have bothered to comment on it. The war continues, and Americans have grown weary of it; few seem much interested now in discussing how it began, and why their country came to fight a war in the cause of destroying weapons that turned out not to exist. For those who want answers, the Bush administration has followed a simple and heretofore largely successful policy: blame the intelligence agencies. Since "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" as early as July 2002 (as "C," the head of British intelligence, reported upon his return from Washington), it seems a matter of remarkable hubris, even for this administration, that its officials now explain their misjudgments in going to war by blaming them on "intelligence failures"—that is, on the intelligence that they themselves politicized. Still, for the most part, Congress has cooperated. Though the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the failures of the CIA and other agencies before the war, a promised second report that was to take up the administration's political use of intelligence—which is, after all, the critical issue—was postponed until after the 2004 elections, then quietly abandoned.

In the end, the Downing Street memo, and Americans' lack of interest in what it shows, has to do with a certain attitude about facts, or rather about where the line should be drawn between facts and political opinion. It calls to mind an interesting observation that an unnamed "senior advisor" to President Bush made to a New York Times Magazine reporter last fall:

The aide said that guys like me [i.e., reporters and commentators] were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[6]

Though this seems on its face to be a disquisition on religion and faith, it is of course an argument about power, and its influence on truth. Power, the argument runs, can shape truth: power, in the end, can determine reality, or at least the reality that most people accept—a critical point, for the administration has been singularly effective in its recognition that what is most politically important is not what readers of The New York Times believe but what most Americans are willing to believe. The last century's most innovative authority on power and truth, Joseph Goebbels, made the same point but rather more directly:

There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be "the man in the street." Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.

I thought of this quotation when I first read the Downing Street memorandum; but I had first looked it up several months earlier, on December 14, 2004, after I had seen the images of the newly reelected President George W. Bush awarding the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor the United States can bestow, to George Tenet, the former director of central intelligence; L. Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq; and General (ret.) Tommy Franks, the commander who had led American forces during the first phase of the Iraq war. Tenet, of course, would be known to history as the intelligence director who had failed to detect and prevent the attacks of September 11 and the man who had assured President Bush that the case for Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk." Franks had allowed the looting of Baghdad and had generally done little to prepare for what would come after the taking of Baghdad. ("There was little discussion in Washington," as "C" told the Prime Minister on July 23, "of the aftermath after military action.") Bremer had dissolved the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police and thereby created 400,000 or so available recruits for the insurgency. One might debate their ultimate responsibility for these grave errors, but it is difficult to argue that these officials merited the highest recognition the country could offer.

Of course truth, as the master propagandist said, is "unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology." He of course would have instantly grasped the psychological tactic embodied in that White House ceremony, which was one more effort to reassure Americans that the war the administration launched against Iraq has been a success and was worth fighting. That barely four Americans in ten are still willing to believe this suggests that as time goes on and the gap grows between what Americans see and what they are told, membership in the "reality-based community" may grow along with it. We will see. Still, for those interested in the question of how our leaders persuaded the country to become embroiled in a counterinsurgency war in Iraq, the Downing Street memorandum offers one more confirmation of the truth. For those, that is, who want to hear.

—May 12, 2005
The Secret Downing Street Memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL
—UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August. The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: selfdefence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMDwere linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions. For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You [i.e., David Manning] said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN. John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam. He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT
Notes

[1] The latter charge might have been given as a reason for intervention in 1988, for example, when the Iraqi regime was carrying out its Anfal campaign against the Kurds; at that time, though, the Reagan administration— comprising many of the same officials who would later lead the invasion of Iraq—was supporting Saddam in his war against Iran and kept largely silent. The second major killing campaign of the Saddam regime came in 1991, when Iraqi troops attacked Shiites in the south who had rebelled against the regime in the wake of Saddam's defeat in the Gulf War; the first Bush administration, despite President George H.W. Bush's urging Iraqis to "rise up against the dictator, Saddam Hussein," and despite the presence of hundreds of thousands of American troops within miles of the killing, stood by and did nothing. See Ken Roth, "War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention" (Human Rights Watch, January 2004).

[2] See Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack (Simon and Schuster, 2004), p. 162.

[3] See Woodward, Plan of Attack, pp. 177–178.

[4] See "Chirac Makes His Case on Iraq," an interview with Christiane Amanpour, CBS News, March 16, 2003.

[5] See Hans Blix, Disarming Iraq (Pantheon, 2004), p. 86.

[6] See Ron Suskind, "Without a Doubt," The New York Times Magazine, October 17, 2004.

Read More...