Reuters
Bush's pick for Justice Dept. job withdraws name
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Timothy Flanigan, who faced more questions from Senate Democrats about his links with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, has withdrawn his nomination for the Justice Department's No. 2 job, according to a letter to President George W. Bush released on Friday.
Flanigan, a senior lawyer for Tyco International Ltd. who had been chosen by Bush in May to be deputy attorney general, cited the continuing uncertainty over when he might be confirmed.
"Uncertainty concerning the timing of my confirmation affects not only the department, but also my family and my employer, who have been very patient in the intervening months," he said in his three-paragraph letter to Bush.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which had been considering Flanigan's nomination, had sought a new round of questioning of Flanigan about his contacts with Abramoff.
Democrats also raised concern about his nomination because of Flanigan's role in developing Bush administration policy allowing aggressive interrogation of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his lack of experience as a prosecutor.
Flanigan had initially said that due to attorney-client privilege, he could not speak about details of his relationship with Abramoff, a lobbyist whose firm, Greenberg Traurig, had been hired by Tyco.
But Flanigan later said Tyco had authorized "limited disclosures" regarding the company's relationship with Greenberg Traurig.
Abramoff, who has been under investigation by the Justice Department, pleaded not guilty last month to federal charges in Miami that he defrauded lenders in a casino cruise line deal.
Abramoff is a key figure in ethics probes involving former House Republican Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas congressman. DeLay faces charges in a separate case brought In Texas, and he stepped down from his House leadership position after he was charged.
Flanigan and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales worked together in the White House counsel's office after Bush was elected in 2000.
Gonzales called Flanigan's withdrawal disappointing. He was unable to say how long it would take to find another nominee. Flanigan had been nominated to replace James Comey, who left the Justice Department in August.
Democrats criticized the nomination because Gonzales, Flanigan and the head of the Justice Department's criminal division have never been prosecutors.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, said there had been serious doubts about Flanigan's qualifications for the job.
"Mr. Flanigan has no experience as a prosecutor, a characteristic that has become all too common in the leadership of the Justice Department," the Vermont Democrat said.
Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, recommended that Bush nominate a career prosecutor with managerial experience.
"Hopefully the president realizes that this country needs individuals in government who are chosen on the merits, not on ideology or political connections," said Schumer, a Judiciary Committee member.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
House narrowly approves bill to help US refineries
Reuters
House narrowly approves bill to help US refineries
By Chris Baltimore
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a cliffhanger vote held open by Republican leaders until they won, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by two votes on Friday a bill giving U.S. oil refineries incentives to expand.
The legislation, written by Republican Joe Barton of Texas, was barely approved, 212-210, even after Barton dropped a White House-backed provision that would have gutted clean air rules for refineries to expand existing plants.
The bill wants to add 2 million barrels per day of capacity by offering abandoned military bases for refinery construction sites. It also gives federal insurance to refiners whose projects are delayed by lawsuits or regulatory snags, and puts the Energy Department in charge of processing permits.
President George W. Bush commended passage of the bill.
"No refineries have been built in our Nation since 1976, and the recent disruptions in supply from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have demonstrated that additional refining capacity is critically needed," Bush said in a statement.
It was the first major House vote since Texan Tom DeLay was forced to step down as majority leader after being indicted on felony charges. Republicans won in a roll call vote that ran 44 minutes, far beyond the allotted five minutes.
Some 13 Republicans, mostly from Northeast states, ultimately voted with 196 Democrats and 1 independent against the bill. No Democrats voted for it.
Democrats in the chamber chanted "shame, shame, shame" as the final tally was announced.
When over two dozen Republicans initially voted no, DeLay, Barton, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and new Majority Leader Roy Blunt circled the chamber to cajole holdouts.
Republican Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland was the last to switch. With the tally stuck at 211-211, Gilchrest changed his vote, making it 212-210. Barton promptly shook his hand and Republican Mike Simpson, who presided over the vote, gaveled it to an end.
The rapidly shifting vote kept even senior Republicans at sea. "I didn't know what to expect," Hastert said afterward.
Several Democrats protested that the vote was held open. "I am informed that every member of Congress who is in town has voted," Democratic whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said at one point, when the tally was 210 yes, 214 no.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi also complained, saying the proceedings brought "dishonor to the House."
The bill was prompted by hurricanes Rita and Katrina, which plowed through the heart of the U.S. energy producing region and shut offshore drilling rigs and refineries.
Its most controversial item would have deleted part of the Clean Air Act known as "new source review" that requires costly new equipment to cut emissions when refineries and coal-fired power plants expand. Barton dropped it from the bill because of opposition from Democrats and moderate Republicans.
That plan "clearly needed more time for hearings" and could be considered by the House later this year, Blunt said.
The Bush administration said it supported the bill.
No new U.S. refinery has been built since 1976 and dozens of plants have been closed despite rising fuel consumption.
"We haven't built a new refinery in a generation. We need more," said Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan Republican.
Democrats say refiners are loath to build new facilities amid record-high profits, while Republicans say permitting and environmental requirements keep them from expanding.
Democrats were unsuccessful in pushing an alternate bill that would create spare refineries that the federal government could activate during gasoline shortages.
The House also blocked a bipartisan plan by Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Sherwood Boehlert of New York to require an 8-mile-per-gallon rise in vehicle mileage to curb gasoline demand.
Other provisions in the bill include:
* Expanding Northeast Heating Oil Reserve to 5 million barrels, from current 2 million barrels;
* Limiting anti-pollution gasoline blends to six, from the current 17;
* Requiring FTC to prepare a report on the price of gasoline and heating oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange;
* Waives federal, state and local fuel additive requirements after a natural disaster that disrupts supplies;
* Gives Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to monitor offshore gas gathering lines to prevent anti-competitive practices.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell) LINKS: *TAKE A LOOK-Energy recovers from hurricanes *FACTBOX-Congress drafts post-hurricane laws *Bush pushes for oil refinery construction
House narrowly approves bill to help US refineries
By Chris Baltimore
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a cliffhanger vote held open by Republican leaders until they won, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by two votes on Friday a bill giving U.S. oil refineries incentives to expand.
The legislation, written by Republican Joe Barton of Texas, was barely approved, 212-210, even after Barton dropped a White House-backed provision that would have gutted clean air rules for refineries to expand existing plants.
The bill wants to add 2 million barrels per day of capacity by offering abandoned military bases for refinery construction sites. It also gives federal insurance to refiners whose projects are delayed by lawsuits or regulatory snags, and puts the Energy Department in charge of processing permits.
President George W. Bush commended passage of the bill.
"No refineries have been built in our Nation since 1976, and the recent disruptions in supply from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have demonstrated that additional refining capacity is critically needed," Bush said in a statement.
It was the first major House vote since Texan Tom DeLay was forced to step down as majority leader after being indicted on felony charges. Republicans won in a roll call vote that ran 44 minutes, far beyond the allotted five minutes.
Some 13 Republicans, mostly from Northeast states, ultimately voted with 196 Democrats and 1 independent against the bill. No Democrats voted for it.
Democrats in the chamber chanted "shame, shame, shame" as the final tally was announced.
When over two dozen Republicans initially voted no, DeLay, Barton, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and new Majority Leader Roy Blunt circled the chamber to cajole holdouts.
Republican Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland was the last to switch. With the tally stuck at 211-211, Gilchrest changed his vote, making it 212-210. Barton promptly shook his hand and Republican Mike Simpson, who presided over the vote, gaveled it to an end.
The rapidly shifting vote kept even senior Republicans at sea. "I didn't know what to expect," Hastert said afterward.
Several Democrats protested that the vote was held open. "I am informed that every member of Congress who is in town has voted," Democratic whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said at one point, when the tally was 210 yes, 214 no.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi also complained, saying the proceedings brought "dishonor to the House."
The bill was prompted by hurricanes Rita and Katrina, which plowed through the heart of the U.S. energy producing region and shut offshore drilling rigs and refineries.
Its most controversial item would have deleted part of the Clean Air Act known as "new source review" that requires costly new equipment to cut emissions when refineries and coal-fired power plants expand. Barton dropped it from the bill because of opposition from Democrats and moderate Republicans.
That plan "clearly needed more time for hearings" and could be considered by the House later this year, Blunt said.
The Bush administration said it supported the bill.
No new U.S. refinery has been built since 1976 and dozens of plants have been closed despite rising fuel consumption.
"We haven't built a new refinery in a generation. We need more," said Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan Republican.
Democrats say refiners are loath to build new facilities amid record-high profits, while Republicans say permitting and environmental requirements keep them from expanding.
Democrats were unsuccessful in pushing an alternate bill that would create spare refineries that the federal government could activate during gasoline shortages.
The House also blocked a bipartisan plan by Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Sherwood Boehlert of New York to require an 8-mile-per-gallon rise in vehicle mileage to curb gasoline demand.
Other provisions in the bill include:
* Expanding Northeast Heating Oil Reserve to 5 million barrels, from current 2 million barrels;
* Limiting anti-pollution gasoline blends to six, from the current 17;
* Requiring FTC to prepare a report on the price of gasoline and heating oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange;
* Waives federal, state and local fuel additive requirements after a natural disaster that disrupts supplies;
* Gives Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to monitor offshore gas gathering lines to prevent anti-competitive practices.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell) LINKS: *TAKE A LOOK-Energy recovers from hurricanes *FACTBOX-Congress drafts post-hurricane laws *Bush pushes for oil refinery construction
A Mess of George Bush's Own Making
The Nation
A Mess of George Bush's Own Making
John Nichols
It is fair to say that a good many Americans perceive George W. Bush to be a doltish incompetent who does not know the first thing about fighting terrorism.
But, whatever the president's actual level of competence may be, it is now clear that he has even less respect for the intelligence of the American people than his critics have for his cognitive capabilities.
As the president struggles this week to make a case for the staying the course that leads deeper into the quagmire that is Iraq, he is, remarkably, selling a warmed over version of the misguided take on terrorism that he peddled before this disasterous mission was launched.
Apparently working under the assumption that no one has been paying attention over the past two and a half years, Bush delivered a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy Thursday in which he dismissed calls for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. "Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now," the president argued, before concluding that, "It's a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?" That's a scary scenario. Unfortunately, it is one that the president created. And it is one that the president still fails to fully comprehend.
To hear the president tell it, the U.S. went to Iraq to combat bin Laden's al Qaida network.
The problem, of course, is that going to Iraq to confront al Qaida in 2003 was like going to the Vatican to confront Protestants.
Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party cadres were a lot of things, but they were never comrades, colleagues or hosts to the adherents of what Bush referred to in his speech as "Islamic radicalism," "militant jihadism" or "Islamo-fascism."
If any individuals on the planet feared and hated al Qaida, it was Hussein and his allies. The Iraqi Baathists were thugs, to be sure, but they were secularist thugs. Indeed, many of the most brutal acts of oppression carried out by the Iraqi regime targeted Islamic militants and governments aligned with the fundamentalists. The eight-year war between Iraq and Iran pitted the soldiers of Hussein's secular nationalism against the armies of the Ayatollah Khomeini's radical vision of Islam. That is why, while the United States remained officially neutral in the war that lasted from 1980 to 1988, it became an aggressive behind-the-scenes backer of Hussein. As part of that support, the U.S. State Department in 1982 removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. That step helped to ease the way for loans and other forms of aid -- such as the U.S. Agriculture Department's guaranteed loans to Iraq for purchases of American commodities. It also signaled to other countries and international agencies that the U.S. wanted them to provide aid to Hussein -- and if the signal was missed, the Reagan White House and State Department would make their sentiments clear, as happened when the administration lobbied the Export-Import Bank to improve Iraq's credit rating and provide it with needed financial assistance. If any lingering doubts about U.S. attitude remained, they were eased by the December 20, 1983, visit of Donald Rumsfeld, who was touring the Middle East as President Reagan's special envoy, for visits with Hussein and Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.
As it happened, the U.S. was reading Hussein right. In a region where the common catchphrase is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Hussein was not merely someone who was fighting a neighboring country. He was fighting the spread of the radical Islamic fundamentalism that the U.S. so feared because he was a committed secularist. Hussein promoted the education of women and put them in positions of power. Under Hussein, Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims enjoyed a greater measure of religious freedom than they have in most Middle Eastern countries in recent decades. Hussein included non-Muslims among his closest advisors, most notably Aziz, a Christian adherent of the Chaldean Catholic faith that remains rooted in Iraq. There was a paranoid passion to Hussein's secularism. He and his vast secret police network remained ever on the watch for evidence of Islamic militancy, and when it was found the response was swift and brutal. It was an awareness of the fact that Hussein was a bulwark against militant Islam that led key aides to President George H.W. Bush to argue against displacing him after the liberation of Kuwait by a U.S.-led force in 1991.
Nothing about Hussein's Baathist ideology changed during the 1990s. So it came as no surprise to anyone who knew the region that the 9/11 Commission, after aggressively investigating the matter, found no operational relationships existed between al Qaida and Iraq before the 2003 invasion that toppled Hussein.
Now, after having removed the bulwark against militant Islam, Bush describes an Iraq that is rapidly filling up with followers of al Qaida, and warns that the withdrawal of U.S. forces would allow the militants to "use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against nonradical Muslim governments."
What Bush did not say in his speech Thursday was that his own actions had created the dire circumstance he described.
If George Washington's mantra was that he could not tell a lie, George Bush's is that he cannot admit a mistake.
But the president's refusal to face reality has isolated him from those who are serious about fighting the spread of terrorism.
General Peter Cosgrove, the former head of Australia's Defense Forces, rejects the notion that staying the course is the smart response. In fact, the well-regarded former commander of the military of a key U.S. ally, says that withdrawal makes sense because it will "take one of the focal points of terrorist motivation away, and that is foreign troops."
It is Cosgrove who suggested the late 2006 withdrawal date that has been taken up by U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, the first member of the Senate to urge the development of an exit-strategy timeline.
For those who do not trusts the assessment of an Australian, consider that Porter Goss, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who says, "The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists. Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraq conflict to recruit new, anti-U.S. jihadists."
The president who argued that Iraq needed to be invaded in order to fight terrorism has instead opened up a new country to al Qaida's machinations.
The president who argued that the U.S. must continue to occupy Iraq in order to prevent the spread of terrorism has instead created a quagmire in which even the head of his own CIA says that the U.S. presence is being exploited by terrorists to recruit new, anti-U.S. jihadists.
Now, George Bush argues for staying the course.
Perhaps Osama bin Laden would agree with that strategy.
But the American people are wising up.
The latest Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll tells us that only 32 percent of those approve of Bush's handling of the war. A remarkable 59 percent now say that the invasion a mistake. And an even more remarkable 63 percent say they want to see some or all U.S. troops withdrawn.
John Nichols covered the first Gulf War and has frequently reported from the Middle East over the past two decades. For more of his analysis of the administration's misguided approach, check out his book The Rise and Rise of Dick Cheney, out in paperback November 2 from The New Press.
A Mess of George Bush's Own Making
John Nichols
It is fair to say that a good many Americans perceive George W. Bush to be a doltish incompetent who does not know the first thing about fighting terrorism.
But, whatever the president's actual level of competence may be, it is now clear that he has even less respect for the intelligence of the American people than his critics have for his cognitive capabilities.
As the president struggles this week to make a case for the staying the course that leads deeper into the quagmire that is Iraq, he is, remarkably, selling a warmed over version of the misguided take on terrorism that he peddled before this disasterous mission was launched.
Apparently working under the assumption that no one has been paying attention over the past two and a half years, Bush delivered a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy Thursday in which he dismissed calls for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. "Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now," the president argued, before concluding that, "It's a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?" That's a scary scenario. Unfortunately, it is one that the president created. And it is one that the president still fails to fully comprehend.
To hear the president tell it, the U.S. went to Iraq to combat bin Laden's al Qaida network.
The problem, of course, is that going to Iraq to confront al Qaida in 2003 was like going to the Vatican to confront Protestants.
Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party cadres were a lot of things, but they were never comrades, colleagues or hosts to the adherents of what Bush referred to in his speech as "Islamic radicalism," "militant jihadism" or "Islamo-fascism."
If any individuals on the planet feared and hated al Qaida, it was Hussein and his allies. The Iraqi Baathists were thugs, to be sure, but they were secularist thugs. Indeed, many of the most brutal acts of oppression carried out by the Iraqi regime targeted Islamic militants and governments aligned with the fundamentalists. The eight-year war between Iraq and Iran pitted the soldiers of Hussein's secular nationalism against the armies of the Ayatollah Khomeini's radical vision of Islam. That is why, while the United States remained officially neutral in the war that lasted from 1980 to 1988, it became an aggressive behind-the-scenes backer of Hussein. As part of that support, the U.S. State Department in 1982 removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. That step helped to ease the way for loans and other forms of aid -- such as the U.S. Agriculture Department's guaranteed loans to Iraq for purchases of American commodities. It also signaled to other countries and international agencies that the U.S. wanted them to provide aid to Hussein -- and if the signal was missed, the Reagan White House and State Department would make their sentiments clear, as happened when the administration lobbied the Export-Import Bank to improve Iraq's credit rating and provide it with needed financial assistance. If any lingering doubts about U.S. attitude remained, they were eased by the December 20, 1983, visit of Donald Rumsfeld, who was touring the Middle East as President Reagan's special envoy, for visits with Hussein and Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.
As it happened, the U.S. was reading Hussein right. In a region where the common catchphrase is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Hussein was not merely someone who was fighting a neighboring country. He was fighting the spread of the radical Islamic fundamentalism that the U.S. so feared because he was a committed secularist. Hussein promoted the education of women and put them in positions of power. Under Hussein, Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims enjoyed a greater measure of religious freedom than they have in most Middle Eastern countries in recent decades. Hussein included non-Muslims among his closest advisors, most notably Aziz, a Christian adherent of the Chaldean Catholic faith that remains rooted in Iraq. There was a paranoid passion to Hussein's secularism. He and his vast secret police network remained ever on the watch for evidence of Islamic militancy, and when it was found the response was swift and brutal. It was an awareness of the fact that Hussein was a bulwark against militant Islam that led key aides to President George H.W. Bush to argue against displacing him after the liberation of Kuwait by a U.S.-led force in 1991.
Nothing about Hussein's Baathist ideology changed during the 1990s. So it came as no surprise to anyone who knew the region that the 9/11 Commission, after aggressively investigating the matter, found no operational relationships existed between al Qaida and Iraq before the 2003 invasion that toppled Hussein.
Now, after having removed the bulwark against militant Islam, Bush describes an Iraq that is rapidly filling up with followers of al Qaida, and warns that the withdrawal of U.S. forces would allow the militants to "use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against nonradical Muslim governments."
What Bush did not say in his speech Thursday was that his own actions had created the dire circumstance he described.
If George Washington's mantra was that he could not tell a lie, George Bush's is that he cannot admit a mistake.
But the president's refusal to face reality has isolated him from those who are serious about fighting the spread of terrorism.
General Peter Cosgrove, the former head of Australia's Defense Forces, rejects the notion that staying the course is the smart response. In fact, the well-regarded former commander of the military of a key U.S. ally, says that withdrawal makes sense because it will "take one of the focal points of terrorist motivation away, and that is foreign troops."
It is Cosgrove who suggested the late 2006 withdrawal date that has been taken up by U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, the first member of the Senate to urge the development of an exit-strategy timeline.
For those who do not trusts the assessment of an Australian, consider that Porter Goss, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who says, "The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists. Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraq conflict to recruit new, anti-U.S. jihadists."
The president who argued that Iraq needed to be invaded in order to fight terrorism has instead opened up a new country to al Qaida's machinations.
The president who argued that the U.S. must continue to occupy Iraq in order to prevent the spread of terrorism has instead created a quagmire in which even the head of his own CIA says that the U.S. presence is being exploited by terrorists to recruit new, anti-U.S. jihadists.
Now, George Bush argues for staying the course.
Perhaps Osama bin Laden would agree with that strategy.
But the American people are wising up.
The latest Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll tells us that only 32 percent of those approve of Bush's handling of the war. A remarkable 59 percent now say that the invasion a mistake. And an even more remarkable 63 percent say they want to see some or all U.S. troops withdrawn.
John Nichols covered the first Gulf War and has frequently reported from the Middle East over the past two decades. For more of his analysis of the administration's misguided approach, check out his book The Rise and Rise of Dick Cheney, out in paperback November 2 from The New Press.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Can a Man Become President?
HuffingtonPost.com
Can a Man Become President?
Sherman Yellen
As one looks toward the next Presidential election, assuming that our democracy can survive this presidency, the question we often hear is "Can a woman become President?" This reflects upon the interest in Hillary Clinton and her ability to be elected in a Presidential race. A more pertinent question may be "Can a man become President?" In asking this, one is obliged to define what one means by a man, something far different from the male who currently occupies our White House.
Let's consider the last election. The perception was the George Bush was the more manly candidate. He spoke with a western twang, walked with a swagger, appeared to be decisive, and clearly had no use for the effete Eastern liberals, intellectuals, and the sissy boys who waffled about at the UN. Despite the fact that the twang and the swagger were cultivated by this Eastern prep school boy with Yale and Harvard degrees, Bush was considered the more "authentic" candidate by a great many voters and pundits who found John Kerry "inauthentic" with his educated Bostonian ways, actual war heroism, and his inability to take a stand and stick with it right or wrong for life. As one who would not want to sit down and share a beer with George Bush, or go windsailing with John Kerry, I have my own definition of "man" and I would like to apply it to the qualifications for our next President.
A real man should be capable of flip flopping on any issue at any time. It is an essential element in thinking and living. There is no way to grow as a man without changing one's mind from time to time. The inability to change an opinion when life and events prove your original opinion or decision wrong, is not a manly quality. It is the quality of those who prefer to be deluded by life, rather than taught by it. The best thing that could be said of Kerry, who ran an overly cautious, defensive campaign that lacked the courage he showed in life, was that Kerry flip flopped on the issues. It meant that he was a man capable of growth. Thank God for flip floppers. History shows that Lincoln was a champion flip flopper, changing his views on slavery as he developed in his life, Teddy Roosevelt was a flip flopper, a hunter who protected the environment, an American aristocrat who sought to protect the worker from the very ruling class he was born into, and protect industry from the trusts. FDR's elitist views were tempered by the times he lived in. Harry S. Truman, a small town man with a limited background was capable of making great decisions, based upon his ability to learn on the job, starting the movement towards Civil Rights in the military. George Bush can never flip flop. He cannot change his mind, because it is a lazy mind, incapable of the activity required for flip flopping which can be a wrenching experience. Between the flip and the flop is a lot of mental and moral activity. He is far from stupid, but lacks that curiosity which allows for growth and change. By "sticking to his guns" he thinks he is acting as a man should act, standing by his principles, while in fact all he demonstrates is his inability to tolerate change and the weakness of those principles.
A real man does not always have to "feel your pain" but he must be capable of alleviating it. Real men are healers. They are not towel snapping bullies like our President whose target is the poor, those least able to defend themselves. For all his failing, Jimmy Carter was a real man. His was an unlucky Presidency, but it was one in which the poor and the envivornment were given a chance to survive. His actions for peace and for building decent lives for the poor, following his Presidency, reveal a man who is driven by true religious feelings, not one who uses his religion to beat down the poor because "the poor will always be with us."
A real man values human life so highly that he cannot help but oppose those who make war, destroy gun control laws, and cheapen life by allowing fellow Americans to suffer in life destroying poverty. A real man is not threatened by the way other people live, be they gay, straight, atheist, zen Buddhist - he is content to live and let live - and support laws that broaden human freedom, not limit it.
A real man does not claim to reform Social Security by destroying it. He does not claim to advance our freedoms by limiting them. A real man knows he does not hold a patent on the truth but works towards finding the truth by examining the world, not feeding on his own beliefs. That takes courage, the quality that a real man must have.
Most of all a real man can say "I was wrong" and mean it. He can take responsibility for his actions and know that responsibility isn't just admitting to error, but seeking ways to remedy that error. In this way George W. Bush is not a real man and never will be. He can drink his beer, talk his baseball stats, walk the walk on aircraft carriers, and nothing that he can do will make him a real man unless he can now become a born again humanist, not a very likely prospect.
The question I raise can only be answered by the American people when they reexamine the notion of what real man is in the next election. Perhaps a real woman can be a better real man than those who now swagger across the national stage, actors playing leaders, or perhaps she will assume the posture of the fake men who preceded her, and she too will be compromised by the need to appear tough and never flip flop and call intellectual weakness moral strength. Can a woman become President? Maybe, if she is a real woman.
Can a Man Become President?
Sherman Yellen
As one looks toward the next Presidential election, assuming that our democracy can survive this presidency, the question we often hear is "Can a woman become President?" This reflects upon the interest in Hillary Clinton and her ability to be elected in a Presidential race. A more pertinent question may be "Can a man become President?" In asking this, one is obliged to define what one means by a man, something far different from the male who currently occupies our White House.
Let's consider the last election. The perception was the George Bush was the more manly candidate. He spoke with a western twang, walked with a swagger, appeared to be decisive, and clearly had no use for the effete Eastern liberals, intellectuals, and the sissy boys who waffled about at the UN. Despite the fact that the twang and the swagger were cultivated by this Eastern prep school boy with Yale and Harvard degrees, Bush was considered the more "authentic" candidate by a great many voters and pundits who found John Kerry "inauthentic" with his educated Bostonian ways, actual war heroism, and his inability to take a stand and stick with it right or wrong for life. As one who would not want to sit down and share a beer with George Bush, or go windsailing with John Kerry, I have my own definition of "man" and I would like to apply it to the qualifications for our next President.
A real man should be capable of flip flopping on any issue at any time. It is an essential element in thinking and living. There is no way to grow as a man without changing one's mind from time to time. The inability to change an opinion when life and events prove your original opinion or decision wrong, is not a manly quality. It is the quality of those who prefer to be deluded by life, rather than taught by it. The best thing that could be said of Kerry, who ran an overly cautious, defensive campaign that lacked the courage he showed in life, was that Kerry flip flopped on the issues. It meant that he was a man capable of growth. Thank God for flip floppers. History shows that Lincoln was a champion flip flopper, changing his views on slavery as he developed in his life, Teddy Roosevelt was a flip flopper, a hunter who protected the environment, an American aristocrat who sought to protect the worker from the very ruling class he was born into, and protect industry from the trusts. FDR's elitist views were tempered by the times he lived in. Harry S. Truman, a small town man with a limited background was capable of making great decisions, based upon his ability to learn on the job, starting the movement towards Civil Rights in the military. George Bush can never flip flop. He cannot change his mind, because it is a lazy mind, incapable of the activity required for flip flopping which can be a wrenching experience. Between the flip and the flop is a lot of mental and moral activity. He is far from stupid, but lacks that curiosity which allows for growth and change. By "sticking to his guns" he thinks he is acting as a man should act, standing by his principles, while in fact all he demonstrates is his inability to tolerate change and the weakness of those principles.
A real man does not always have to "feel your pain" but he must be capable of alleviating it. Real men are healers. They are not towel snapping bullies like our President whose target is the poor, those least able to defend themselves. For all his failing, Jimmy Carter was a real man. His was an unlucky Presidency, but it was one in which the poor and the envivornment were given a chance to survive. His actions for peace and for building decent lives for the poor, following his Presidency, reveal a man who is driven by true religious feelings, not one who uses his religion to beat down the poor because "the poor will always be with us."
A real man values human life so highly that he cannot help but oppose those who make war, destroy gun control laws, and cheapen life by allowing fellow Americans to suffer in life destroying poverty. A real man is not threatened by the way other people live, be they gay, straight, atheist, zen Buddhist - he is content to live and let live - and support laws that broaden human freedom, not limit it.
A real man does not claim to reform Social Security by destroying it. He does not claim to advance our freedoms by limiting them. A real man knows he does not hold a patent on the truth but works towards finding the truth by examining the world, not feeding on his own beliefs. That takes courage, the quality that a real man must have.
Most of all a real man can say "I was wrong" and mean it. He can take responsibility for his actions and know that responsibility isn't just admitting to error, but seeking ways to remedy that error. In this way George W. Bush is not a real man and never will be. He can drink his beer, talk his baseball stats, walk the walk on aircraft carriers, and nothing that he can do will make him a real man unless he can now become a born again humanist, not a very likely prospect.
The question I raise can only be answered by the American people when they reexamine the notion of what real man is in the next election. Perhaps a real woman can be a better real man than those who now swagger across the national stage, actors playing leaders, or perhaps she will assume the posture of the fake men who preceded her, and she too will be compromised by the need to appear tough and never flip flop and call intellectual weakness moral strength. Can a woman become President? Maybe, if she is a real woman.
All Those Al Qaeda Number Twos: Get Me a Consultant!
HuffingtonPost.com
All Those Al Qaeda Number Twos: Get Me a Consultant!
RJ Eskow
With all these captured or killed Number Twos and Threes we keep hearing about, Al Qaeda must have more Vice Presidents than an ad agency. Bet there are some nasty fights over office (or cave) size. They wouldn’t have name plates on the doors, though, would they? I’ve heard Disney doesn’t, either.
(Hmmm …) While today’s New York scare and all the “Number Two” claims raise the usual questions about government credibility, maybe the explanation is simpler: the terrorists have a management problem.
Al Qaeda seems to be a top-heavy organization, like Enron. So all those local “franchises” we keep hearing about must be getting hit with some heavy corporate overhead. Somebody’s paying the cost for all these Number Twos, and you know the kind of friction that can create. Soon the guys in the field start resenting the Home Office, and the snide, half-whispered comments begin - “I’m from Corporate and I’m here to help,” ha ha. “Why are Corporate guys like pigeons? Because they fly in, crap on everything, and fly out again.” Boy, if the water coolers at the branch office could talk ...
Now Michael Bloomberg – who certainly knows how to run a company – says there’s a terror threat in New York, but officials in Washington disagree. The Feds say the Iraq-based source of the New York threat isn’t well-placed enough to know about this kind of plot – but then, they can’t be sure. That’s the problem: All those billions for intelligence, and there isn’t even a decent org chart we can consult.
Maybe we need a few dozen consultants in starched shirts to go over to Aghanistan or Pakistan to clean up their management structure. We don't even know who's in charge of what over there. So let’s draft some guys and gals from McKinsey and get that outfit straightened out. A little B-school expertise could go a long way to making Al Qaeda a solid, well-run organization we can understand – and then crush.
Where’s that “MBA President” when we need him?
All Those Al Qaeda Number Twos: Get Me a Consultant!
RJ Eskow
With all these captured or killed Number Twos and Threes we keep hearing about, Al Qaeda must have more Vice Presidents than an ad agency. Bet there are some nasty fights over office (or cave) size. They wouldn’t have name plates on the doors, though, would they? I’ve heard Disney doesn’t, either.
(Hmmm …) While today’s New York scare and all the “Number Two” claims raise the usual questions about government credibility, maybe the explanation is simpler: the terrorists have a management problem.
Al Qaeda seems to be a top-heavy organization, like Enron. So all those local “franchises” we keep hearing about must be getting hit with some heavy corporate overhead. Somebody’s paying the cost for all these Number Twos, and you know the kind of friction that can create. Soon the guys in the field start resenting the Home Office, and the snide, half-whispered comments begin - “I’m from Corporate and I’m here to help,” ha ha. “Why are Corporate guys like pigeons? Because they fly in, crap on everything, and fly out again.” Boy, if the water coolers at the branch office could talk ...
Now Michael Bloomberg – who certainly knows how to run a company – says there’s a terror threat in New York, but officials in Washington disagree. The Feds say the Iraq-based source of the New York threat isn’t well-placed enough to know about this kind of plot – but then, they can’t be sure. That’s the problem: All those billions for intelligence, and there isn’t even a decent org chart we can consult.
Maybe we need a few dozen consultants in starched shirts to go over to Aghanistan or Pakistan to clean up their management structure. We don't even know who's in charge of what over there. So let’s draft some guys and gals from McKinsey and get that outfit straightened out. A little B-school expertise could go a long way to making Al Qaeda a solid, well-run organization we can understand – and then crush.
Where’s that “MBA President” when we need him?
Democrats Seek Probe Into Agency Spending
Democrats Seek Probe Into Agency Spending
By BEN FELLER
AP Education Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic senators on Thursday pressed for a criminal fraud investigation of the Bush administration's hiring of a commentator to promote its agenda.
Congressional auditors concluded last week that the Education Department engaged in illegal "covert propaganda" by hiring Armstrong Williams to endorse the No Child Left Behind Act without requiring him to disclose he was paid.
That review by the Government Accountability Office did not come with any penalty.
In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said questions of fraud remain for the department and for Williams.
The department paid Williams, a commentator with newspaper, television and radio audiences, to produce ads promoting Bush's law. Work orders show he also was to provide media time to department officials and persuade other blacks in the media to discuss the law.
Yet the department provided the GAO with almost no evidence of the work that Williams cited in his monthly reports. In their own search, GAO auditors either could not find the work Williams listed or could not connect the work they found to his contract.
"Taking taxpayer dollars for work you didn't do is fraud - period," Lautenberg said. "Americans are already upset that Bush administration paid off a columnist to write glowing reviews of the president's education agenda. The notion that he may not have even done the work is even worse."
Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and John Kerry, D-Mass., also signed the letter to Gonzales.
The Education Department had no comment.
Shirley Dave, a spokeswoman for Williams, said he is negotiating with department officials to return part of the public money he was paid. She declined to comment on the request for a criminal review.
The department was to pay $240,000 to Williams, a subcontractor in a $1.3 million contract the agency had with Ketchum, a public relations firm. The department has paid $186,000 to Ketchum for the work Williams was hired to perform, the GAO found.
The deal occurred during the tenure of Education Secretary Rod Paige. His replacement, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, has pledged stricter oversight of agency spending.
After the GAO said the hiring of Williams amounted to propaganda, department spokeswoman Susan Aspey said, "We've said for the past six months that this was stupid, wrong and ill-advised."
The department's inspector general found that the administration's hiring of Williams was not illegal or unethical, but was a poor decision that continued even after concerns were raised to the White House. At the time of the Williams' contract, Gonzales was White House counsel.
By BEN FELLER
AP Education Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic senators on Thursday pressed for a criminal fraud investigation of the Bush administration's hiring of a commentator to promote its agenda.
Congressional auditors concluded last week that the Education Department engaged in illegal "covert propaganda" by hiring Armstrong Williams to endorse the No Child Left Behind Act without requiring him to disclose he was paid.
That review by the Government Accountability Office did not come with any penalty.
In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said questions of fraud remain for the department and for Williams.
The department paid Williams, a commentator with newspaper, television and radio audiences, to produce ads promoting Bush's law. Work orders show he also was to provide media time to department officials and persuade other blacks in the media to discuss the law.
Yet the department provided the GAO with almost no evidence of the work that Williams cited in his monthly reports. In their own search, GAO auditors either could not find the work Williams listed or could not connect the work they found to his contract.
"Taking taxpayer dollars for work you didn't do is fraud - period," Lautenberg said. "Americans are already upset that Bush administration paid off a columnist to write glowing reviews of the president's education agenda. The notion that he may not have even done the work is even worse."
Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and John Kerry, D-Mass., also signed the letter to Gonzales.
The Education Department had no comment.
Shirley Dave, a spokeswoman for Williams, said he is negotiating with department officials to return part of the public money he was paid. She declined to comment on the request for a criminal review.
The department was to pay $240,000 to Williams, a subcontractor in a $1.3 million contract the agency had with Ketchum, a public relations firm. The department has paid $186,000 to Ketchum for the work Williams was hired to perform, the GAO found.
The deal occurred during the tenure of Education Secretary Rod Paige. His replacement, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, has pledged stricter oversight of agency spending.
After the GAO said the hiring of Williams amounted to propaganda, department spokeswoman Susan Aspey said, "We've said for the past six months that this was stupid, wrong and ill-advised."
The department's inspector general found that the administration's hiring of Williams was not illegal or unethical, but was a poor decision that continued even after concerns were raised to the White House. At the time of the Williams' contract, Gonzales was White House counsel.
Senators vent frustration over Katrina aid bill
Reuters
Senators vent frustration over Katrina aid bill
By David Lawder
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leaders of a Senate committee including its Republican head bluntly accused the Bush administration on Thursday of sabotaging a bill to provide Medicaid health assistance for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
"Unfortunately, the White House is working against me behind the scenes, and I resent that, considering how I've delivered so much for the White House over the last five years," Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley said at a hearing on recovery efforts from the U.S. Gulf Coast hurricanes.
Grassley, of Iowa, has been a key ally of President George W. Bush's proposal to overhaul the Social Security retirement system at a time when other Republicans have been wary.
He and the committee's top Democrat, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, are pushing a bill that would ease Medicaid eligibility requirements for storm victims for five months and provide states with reimbursement for 100 percent of costs for such patients.
Costs for Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, are normally split between Washington and the states.
The legislation would have cost the federal government as much as $9 billion, but Senate aides said the cost was cut to around $6 billion in negotiations with the White House and Republican leaders.
The administration says the Grassley-Baucus bill is still too expensive, too broad and may open the door for the government to pay costs for people who were not storm victims.
Asked about Grassley's criticism, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said, "The White House is working with the Congress to find the best way to get health care help to those affected by the storms."
'BACK OFF OF OUR BILL'
Grassley and Baucus implored Treasury Secretary John Snow to "forcefully" seek support for the bill from within the administration, including from Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, who oversees the federal side of Medicaid.
"If you're going to see Secretary Leavitt, tell him to get the White House to back off of our bill," Grassley said. "There's people hurting down there and we need to get some help for them."
Baucus said further delays in the bill would prolong human suffering from the August 29 storm.
"It's been six weeks now. Where is the administration? It is slow-walking, it is opposing, it is obfuscating, it is delaying, it is not acting," he said.
Snow said he did not know enough about the issue to speak for the administration, but said he would discuss it with Leavitt.
Grassley and Baucus say the bill offers the same benefits offered in New York after the September 11, 2001, attacks. But Health and Human Services Department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said the eligibility changes were put in place before the attacks and New York state continued to pay its share of Medicaid costs.
The department favors allowing states to obtain Medicaid waivers to provide coverage for a broader number of patients because it can be done immediately with no legislation.
Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas have already obtained waivers, which would provide up to five months of coverage. But states struggling with reduced revenues would still pay a big share of the extra costs, which they would not pay under the Grassley-Baucus bill.
In Louisiana, Medicaid officials have turned away more than 6,000 people, or 55 percent of hurricane evacuees housed in shelters who sought aid, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported this week.
Senators vent frustration over Katrina aid bill
By David Lawder
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leaders of a Senate committee including its Republican head bluntly accused the Bush administration on Thursday of sabotaging a bill to provide Medicaid health assistance for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
"Unfortunately, the White House is working against me behind the scenes, and I resent that, considering how I've delivered so much for the White House over the last five years," Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley said at a hearing on recovery efforts from the U.S. Gulf Coast hurricanes.
Grassley, of Iowa, has been a key ally of President George W. Bush's proposal to overhaul the Social Security retirement system at a time when other Republicans have been wary.
He and the committee's top Democrat, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, are pushing a bill that would ease Medicaid eligibility requirements for storm victims for five months and provide states with reimbursement for 100 percent of costs for such patients.
Costs for Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, are normally split between Washington and the states.
The legislation would have cost the federal government as much as $9 billion, but Senate aides said the cost was cut to around $6 billion in negotiations with the White House and Republican leaders.
The administration says the Grassley-Baucus bill is still too expensive, too broad and may open the door for the government to pay costs for people who were not storm victims.
Asked about Grassley's criticism, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said, "The White House is working with the Congress to find the best way to get health care help to those affected by the storms."
'BACK OFF OF OUR BILL'
Grassley and Baucus implored Treasury Secretary John Snow to "forcefully" seek support for the bill from within the administration, including from Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, who oversees the federal side of Medicaid.
"If you're going to see Secretary Leavitt, tell him to get the White House to back off of our bill," Grassley said. "There's people hurting down there and we need to get some help for them."
Baucus said further delays in the bill would prolong human suffering from the August 29 storm.
"It's been six weeks now. Where is the administration? It is slow-walking, it is opposing, it is obfuscating, it is delaying, it is not acting," he said.
Snow said he did not know enough about the issue to speak for the administration, but said he would discuss it with Leavitt.
Grassley and Baucus say the bill offers the same benefits offered in New York after the September 11, 2001, attacks. But Health and Human Services Department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said the eligibility changes were put in place before the attacks and New York state continued to pay its share of Medicaid costs.
The department favors allowing states to obtain Medicaid waivers to provide coverage for a broader number of patients because it can be done immediately with no legislation.
Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas have already obtained waivers, which would provide up to five months of coverage. But states struggling with reduced revenues would still pay a big share of the extra costs, which they would not pay under the Grassley-Baucus bill.
In Louisiana, Medicaid officials have turned away more than 6,000 people, or 55 percent of hurricane evacuees housed in shelters who sought aid, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported this week.
Rove to testify again in CIA leak probe
Reuters
Top Bush aide to testify again in CIA leak probe
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a surprise move, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, plans to give last-minute testimony to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity, lawyers said on Thursday.
Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has yet to indicate whether or not he intends to bring indictments, but legal sources close to the investigation said he could signal his intentions within days. Fitzgerald has given no guarantees to Rove he will not be indicted.
Officials declined to disclose when Rove would appear, but the grand jury is expected to meet on Friday and again next week. Rove has appeared before the grand jury at least three previous times.
Legal sources said Fitzgerald may also call New York Times reporter Judith Miller to appear again before the grand jury to answer additional questions about her conversations with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Fitzgerald is expected this month to wrap up his nearly 2-year-old investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity and whether any laws were violated in the process.
The outcome could shake up an administration reeling from criticism over its response to Hurricane Katrina and the indictment of House of Representatives Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas on charges related to campaign financing.
The White House had long maintained Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak, but reporters have since named them as sources.
NO 'TARGET LETTER'
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said his client had not received a "target letter" indicating he was likely to face indictment.
In discussions last week, Luskin said, "Fitzgerald did not indicate that Rove was a target; he did state that he has not made a decision about whether or not to charge."
"Since Karl began cooperating with the investigation, he has never sought any promises or assurances as a precondition for his testimony," Luskin added.
First Amendment attorney Chip Babcock said he was surprised by the decision to bring Rove back before the grand jury so late in the process. The grand jury hearing the case is scheduled to expire on October 28.
"There has been a lot of testimony developed since he last testified, including Judith Miller. It may mean they want to ask him questions in light of what they've uncovered and see whether they can lock him in," said Babcock, a partner at Jackson Walker LLP. "You never know whose inconsistencies they're focused on."
Luskin said Rove offered in July to provide additional testimony after the grand jury heard from Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. Cooper said Rove was the first person to tell him about Plame.
"We offered to make Mr. Rove available at a time and place of Mr. Fitzgerald's choosing should he wish Rove's further cooperation. He indicated to me last week that he wished to take me up on that offer," Luskin said.
But Luskin added: "I am not commenting in any fashion on when or what form that cooperation might take."
Fitzgerald's office declined to comment.
Plame's diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, has accused the administration of leaking her name, which damaged her ability to work undercover, to get back at him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy.
Miller testified to the grand jury last Friday about the conversations she had with Libby regarding Wilson's wife. Legal sources said Libby did not identify Plame by name.
A legal source close to the matter said Miller had yet to be asked to reappear for further questioning.
"He (Fitzgerald) is evaluating her testimony," the legal source said. "It could happen at some point."
In exchange for Miller's testimony, Fitzgerald agreed to limit the scope of questioning to her conversations with Libby. If Miller is called back, the legal source said, "It would not be about Rove."
After initially promising to fire anyone found to have leaked information in the case, Bush in July offered a more qualified pledge: "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."
Top Bush aide to testify again in CIA leak probe
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a surprise move, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, plans to give last-minute testimony to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity, lawyers said on Thursday.
Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has yet to indicate whether or not he intends to bring indictments, but legal sources close to the investigation said he could signal his intentions within days. Fitzgerald has given no guarantees to Rove he will not be indicted.
Officials declined to disclose when Rove would appear, but the grand jury is expected to meet on Friday and again next week. Rove has appeared before the grand jury at least three previous times.
Legal sources said Fitzgerald may also call New York Times reporter Judith Miller to appear again before the grand jury to answer additional questions about her conversations with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Fitzgerald is expected this month to wrap up his nearly 2-year-old investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity and whether any laws were violated in the process.
The outcome could shake up an administration reeling from criticism over its response to Hurricane Katrina and the indictment of House of Representatives Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas on charges related to campaign financing.
The White House had long maintained Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak, but reporters have since named them as sources.
NO 'TARGET LETTER'
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said his client had not received a "target letter" indicating he was likely to face indictment.
In discussions last week, Luskin said, "Fitzgerald did not indicate that Rove was a target; he did state that he has not made a decision about whether or not to charge."
"Since Karl began cooperating with the investigation, he has never sought any promises or assurances as a precondition for his testimony," Luskin added.
First Amendment attorney Chip Babcock said he was surprised by the decision to bring Rove back before the grand jury so late in the process. The grand jury hearing the case is scheduled to expire on October 28.
"There has been a lot of testimony developed since he last testified, including Judith Miller. It may mean they want to ask him questions in light of what they've uncovered and see whether they can lock him in," said Babcock, a partner at Jackson Walker LLP. "You never know whose inconsistencies they're focused on."
Luskin said Rove offered in July to provide additional testimony after the grand jury heard from Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. Cooper said Rove was the first person to tell him about Plame.
"We offered to make Mr. Rove available at a time and place of Mr. Fitzgerald's choosing should he wish Rove's further cooperation. He indicated to me last week that he wished to take me up on that offer," Luskin said.
But Luskin added: "I am not commenting in any fashion on when or what form that cooperation might take."
Fitzgerald's office declined to comment.
Plame's diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, has accused the administration of leaking her name, which damaged her ability to work undercover, to get back at him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy.
Miller testified to the grand jury last Friday about the conversations she had with Libby regarding Wilson's wife. Legal sources said Libby did not identify Plame by name.
A legal source close to the matter said Miller had yet to be asked to reappear for further questioning.
"He (Fitzgerald) is evaluating her testimony," the legal source said. "It could happen at some point."
In exchange for Miller's testimony, Fitzgerald agreed to limit the scope of questioning to her conversations with Libby. If Miller is called back, the legal source said, "It would not be about Rove."
After initially promising to fire anyone found to have leaked information in the case, Bush in July offered a more qualified pledge: "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."
Congressional Democrats pledge reform in Washington
Reuters
Congressional Democrats pledge reform in Washington
By Joanne Kenen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Democrats stepped up attacks on what they called Republicans' "culture of cronyism and corruption" on Thursday, trying to capitalize on a spate of ethics scandals and the Bush administration's heavily criticized response to Hurricane Katrina.
Although congressional elections are still more than a year away, Democratic leaders -- often accused of not being able to articulate a clear party message -- held a series of news events in which they sought to link allegations of corruption and government incompetence.
The fiasco over the response to Hurricane Katrina "sort of pulled up the curtain and exposed the whole mess," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who heads up the Democratic election effort for the Senate.
"We as a party are going to be the broom that sweeps things clean."
While declining to make any specific predictions of gains in the November 2006 elections, Illinois Rep. Raum Emanuel, who heads the House Democrats' campaign committee, said the vote would become a national referendum on "change and reform."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid outlined Democrats' plans to draft legislation to tighten lobbying rules and require people appointed to public safety positions to have relevant credentials and a "superior" track record.
"We're going to reform Washington," Reid said. "After years of Republican scandals and abuses of power, it's a big task. But the American people are demanding change."
Two influential House Democrats, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan and Rep. George Miller of California, called for a special counsel to probe the scandal surrounding Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff's possible ties to Justice Department officials.
And House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California and her deputy Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland renewed calls for the House ethics committee to investigate Rep. Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican forced to step down as House majority leader after he was indicted on charges related to campaign financing.
Republicans have also been buffeted by an SEC investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee over a stock sale, the multifaceted probe into Abramoff's activities, and the related arrest this week of former White House aide David Safavian.
Congressional Democrats pledge reform in Washington
By Joanne Kenen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Democrats stepped up attacks on what they called Republicans' "culture of cronyism and corruption" on Thursday, trying to capitalize on a spate of ethics scandals and the Bush administration's heavily criticized response to Hurricane Katrina.
Although congressional elections are still more than a year away, Democratic leaders -- often accused of not being able to articulate a clear party message -- held a series of news events in which they sought to link allegations of corruption and government incompetence.
The fiasco over the response to Hurricane Katrina "sort of pulled up the curtain and exposed the whole mess," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who heads up the Democratic election effort for the Senate.
"We as a party are going to be the broom that sweeps things clean."
While declining to make any specific predictions of gains in the November 2006 elections, Illinois Rep. Raum Emanuel, who heads the House Democrats' campaign committee, said the vote would become a national referendum on "change and reform."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid outlined Democrats' plans to draft legislation to tighten lobbying rules and require people appointed to public safety positions to have relevant credentials and a "superior" track record.
"We're going to reform Washington," Reid said. "After years of Republican scandals and abuses of power, it's a big task. But the American people are demanding change."
Two influential House Democrats, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan and Rep. George Miller of California, called for a special counsel to probe the scandal surrounding Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff's possible ties to Justice Department officials.
And House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California and her deputy Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland renewed calls for the House ethics committee to investigate Rep. Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican forced to step down as House majority leader after he was indicted on charges related to campaign financing.
Republicans have also been buffeted by an SEC investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee over a stock sale, the multifaceted probe into Abramoff's activities, and the related arrest this week of former White House aide David Safavian.
Official: World not ready for flu
CNN.com
Official: World not ready for flu
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S.'s top health official says the world is "woefully unprepared" to respond to a pandemic, a problem made more urgent by concerns that the current avian flu virus could spread into a global health crisis.
"The world is woefully unprepared," Mike Leavitt, the U.S. secretary of health and human services, told CNN Thursday.
"You'd think that it would be a matter of constant concern to us. It has not been, anywhere in the world and, consequently, the world is unprepared. And we're now as a civilization rallying to say, 'What can we do to better prepare?'"
Leavitt made his comments as health experts from around the world gathered in Washington to discuss the possibility of a flu pandemic.
The two-day conference is bringing together representatives of more than 80 countries and international organizations about preventing the spread of the avian flu virus.
Leavitt, who is hosting the event along with U.S. Global Affairs Undersecretary Paula Dobriansky, said officials were trying to devise a comprehensive surveillance plan so that the virus could be monitored closely, allowing for a quick response if it was seen to be spreading.
That way, he said, "if it happens in Thailand or Laos or Cambodia, the rest of the world can go there and help them contain it. Containment is our first strategy."
The conference will hold a plenary session Friday, before breaking into sessions on prevention, response and containment and preparedness and planning for a pandemic.
Officials participating in the session said the United States hoped the conference would produce 10 to 15 key policy priorities for countries to implement -- proposals first unveiled last month at the U.N. General Assembly.
The principles include transparency of quick and accurate reporting of outbreaks, donor support for affected countries and a pledge to work with the World Health Organization.
One senior U.S. State Department official said the goal of the conference was to build "political momentum" for countries to coordinate their efforts to quickly identify and respond to cases in animals or people so the disease does not spread.
The United States also wants to help build capacity of affected countries that may not be equipped to deal with an outbreak.
The Bush administration has seized on the avian flu as a potential threat.
A senior official from the U.S. Agency for International Development said Andrew Natsios, the agency's administrator, had made the virus "the top priority" for allocation of funding and personnel.
President George W. Bush has said aggressive action would be needed to prevent a potentially disastrous U.S. outbreak of the disease.
But his call for Congress to give him the power to use the military in law enforcement roles in the event of a bird flu pandemic has been criticized as akin to introducing martial law. (Full story)
The White House has also called on representatives of the pharmaceutical industry to meet Friday about getting involved in the manufacturing of more flu vaccines.
In his interview with CNN, Leavitt also said the United States needed to do more at home.
"We also need to have surveillance domestically, so if it shows up here we know about it very quickly," he said.
Plenty of antiviral drugs and vaccines needed to be available on short notice, he said, and local communities must be well-versed on how to respond "because a pandemic is something that happens all over the country at the same time."
"This is a unique type of problem that we need to be better prepared for," Leavitt said. "A pandemic is essentially nature's terrorist."
The World Health Organization has confirmed at least 116 cases of the current bird flu virus, including 60 deaths -- with a mortality rate of more than 50 percent.
All but a handful of cases were caused by direct contact with sick birds, suggesting the virus, so far, is unable to move easily among humans.
But health officials have warned that with continued exposure to people, the virus could mutate further and develop that ability.
Officials have expressed fears that the virus is currently acting similarly to the 1918 flu virus, a pandemic that killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million people.
Researchers announced Wednesday that they had reconstructed the 1918 strain of flu virus, a major advancement that could speed up preparation for -- and potentially thwart -- a pandemic. (Full story)
"This groundbreaking research helps unlock the mystery of the 1918 flu pandemic and is critically important in our efforts to prepare for pandemic influenza," Dr. Julie Gerberding, the head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Wednesday.
It marks the first time an infectious agent behind a historic pandemic has ever been recreated.
Australia is set to host a meeting of the 21 members of APEC at the end of October, where pandemic and disaster management coordinators will discuss the Asia-Pacific region's response to the threat. (Full story)
CNN's Elise Labott, Deirdre Walsh and Bob Franken contributed to this report
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/birdflu.wrap/index.html
Official: World not ready for flu
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S.'s top health official says the world is "woefully unprepared" to respond to a pandemic, a problem made more urgent by concerns that the current avian flu virus could spread into a global health crisis.
"The world is woefully unprepared," Mike Leavitt, the U.S. secretary of health and human services, told CNN Thursday.
"You'd think that it would be a matter of constant concern to us. It has not been, anywhere in the world and, consequently, the world is unprepared. And we're now as a civilization rallying to say, 'What can we do to better prepare?'"
Leavitt made his comments as health experts from around the world gathered in Washington to discuss the possibility of a flu pandemic.
The two-day conference is bringing together representatives of more than 80 countries and international organizations about preventing the spread of the avian flu virus.
Leavitt, who is hosting the event along with U.S. Global Affairs Undersecretary Paula Dobriansky, said officials were trying to devise a comprehensive surveillance plan so that the virus could be monitored closely, allowing for a quick response if it was seen to be spreading.
That way, he said, "if it happens in Thailand or Laos or Cambodia, the rest of the world can go there and help them contain it. Containment is our first strategy."
The conference will hold a plenary session Friday, before breaking into sessions on prevention, response and containment and preparedness and planning for a pandemic.
Officials participating in the session said the United States hoped the conference would produce 10 to 15 key policy priorities for countries to implement -- proposals first unveiled last month at the U.N. General Assembly.
The principles include transparency of quick and accurate reporting of outbreaks, donor support for affected countries and a pledge to work with the World Health Organization.
One senior U.S. State Department official said the goal of the conference was to build "political momentum" for countries to coordinate their efforts to quickly identify and respond to cases in animals or people so the disease does not spread.
The United States also wants to help build capacity of affected countries that may not be equipped to deal with an outbreak.
The Bush administration has seized on the avian flu as a potential threat.
A senior official from the U.S. Agency for International Development said Andrew Natsios, the agency's administrator, had made the virus "the top priority" for allocation of funding and personnel.
President George W. Bush has said aggressive action would be needed to prevent a potentially disastrous U.S. outbreak of the disease.
But his call for Congress to give him the power to use the military in law enforcement roles in the event of a bird flu pandemic has been criticized as akin to introducing martial law. (Full story)
The White House has also called on representatives of the pharmaceutical industry to meet Friday about getting involved in the manufacturing of more flu vaccines.
In his interview with CNN, Leavitt also said the United States needed to do more at home.
"We also need to have surveillance domestically, so if it shows up here we know about it very quickly," he said.
Plenty of antiviral drugs and vaccines needed to be available on short notice, he said, and local communities must be well-versed on how to respond "because a pandemic is something that happens all over the country at the same time."
"This is a unique type of problem that we need to be better prepared for," Leavitt said. "A pandemic is essentially nature's terrorist."
The World Health Organization has confirmed at least 116 cases of the current bird flu virus, including 60 deaths -- with a mortality rate of more than 50 percent.
All but a handful of cases were caused by direct contact with sick birds, suggesting the virus, so far, is unable to move easily among humans.
But health officials have warned that with continued exposure to people, the virus could mutate further and develop that ability.
Officials have expressed fears that the virus is currently acting similarly to the 1918 flu virus, a pandemic that killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million people.
Researchers announced Wednesday that they had reconstructed the 1918 strain of flu virus, a major advancement that could speed up preparation for -- and potentially thwart -- a pandemic. (Full story)
"This groundbreaking research helps unlock the mystery of the 1918 flu pandemic and is critically important in our efforts to prepare for pandemic influenza," Dr. Julie Gerberding, the head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Wednesday.
It marks the first time an infectious agent behind a historic pandemic has ever been recreated.
Australia is set to host a meeting of the 21 members of APEC at the end of October, where pandemic and disaster management coordinators will discuss the Asia-Pacific region's response to the threat. (Full story)
CNN's Elise Labott, Deirdre Walsh and Bob Franken contributed to this report
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/birdflu.wrap/index.html
Koppel to Anchor Last 'Nightline' in Nov.
Yahoo! News
Koppel to Anchor Last 'Nightline' in Nov.
Ted Koppel will anchor his last edition of "Nightline" on Nov. 22, with the first post-Koppel edition of the ABC newscast airing Nov. 28, the network said Thursday.
Koppel, 65, has anchored the show since its official launch in March 1980. The show grew out of a series of special reports about the Iranian hostage crisis that began the previous November.
Koppel and his "Nightline" executive producer, Tom Bettag, are expected to keep working together on news programs after leaving ABC News.
How the late-night news show will evolve following Koppel's departure remains a mystery less than two months before its debut. ABC has appointed James Goldston, who produced a British show similar to "Nightline," as the broadcast's new executive producer, and it has experimented with a multi-topic format on nights Koppel was off.
The longtime Washington-based show is expected to split time between studios there and New York, according to published reports. Several reports have also suggested Koppel will be replaced by multiple anchors; ABC News has declined to talk about its "Nightline" plans until they are complete.
Koppel to Anchor Last 'Nightline' in Nov.
Ted Koppel will anchor his last edition of "Nightline" on Nov. 22, with the first post-Koppel edition of the ABC newscast airing Nov. 28, the network said Thursday.
Koppel, 65, has anchored the show since its official launch in March 1980. The show grew out of a series of special reports about the Iranian hostage crisis that began the previous November.
Koppel and his "Nightline" executive producer, Tom Bettag, are expected to keep working together on news programs after leaving ABC News.
How the late-night news show will evolve following Koppel's departure remains a mystery less than two months before its debut. ABC has appointed James Goldston, who produced a British show similar to "Nightline," as the broadcast's new executive producer, and it has experimented with a multi-topic format on nights Koppel was off.
The longtime Washington-based show is expected to split time between studios there and New York, according to published reports. Several reports have also suggested Koppel will be replaced by multiple anchors; ABC News has declined to talk about its "Nightline" plans until they are complete.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Congress seeks to cut food aid for poor
Congress seeks to cut food aid for poor
By LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under orders to cut agriculture spending by $3 billion, Republicans in Congress propose reducing food programs for the poor by $574 million and conservation programs by $1 billion, The Associated Press has learned.
The proposal by Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., also would cut farmers' payments by 2.5 percent across the board.
Under the plan, payments would be reduced by $1.145 billion over five years. But that is considerably less severe than President Bush had proposed. Bush sought a 5 percent reduction in payments, plus a far-reaching plan for capping payments that would slash billions more dollars from subsidies collected by large farm operations.
The AP obtained a summary of the budget-cutting plan, which is scheduled for a Thursday morning vote in Chambliss' committee.
Congress ordered the $3 billion in cuts in a budget outline passed earlier this year. Leading Republicans indicated they would rather target food stamps and conservation programs than simply make the deep cuts that Bush was seeking, and the administration backed off its plan in April amid fierce opposition from farmers. Cotton and rice growers would bear the brunt of payment limits.
It's not fair for nutrition and conservation programs to shoulder more of the burden, said environmental groups, anti-hunger advocates and taxpayer organizations fighting the cuts.
"Subsidies get $20 billion a year; conservation gets less than $4 billion - to expect farmers who want to help the environment to shoulder as heavy a load as fat-cat cotton producers is terrible policy," said Scott Faber, spokesman for the Washington-based advocacy group Environmental Defense.
Government conservation programs pay farmers to stop farming certain land or to change their practices to help the environment.
Congressional Democrats were also hostile to the cuts.
"It is hard to see this budget balanced on the backs of poor people and struggling family farmers when agribusinesses continue to reap millions without payment caps in place," said Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., a member of the Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee.
Another subcommittee member, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said he and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, are still pushing for Bush's payment limits.
Faber called the budget cuts "a body blow" to global trade talks being held by the World Trade Organization. Developing nations are insisting that the U.S. and other wealthy nations cut subsidies.
"Developing nations won't open their markets to our farm products unless we're willing to reform our farm subsidies. This sends exactly the wrong signal at exactly the wrong time," Faber said.
The $574 million cut in food stamps would come from restricting access to this benefit for certain families that receive other government assistance. The restriction would shut an estimated 300,000 people out of the program.
The $1.05 billion conservation cuts would curb the number of acres that can be enrolled in the biggest of the programs, the Conservation Reserve Program, and limit spending on two others, the Conservation Security Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
The payment cuts would affect all payments and marketing loan gains for producers of corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and other subsidized crops. Dairy producers, too, would see a 2.5 percent drop in payments from the Milk Income Loss Contract program, which pays to help producers cope with dips in market prices. The MILC program expired Friday, but supporters are trying to get Congress to renew it.
By LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under orders to cut agriculture spending by $3 billion, Republicans in Congress propose reducing food programs for the poor by $574 million and conservation programs by $1 billion, The Associated Press has learned.
The proposal by Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., also would cut farmers' payments by 2.5 percent across the board.
Under the plan, payments would be reduced by $1.145 billion over five years. But that is considerably less severe than President Bush had proposed. Bush sought a 5 percent reduction in payments, plus a far-reaching plan for capping payments that would slash billions more dollars from subsidies collected by large farm operations.
The AP obtained a summary of the budget-cutting plan, which is scheduled for a Thursday morning vote in Chambliss' committee.
Congress ordered the $3 billion in cuts in a budget outline passed earlier this year. Leading Republicans indicated they would rather target food stamps and conservation programs than simply make the deep cuts that Bush was seeking, and the administration backed off its plan in April amid fierce opposition from farmers. Cotton and rice growers would bear the brunt of payment limits.
It's not fair for nutrition and conservation programs to shoulder more of the burden, said environmental groups, anti-hunger advocates and taxpayer organizations fighting the cuts.
"Subsidies get $20 billion a year; conservation gets less than $4 billion - to expect farmers who want to help the environment to shoulder as heavy a load as fat-cat cotton producers is terrible policy," said Scott Faber, spokesman for the Washington-based advocacy group Environmental Defense.
Government conservation programs pay farmers to stop farming certain land or to change their practices to help the environment.
Congressional Democrats were also hostile to the cuts.
"It is hard to see this budget balanced on the backs of poor people and struggling family farmers when agribusinesses continue to reap millions without payment caps in place," said Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., a member of the Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee.
Another subcommittee member, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said he and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, are still pushing for Bush's payment limits.
Faber called the budget cuts "a body blow" to global trade talks being held by the World Trade Organization. Developing nations are insisting that the U.S. and other wealthy nations cut subsidies.
"Developing nations won't open their markets to our farm products unless we're willing to reform our farm subsidies. This sends exactly the wrong signal at exactly the wrong time," Faber said.
The $574 million cut in food stamps would come from restricting access to this benefit for certain families that receive other government assistance. The restriction would shut an estimated 300,000 people out of the program.
The $1.05 billion conservation cuts would curb the number of acres that can be enrolled in the biggest of the programs, the Conservation Reserve Program, and limit spending on two others, the Conservation Security Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
The payment cuts would affect all payments and marketing loan gains for producers of corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and other subsidized crops. Dairy producers, too, would see a 2.5 percent drop in payments from the Milk Income Loss Contract program, which pays to help producers cope with dips in market prices. The MILC program expired Friday, but supporters are trying to get Congress to renew it.
Dems pursue Ohio election system overhaul
Dems pursue Ohio election system overhaul
By JOHN McCARTHY
Associated Press Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Democrats pushing an overhaul of the election system in Ohio - the state that swung the White House race to President Bush last year - are hoping timing truly is everything.
To the Democrats' delight, the four overhaul measures will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot at a time when the long-ruling Republican Party is engulfed in both an ethics scandal and a furor over an ill-fated state investment in rare coins.
"I think the biggest argument for these amendments happens to be the fact that the Republicans are out there saying, `Well, we don't have a problem,'" said Paul Tipps, a former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party.
Across the nation on Election Day, 39 issues will be decided in nine states, including a redistricting proposal in California backed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In Ohio, unions and citizens groups calling themselves Reform Ohio Now are promoting the election overhaul measures as necessary to restore people's faith in state government.
Ohio voters will be asked if bipartisan boards - instead of elected officials - should draw lawmakers' districts and oversee elections and whether campaign contribution limits should be lowered. The state where some voters waited up to seven hours to cast ballots last November also will decide if everyone should be allowed to vote early by mail.
Authority over elections would shift from the secretary of state to a nine-member board. Last year, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was criticized for being an honorary chairman of Bush's Ohio campaign and accused of trying to suppress the vote with rulings on registration forms and provisional ballots, a charge he denied.
Ohio, a swing state, re-elected Bush by 118,000 votes. Republicans control the Legislature, all statewide offices and a majority of congressional seats. The Democrats have been out of power for 15 years and are routinely outspent.
Democrats are hoping the overhaul would take some of the politics out of redistricting and make their party more competitive.
Tipps said that redistricting currently is designed to protect incumbents. Out of 133 legislative and congressional elections last year, only four seats changed parties, and two of them were open races.
Currently, five elected statewide officials draw state legislative districts, and the Legislature creates the congressional map. The ballot measure would give mapmaking authority to a board headed by an appeals judge from each party, who would then appoint the three other members.
David Hopcraft, spokesman for the opponents' group, Ohio First, said districts should be drawn by the people voters elected to do so.
The ballot measures would also lower individual contribution limits from $10,000 to $1,000 in legislative races. But the amounts some political action committees and parties could contribute would increase.
The state GOP has been hounded this year by scandals that have reached all the way to the governor's office.
Lame-duck Republican Gov. Bob Taft, the great-grandson of President William Howard Taft, became the first Ohio governor convicted of a crime for failing to report that he was treated to golf outings. He was fined the maximum $4,000.
Also, Tom Noe, a prominent Republican fundraiser and donor hired to manage a controversial investment in rare coins for the state, is suspected of stealing millions of dollars, and investigators want to know whether he steered any of the money to Bush.
By JOHN McCARTHY
Associated Press Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Democrats pushing an overhaul of the election system in Ohio - the state that swung the White House race to President Bush last year - are hoping timing truly is everything.
To the Democrats' delight, the four overhaul measures will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot at a time when the long-ruling Republican Party is engulfed in both an ethics scandal and a furor over an ill-fated state investment in rare coins.
"I think the biggest argument for these amendments happens to be the fact that the Republicans are out there saying, `Well, we don't have a problem,'" said Paul Tipps, a former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party.
Across the nation on Election Day, 39 issues will be decided in nine states, including a redistricting proposal in California backed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In Ohio, unions and citizens groups calling themselves Reform Ohio Now are promoting the election overhaul measures as necessary to restore people's faith in state government.
Ohio voters will be asked if bipartisan boards - instead of elected officials - should draw lawmakers' districts and oversee elections and whether campaign contribution limits should be lowered. The state where some voters waited up to seven hours to cast ballots last November also will decide if everyone should be allowed to vote early by mail.
Authority over elections would shift from the secretary of state to a nine-member board. Last year, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was criticized for being an honorary chairman of Bush's Ohio campaign and accused of trying to suppress the vote with rulings on registration forms and provisional ballots, a charge he denied.
Ohio, a swing state, re-elected Bush by 118,000 votes. Republicans control the Legislature, all statewide offices and a majority of congressional seats. The Democrats have been out of power for 15 years and are routinely outspent.
Democrats are hoping the overhaul would take some of the politics out of redistricting and make their party more competitive.
Tipps said that redistricting currently is designed to protect incumbents. Out of 133 legislative and congressional elections last year, only four seats changed parties, and two of them were open races.
Currently, five elected statewide officials draw state legislative districts, and the Legislature creates the congressional map. The ballot measure would give mapmaking authority to a board headed by an appeals judge from each party, who would then appoint the three other members.
David Hopcraft, spokesman for the opponents' group, Ohio First, said districts should be drawn by the people voters elected to do so.
The ballot measures would also lower individual contribution limits from $10,000 to $1,000 in legislative races. But the amounts some political action committees and parties could contribute would increase.
The state GOP has been hounded this year by scandals that have reached all the way to the governor's office.
Lame-duck Republican Gov. Bob Taft, the great-grandson of President William Howard Taft, became the first Ohio governor convicted of a crime for failing to report that he was treated to golf outings. He was fined the maximum $4,000.
Also, Tom Noe, a prominent Republican fundraiser and donor hired to manage a controversial investment in rare coins for the state, is suspected of stealing millions of dollars, and investigators want to know whether he steered any of the money to Bush.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Senate debates treatment for detainees
Senate debates treatment for detainees
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. troops interrogating terrorism suspects don't know which techniques are permitted and Congress owes it to them to establish clear standards, Senate Republicans said Wednesday, opening a politically volatile debate over the treatment of detainees.
The White House opposes legislation that would impose restrictions on the Pentagon's detention, interrogation and prosecution of prisoners, arguing that it would tie the president's hands in wartime.
Despite a veto threat, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are trying to tack that legislation onto the $440 billion military spending bill. Votes could come as early as Wednesday night.
McCain's amendment would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in U.S. custody and require all U.S. troops to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate suspects. Graham's amendment would define "enemy combatant" and put into law procedures for prosecuting detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
"Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field. We need a clear consistent standard," McCain, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, said on the Senate floor.
Graham, an Air Force judge for 20 years, added: "We have let the troops down when it comes to trying to give them guidance in very stressful situations."
Opposing the effort, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said that requiring all U.S. troops to follow procedures in the Army manual is not practical in the current war environment. "The techniques vary upon the circumstances and the physical location of people involved," he said.
Backed by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., McCain and Graham offered the same proposals in the summer as the Senate worked on a bill setting Pentagon policy. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., scuttled that bill in part because of White House opposition to the detainee proposals.
The Senate's going to look at legislation setting standards for the way terrorism suspects are treated behind bars.
In July, the White House sent Vice President Dick Cheney to Capitol Hill to personally lobby McCain, Graham and Warner to drop the effort. This time, the White House approached Senate Republicans sympathetic to their position and asked them to work against the amendments.
As they did before, Democrats also plan to continue to push their own proposal that would establish an independent commission to investigate allegations of prisoner abuse. The Pentagon already has done several of its own investigations and argues that another would be redundant.
But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said those reviews weren't thorough enough. "This is a rich target for a true investigation," he said Wednesday. He accused the White House of issuing a "false threat" to veto the bill over detainee amendments.
McCain, Graham and Warner decided that standards for handling detainees were needed in light of allegations of mistreatment at the Navy's Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
The high-profile Senate debate comes as fresh allegations of prisoner abuse surface and support builds for Republican-sponsored amendments.
Since July, a list of retired generals and admirals backing the effort has doubled from 14 to 28.
"It is now apparent that the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because our men and women in uniform were given ambiguous instructions," the retired officers said in a letter dated last month. "Our service members were denied clear guidance, and left to take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better than that."
Last month, Human Rights Watch, a U.S. rights organization, reported that soldiers in the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division systematically tortured Iraqi detainees in 2003 and 2004. The Pentagon says it's investigating.
Army Capt. Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne was one of the soldiers who claimed that he had heard about widespread prisoner abuse while serving in Iraq. He was on Capitol Hill this week to meet with senators, including McCain and Levin.
Last week, a federal judge in New York ordered the release of dozens more pictures of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib, rejecting government arguments that the images would provoke terrorists and incite violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. troops interrogating terrorism suspects don't know which techniques are permitted and Congress owes it to them to establish clear standards, Senate Republicans said Wednesday, opening a politically volatile debate over the treatment of detainees.
The White House opposes legislation that would impose restrictions on the Pentagon's detention, interrogation and prosecution of prisoners, arguing that it would tie the president's hands in wartime.
Despite a veto threat, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are trying to tack that legislation onto the $440 billion military spending bill. Votes could come as early as Wednesday night.
McCain's amendment would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in U.S. custody and require all U.S. troops to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate suspects. Graham's amendment would define "enemy combatant" and put into law procedures for prosecuting detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
"Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field. We need a clear consistent standard," McCain, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, said on the Senate floor.
Graham, an Air Force judge for 20 years, added: "We have let the troops down when it comes to trying to give them guidance in very stressful situations."
Opposing the effort, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said that requiring all U.S. troops to follow procedures in the Army manual is not practical in the current war environment. "The techniques vary upon the circumstances and the physical location of people involved," he said.
Backed by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., McCain and Graham offered the same proposals in the summer as the Senate worked on a bill setting Pentagon policy. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., scuttled that bill in part because of White House opposition to the detainee proposals.
The Senate's going to look at legislation setting standards for the way terrorism suspects are treated behind bars.
In July, the White House sent Vice President Dick Cheney to Capitol Hill to personally lobby McCain, Graham and Warner to drop the effort. This time, the White House approached Senate Republicans sympathetic to their position and asked them to work against the amendments.
As they did before, Democrats also plan to continue to push their own proposal that would establish an independent commission to investigate allegations of prisoner abuse. The Pentagon already has done several of its own investigations and argues that another would be redundant.
But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said those reviews weren't thorough enough. "This is a rich target for a true investigation," he said Wednesday. He accused the White House of issuing a "false threat" to veto the bill over detainee amendments.
McCain, Graham and Warner decided that standards for handling detainees were needed in light of allegations of mistreatment at the Navy's Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
The high-profile Senate debate comes as fresh allegations of prisoner abuse surface and support builds for Republican-sponsored amendments.
Since July, a list of retired generals and admirals backing the effort has doubled from 14 to 28.
"It is now apparent that the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because our men and women in uniform were given ambiguous instructions," the retired officers said in a letter dated last month. "Our service members were denied clear guidance, and left to take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better than that."
Last month, Human Rights Watch, a U.S. rights organization, reported that soldiers in the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division systematically tortured Iraqi detainees in 2003 and 2004. The Pentagon says it's investigating.
Army Capt. Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne was one of the soldiers who claimed that he had heard about widespread prisoner abuse while serving in Iraq. He was on Capitol Hill this week to meet with senators, including McCain and Levin.
Last week, a federal judge in New York ordered the release of dozens more pictures of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib, rejecting government arguments that the images would provoke terrorists and incite violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Top court seems closely divided on suicide law
Reuters
Top court seems closely divided on suicide law
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court seemed closely split on Wednesday on whether the Bush administration can stop doctors from helping terminally ill patients take their own lives under the nation's only physician-assisted suicide law.
During arguments, the justices sharply questioned both sides on whether then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had the power under federal law in 2001 to bar distribution of controlled drugs to assist suicides, regardless of state law.
The Oregon law, called the Death with Dignity Act, was twice approved by the state's voters. The only state law in the country allowing physician-assisted suicide, it has been used by 208 people since it took effect in 1997.
It was the first major case that new Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative jurist named by President George W. Bush, has heard since his confirmation late last week.
Several justices appeared sympathetic to Oregon's arguments that regulation of doctors and medicine has traditionally been left to the states rather than the federal government.
But other justices questioned how far a state could go and whether it could decide if doctors can prescribe morphine for depression or steroids for body building.
Roberts asked whether such state decisions would undermine the effectiveness and uniformity of the federal law.
Under Oregon law, terminally ill patients must get a certification from two doctors stating they are of sound mind and have less than six months to live. A prescription for lethal drugs is then written by the doctor, and the patients administer the drugs themselves.
Ashcroft's directive declared that assisting suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose under the Controlled Substances Act and that prescribing federally controlled drugs for that purpose was against the federal law.
He reversed the policy adopted by his predecessor, Attorney General Janet Reno, during the Clinton administration. Conservative lawmakers and groups opposed Reno's decision.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who often casts the decisive vote on the divided court and often supports the states, questioned the federal government's argument.
She asked the hypothetical question of whether an attorney general who opposed the death penalty could take a similar position and decide physicians could not prescribe drugs for lethal injections of death row inmates.
MEDICINE REGULATED BY STATES
"The practice of medicine by physicians is an area traditionally regulated by the states, it is not?" O'Connor asked Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's top courtroom lawyer.
It is not known whether O'Connor will still be on the court when it rules. She has said she will retire when her successor is confirmed by the Senate. Bush has chosen White House counsel Harriet Miers for O'Connor's seat.
Justice David Souter said that 90 years of federal regulation have been aimed at stopping drug dealing and drug abuse. He described it as a "bizarre result" to suddenly give the attorney general effectively sole authority over whether a state may authorize physician-assisted suicide.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked whether the federal government had abandoned the position it took in a 1997 case that assisted suicide was a matter for the states to decide.
Besides Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia also seemed skeptical of the state's position. "I think that assisted suicide would have been just as unthinkable at the time this (the federal law) was enacted as prescribing cocaine for recreational use," Scalia said.
Justice Stephen Breyer asked whether states could make marijuana or morphine legal. "Suppose I think the attorney general has the power to stop states from gutting the act," he said. Other justices asked whether states could allow doctors to prescribe steroids for body building.
A ruling is expected by the middle of next year.
Top court seems closely divided on suicide law
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court seemed closely split on Wednesday on whether the Bush administration can stop doctors from helping terminally ill patients take their own lives under the nation's only physician-assisted suicide law.
During arguments, the justices sharply questioned both sides on whether then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had the power under federal law in 2001 to bar distribution of controlled drugs to assist suicides, regardless of state law.
The Oregon law, called the Death with Dignity Act, was twice approved by the state's voters. The only state law in the country allowing physician-assisted suicide, it has been used by 208 people since it took effect in 1997.
It was the first major case that new Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative jurist named by President George W. Bush, has heard since his confirmation late last week.
Several justices appeared sympathetic to Oregon's arguments that regulation of doctors and medicine has traditionally been left to the states rather than the federal government.
But other justices questioned how far a state could go and whether it could decide if doctors can prescribe morphine for depression or steroids for body building.
Roberts asked whether such state decisions would undermine the effectiveness and uniformity of the federal law.
Under Oregon law, terminally ill patients must get a certification from two doctors stating they are of sound mind and have less than six months to live. A prescription for lethal drugs is then written by the doctor, and the patients administer the drugs themselves.
Ashcroft's directive declared that assisting suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose under the Controlled Substances Act and that prescribing federally controlled drugs for that purpose was against the federal law.
He reversed the policy adopted by his predecessor, Attorney General Janet Reno, during the Clinton administration. Conservative lawmakers and groups opposed Reno's decision.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who often casts the decisive vote on the divided court and often supports the states, questioned the federal government's argument.
She asked the hypothetical question of whether an attorney general who opposed the death penalty could take a similar position and decide physicians could not prescribe drugs for lethal injections of death row inmates.
MEDICINE REGULATED BY STATES
"The practice of medicine by physicians is an area traditionally regulated by the states, it is not?" O'Connor asked Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's top courtroom lawyer.
It is not known whether O'Connor will still be on the court when it rules. She has said she will retire when her successor is confirmed by the Senate. Bush has chosen White House counsel Harriet Miers for O'Connor's seat.
Justice David Souter said that 90 years of federal regulation have been aimed at stopping drug dealing and drug abuse. He described it as a "bizarre result" to suddenly give the attorney general effectively sole authority over whether a state may authorize physician-assisted suicide.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked whether the federal government had abandoned the position it took in a 1997 case that assisted suicide was a matter for the states to decide.
Besides Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia also seemed skeptical of the state's position. "I think that assisted suicide would have been just as unthinkable at the time this (the federal law) was enacted as prescribing cocaine for recreational use," Scalia said.
Justice Stephen Breyer asked whether states could make marijuana or morphine legal. "Suppose I think the attorney general has the power to stop states from gutting the act," he said. Other justices asked whether states could allow doctors to prescribe steroids for body building.
A ruling is expected by the middle of next year.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Faux News Is Bad News
The New York Times
Faux News Is Bad News
Federal auditors have blistered the Bush administration for secretly concocting favorable news reports about itself by hiring actors to pose as journalists and slipping $240,000 in taxpayer funds to a sell-out conservative polemicist. The government till was also tapped to have political spin doctors track whether the message of President Bush and the Republican Party was being well treated in legitimate news reporting.
In its purchase of self-aggrandizing agitprop, the administration plainly violated the law against spreading "covert propaganda" at public expense, according to the report of the Government Accountability Office. More than that, Bush officials forged a cheesy new low in Washington politicians' endless bazaar of peddling public relations initiatives at taxpayers' expense.
The White House order to close down the ersatz news coverage should have been unequivocal once the real news media uncovered the hired fakers. But administration apologists continued to insist only "legitimate dissemination" of public information was at work in the under-the-table employment of Armstrong Williams, a political talk-show host, to wax breathless over the No Child Left Behind Act.
The scheme was so seamy that auditors were unable to document whether Mr. Williams actually delivered all the articles and talk-show hype that his company claimed in quietly billing the government for $186,000 worth of yessiree-Bob "news." On Friday, a spokeswoman for the current education secretary, Margaret Spellings, reacted to the report by calling these efforts "stupid, wrong and ill advised." We hope she noticed that they were also illegal.
Faux News Is Bad News
Federal auditors have blistered the Bush administration for secretly concocting favorable news reports about itself by hiring actors to pose as journalists and slipping $240,000 in taxpayer funds to a sell-out conservative polemicist. The government till was also tapped to have political spin doctors track whether the message of President Bush and the Republican Party was being well treated in legitimate news reporting.
In its purchase of self-aggrandizing agitprop, the administration plainly violated the law against spreading "covert propaganda" at public expense, according to the report of the Government Accountability Office. More than that, Bush officials forged a cheesy new low in Washington politicians' endless bazaar of peddling public relations initiatives at taxpayers' expense.
The White House order to close down the ersatz news coverage should have been unequivocal once the real news media uncovered the hired fakers. But administration apologists continued to insist only "legitimate dissemination" of public information was at work in the under-the-table employment of Armstrong Williams, a political talk-show host, to wax breathless over the No Child Left Behind Act.
The scheme was so seamy that auditors were unable to document whether Mr. Williams actually delivered all the articles and talk-show hype that his company claimed in quietly billing the government for $186,000 worth of yessiree-Bob "news." On Friday, a spokeswoman for the current education secretary, Margaret Spellings, reacted to the report by calling these efforts "stupid, wrong and ill advised." We hope she noticed that they were also illegal.
The President's Stealth Nominee
The New York Times
The President's Stealth Nominee
It is a sign of the times that President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was greeted with so many sighs of relief. Ms. Miers's record is so thin that no one seems to have any idea of what she believes, and she was clearly chosen because of her close ties to the president, not her legal qualifications. Still, there is no evidence as yet that she is an ideological warrior who would attempt to return American jurisprudence to the 18th century, and these days, the nation seems to be setting the bar for almost everything pretty low.
Ms. Miers's résumé gives at least some reason to hope that she could be a moderate, pragmatic judge in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat she will fill if she is confirmed. She has spent much of her career in corporate law firms and bar associations, environments that encourage pragmatism over ideology.
The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Senator Charles Schumer of New York and other Senate Democrats made it clear that an extremist nominee would face a tough confirmation battle, and they may have helped convince Mr. Bush not to nominate a judge or law professor with a long record of opposing privacy rights, civil rights and other freedoms. But choosing Ms. Miers, a member of his team who was also his own personal lawyer, is still very much in character with the president's tendency to reward familiarity and loyalty over independence and a reputation for excellence.
The American people are certainly entitled to know a lot more about Ms. Miers. As a non-judge who has largely operated behind the scenes, she does not have a lengthy record of judicial opinions, law review articles and public comments. While this page complained about the lack of information available about John Roberts, the new chief justice was a veritable font of background records compared with this new nominee.
This administration likes to argue that Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to say much about her views when she was nominated. But she had been a federal appeals court judge for more than a decade, and her approach to judging was well known. The Senate needs to ask Ms. Miers directly where she stands on important legal issues, and it should not confirm her unless she makes clear her commitment to well-settled rights that Americans take for granted.
Ms. Miers's nomination is a sign of just how politicized judicial selection has become. The normal model for a Supreme Court nominee is a judge, usually from a federal appeals court, who has served long enough to develop and demonstrate judicial excellence. But today, anyone who meets that standard runs into a political Catch-22. The far right of the Republican Party will oppose anyone who has shown signs of moderation, and Senate Democrats will try to block anyone who has not. Rather than select a strongly qualified candidate from the legal mainstream, President Bush has taken the easy way out by choosing a less accomplished nominee who will raise fewer political problems.
Many of the best justices have taken odd routes to the court. Ms. Miers could prove to be a pragmatic, common-sense justice who ends up making this court the Miers Court, the way Justice O'Connor effectively made the last one the O'Connor Court. Before taking that risk, however, the Senate needs to get to work to learn a lot more about her.
The President's Stealth Nominee
It is a sign of the times that President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was greeted with so many sighs of relief. Ms. Miers's record is so thin that no one seems to have any idea of what she believes, and she was clearly chosen because of her close ties to the president, not her legal qualifications. Still, there is no evidence as yet that she is an ideological warrior who would attempt to return American jurisprudence to the 18th century, and these days, the nation seems to be setting the bar for almost everything pretty low.
Ms. Miers's résumé gives at least some reason to hope that she could be a moderate, pragmatic judge in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat she will fill if she is confirmed. She has spent much of her career in corporate law firms and bar associations, environments that encourage pragmatism over ideology.
The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Senator Charles Schumer of New York and other Senate Democrats made it clear that an extremist nominee would face a tough confirmation battle, and they may have helped convince Mr. Bush not to nominate a judge or law professor with a long record of opposing privacy rights, civil rights and other freedoms. But choosing Ms. Miers, a member of his team who was also his own personal lawyer, is still very much in character with the president's tendency to reward familiarity and loyalty over independence and a reputation for excellence.
The American people are certainly entitled to know a lot more about Ms. Miers. As a non-judge who has largely operated behind the scenes, she does not have a lengthy record of judicial opinions, law review articles and public comments. While this page complained about the lack of information available about John Roberts, the new chief justice was a veritable font of background records compared with this new nominee.
This administration likes to argue that Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to say much about her views when she was nominated. But she had been a federal appeals court judge for more than a decade, and her approach to judging was well known. The Senate needs to ask Ms. Miers directly where she stands on important legal issues, and it should not confirm her unless she makes clear her commitment to well-settled rights that Americans take for granted.
Ms. Miers's nomination is a sign of just how politicized judicial selection has become. The normal model for a Supreme Court nominee is a judge, usually from a federal appeals court, who has served long enough to develop and demonstrate judicial excellence. But today, anyone who meets that standard runs into a political Catch-22. The far right of the Republican Party will oppose anyone who has shown signs of moderation, and Senate Democrats will try to block anyone who has not. Rather than select a strongly qualified candidate from the legal mainstream, President Bush has taken the easy way out by choosing a less accomplished nominee who will raise fewer political problems.
Many of the best justices have taken odd routes to the court. Ms. Miers could prove to be a pragmatic, common-sense justice who ends up making this court the Miers Court, the way Justice O'Connor effectively made the last one the O'Connor Court. Before taking that risk, however, the Senate needs to get to work to learn a lot more about her.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Katrina Relief efforts: near catastrophic failure due to endemic corruption, divisions, troop shortages
independent.co.uk
Iraq war delayed Katrina relief effort, inquiry finds
By Kim Sengupta
Relief efforts to combat Hurricane Katrina suffered near catastrophic failures due to endemic corruption, divisions within the military and troop shortages caused by the Iraq war, an official American inquiry into the disaster has revealed.
The confidential report, which has been seen by The Independent, details how funds for flood control were diverted to other projects, desperately needed National Guards were stuck in Iraq and how military personnel had to "sneak off post" to help with relief efforts because their commander had refused permission.
The shortcomings in dealing with Katrina have rocked George Bush's administration. Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has resigned from his post and polls show that a majority of Americans feel the President showed inadequate leadership.
The report was commissioned by the Office of Secretary of Defence as an "independent and critical review" of what went so wrong. In a hard-hitting analysis, it says: "The US military has long planned for war on two fronts. This is as close as we have come to [that] reality since the Second World War; the results have been disastrous."
The document was compiled by Stephen Henthorne, a former professor of the US Army's War College and an adviser to the Pentagon who was a deputy-director in the Louisiana relief efforts.
It charts how "corruption and mismanagement within the New Orleans city government" had "diverted money earmarked for improving flood protection to other, more vote-getting, projects. Past mayors and governors gambled that the long-expected Big Killer hurricane would never happen. That bet was lost with Hurricane Katrina."
The report concludes that although the US military did a good job in carrying out emergency missions, there were some serious shortcomings.
The report states that Brigadier General Michael D Barbero, commander of the Joint Readiness Training Centre at Fort Polk, Louisiana, refused permission for special forces units who volunteered to join relief efforts, to do so. General Barbero also refused to release other troops.
"The same general did take in some families from Hurricane Katrina, but only military families living off the base," the report says. "He has done a similar thing for military families displaced by Hurricane Rita. However, he declined to share water with the citizens of Leesville, who are out of water, and his civil affairs staff have to sneak off post in civilian clothes to help coordinate relief efforts." The report says deployment in the Iraq war led to serious problems. "Another major factor in the delayed response to the hurricane aftermath was that the bulk of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard was deployed in Iraq.
"Even though all the states have 'compacts' with each other, pledging to come to the aid of other states, it takes time, money and effort to activate and deploy National Guard troops from other states to fill in".
Mr Henthorne's report states: "The President has indicated several times that he wants the US military to take a more active role in disaster management and humanitarian assistance.
"There are several reasons why that will not happen easily. (1) Existing laws will not allow the police powers the military will need to be effective. (2) The military is not trained for such a mission and (3) the 'warfighter insurgency' within the US military does not want such a mission and will strongly resist it. Not one civil affairs unit was deployed for either hurricane."
The report concludes: "The one thing this disaster has demonstrated [is] the lack of coordinated, in-depth planning and training on all levels of Government, for any/all types of emergency contingencies. 9/11 was an exception because the geographical area was small and contained, but these two hurricanes have clearly demonstrated a national response weakness ... Failure to plan, and train properly has plagued US efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now that failure has come home to roost in the United States."
Relief efforts to combat Hurricane Katrina suffered near catastrophic failures due to endemic corruption, divisions within the military and troop shortages caused by the Iraq war, an official American inquiry into the disaster has revealed.
The confidential report, which has been seen by The Independent, details how funds for flood control were diverted to other projects, desperately needed National Guards were stuck in Iraq and how military personnel had to "sneak off post" to help with relief efforts because their commander had refused permission.
The shortcomings in dealing with Katrina have rocked George Bush's administration. Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has resigned from his post and polls show that a majority of Americans feel the President showed inadequate leadership.
The report was commissioned by the Office of Secretary of Defence as an "independent and critical review" of what went so wrong. In a hard-hitting analysis, it says: "The US military has long planned for war on two fronts. This is as close as we have come to [that] reality since the Second World War; the results have been disastrous."
The document was compiled by Stephen Henthorne, a former professor of the US Army's War College and an adviser to the Pentagon who was a deputy-director in the Louisiana relief efforts.
It charts how "corruption and mismanagement within the New Orleans city government" had "diverted money earmarked for improving flood protection to other, more vote-getting, projects. Past mayors and governors gambled that the long-expected Big Killer hurricane would never happen. That bet was lost with Hurricane Katrina."
The report concludes that although the US military did a good job in carrying out emergency missions, there were some serious shortcomings.
The report states that Brigadier General Michael D Barbero, commander of the Joint Readiness Training Centre at Fort Polk, Louisiana, refused permission for special forces units who volunteered to join relief efforts, to do so. General Barbero also refused to release other troops.
"The same general did take in some families from Hurricane Katrina, but only military families living off the base," the report says. "He has done a similar thing for military families displaced by Hurricane Rita. However, he declined to share water with the citizens of Leesville, who are out of water, and his civil affairs staff have to sneak off post in civilian clothes to help coordinate relief efforts." The report says deployment in the Iraq war led to serious problems. "Another major factor in the delayed response to the hurricane aftermath was that the bulk of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard was deployed in Iraq.
"Even though all the states have 'compacts' with each other, pledging to come to the aid of other states, it takes time, money and effort to activate and deploy National Guard troops from other states to fill in".
Mr Henthorne's report states: "The President has indicated several times that he wants the US military to take a more active role in disaster management and humanitarian assistance.
"There are several reasons why that will not happen easily. (1) Existing laws will not allow the police powers the military will need to be effective. (2) The military is not trained for such a mission and (3) the 'warfighter insurgency' within the US military does not want such a mission and will strongly resist it. Not one civil affairs unit was deployed for either hurricane."
The report concludes: "The one thing this disaster has demonstrated [is] the lack of coordinated, in-depth planning and training on all levels of Government, for any/all types of emergency contingencies. 9/11 was an exception because the geographical area was small and contained, but these two hurricanes have clearly demonstrated a national response weakness ... Failure to plan, and train properly has plagued US efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now that failure has come home to roost in the United States."
Iraq war delayed Katrina relief effort, inquiry finds
By Kim Sengupta
Relief efforts to combat Hurricane Katrina suffered near catastrophic failures due to endemic corruption, divisions within the military and troop shortages caused by the Iraq war, an official American inquiry into the disaster has revealed.
The confidential report, which has been seen by The Independent, details how funds for flood control were diverted to other projects, desperately needed National Guards were stuck in Iraq and how military personnel had to "sneak off post" to help with relief efforts because their commander had refused permission.
The shortcomings in dealing with Katrina have rocked George Bush's administration. Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has resigned from his post and polls show that a majority of Americans feel the President showed inadequate leadership.
The report was commissioned by the Office of Secretary of Defence as an "independent and critical review" of what went so wrong. In a hard-hitting analysis, it says: "The US military has long planned for war on two fronts. This is as close as we have come to [that] reality since the Second World War; the results have been disastrous."
The document was compiled by Stephen Henthorne, a former professor of the US Army's War College and an adviser to the Pentagon who was a deputy-director in the Louisiana relief efforts.
It charts how "corruption and mismanagement within the New Orleans city government" had "diverted money earmarked for improving flood protection to other, more vote-getting, projects. Past mayors and governors gambled that the long-expected Big Killer hurricane would never happen. That bet was lost with Hurricane Katrina."
The report concludes that although the US military did a good job in carrying out emergency missions, there were some serious shortcomings.
The report states that Brigadier General Michael D Barbero, commander of the Joint Readiness Training Centre at Fort Polk, Louisiana, refused permission for special forces units who volunteered to join relief efforts, to do so. General Barbero also refused to release other troops.
"The same general did take in some families from Hurricane Katrina, but only military families living off the base," the report says. "He has done a similar thing for military families displaced by Hurricane Rita. However, he declined to share water with the citizens of Leesville, who are out of water, and his civil affairs staff have to sneak off post in civilian clothes to help coordinate relief efforts." The report says deployment in the Iraq war led to serious problems. "Another major factor in the delayed response to the hurricane aftermath was that the bulk of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard was deployed in Iraq.
"Even though all the states have 'compacts' with each other, pledging to come to the aid of other states, it takes time, money and effort to activate and deploy National Guard troops from other states to fill in".
Mr Henthorne's report states: "The President has indicated several times that he wants the US military to take a more active role in disaster management and humanitarian assistance.
"There are several reasons why that will not happen easily. (1) Existing laws will not allow the police powers the military will need to be effective. (2) The military is not trained for such a mission and (3) the 'warfighter insurgency' within the US military does not want such a mission and will strongly resist it. Not one civil affairs unit was deployed for either hurricane."
The report concludes: "The one thing this disaster has demonstrated [is] the lack of coordinated, in-depth planning and training on all levels of Government, for any/all types of emergency contingencies. 9/11 was an exception because the geographical area was small and contained, but these two hurricanes have clearly demonstrated a national response weakness ... Failure to plan, and train properly has plagued US efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now that failure has come home to roost in the United States."
Relief efforts to combat Hurricane Katrina suffered near catastrophic failures due to endemic corruption, divisions within the military and troop shortages caused by the Iraq war, an official American inquiry into the disaster has revealed.
The confidential report, which has been seen by The Independent, details how funds for flood control were diverted to other projects, desperately needed National Guards were stuck in Iraq and how military personnel had to "sneak off post" to help with relief efforts because their commander had refused permission.
The shortcomings in dealing with Katrina have rocked George Bush's administration. Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has resigned from his post and polls show that a majority of Americans feel the President showed inadequate leadership.
The report was commissioned by the Office of Secretary of Defence as an "independent and critical review" of what went so wrong. In a hard-hitting analysis, it says: "The US military has long planned for war on two fronts. This is as close as we have come to [that] reality since the Second World War; the results have been disastrous."
The document was compiled by Stephen Henthorne, a former professor of the US Army's War College and an adviser to the Pentagon who was a deputy-director in the Louisiana relief efforts.
It charts how "corruption and mismanagement within the New Orleans city government" had "diverted money earmarked for improving flood protection to other, more vote-getting, projects. Past mayors and governors gambled that the long-expected Big Killer hurricane would never happen. That bet was lost with Hurricane Katrina."
The report concludes that although the US military did a good job in carrying out emergency missions, there were some serious shortcomings.
The report states that Brigadier General Michael D Barbero, commander of the Joint Readiness Training Centre at Fort Polk, Louisiana, refused permission for special forces units who volunteered to join relief efforts, to do so. General Barbero also refused to release other troops.
"The same general did take in some families from Hurricane Katrina, but only military families living off the base," the report says. "He has done a similar thing for military families displaced by Hurricane Rita. However, he declined to share water with the citizens of Leesville, who are out of water, and his civil affairs staff have to sneak off post in civilian clothes to help coordinate relief efforts." The report says deployment in the Iraq war led to serious problems. "Another major factor in the delayed response to the hurricane aftermath was that the bulk of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard was deployed in Iraq.
"Even though all the states have 'compacts' with each other, pledging to come to the aid of other states, it takes time, money and effort to activate and deploy National Guard troops from other states to fill in".
Mr Henthorne's report states: "The President has indicated several times that he wants the US military to take a more active role in disaster management and humanitarian assistance.
"There are several reasons why that will not happen easily. (1) Existing laws will not allow the police powers the military will need to be effective. (2) The military is not trained for such a mission and (3) the 'warfighter insurgency' within the US military does not want such a mission and will strongly resist it. Not one civil affairs unit was deployed for either hurricane."
The report concludes: "The one thing this disaster has demonstrated [is] the lack of coordinated, in-depth planning and training on all levels of Government, for any/all types of emergency contingencies. 9/11 was an exception because the geographical area was small and contained, but these two hurricanes have clearly demonstrated a national response weakness ... Failure to plan, and train properly has plagued US efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now that failure has come home to roost in the United States."
Indicting the President's Policies
HuffingtonPost.com
John Nichols
Indicting the President's Policies
In Washington, where it is exceeding difficult to get the political players or the press corps to pay attention to more than one story at once, no0 one would suggest that it was "smart politics" to deliver a major address on the day that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay being forced to step aside after being indicted on criminal conspiracy charges.
But sometimes the work of Washington involves more than political games.
Sometimes it involves life and death questions of national policy. And it is particularly frustrating in such moments to see vital statements about the nation's future get lost in the rush to discuss the scandal du jour. To be sure, the well-deserved indictment of DeLay merited the attention it received. But the indictment of President Bush's "stay-the-course" approach with regard to the Iraq War, which was delivered on the same day by U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, should have gotten a lot more attention than it did.
At a time when too many members of Congress, in both parties, are afraid to address the crisis Bush's missteps, misdeeds, arrogance and intransigence have created, Feingold broke the silence in the Senate.
"I cannot support an Iraq policy that makes our enemies stronger and our own country weaker, and that is why I will not support staying the course the President has set," Feingold told the Senate on the same day official Washington was focusing all its attention on the trials of Tom DeLay
Feingold's declaration came as part of scathing assessment of the Bush administration's determination to continue pursuing failed strategies not just in the Middle East but internationally.
"If Iraq were truly the solution to our national security challenges, this gamble with the future of the military and with our own economy might make sense," explained the senator, who last month called for a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country. "If Iraq, rather than such strategically more significant countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were really at the heart of the global fight against violent Islamist terrorism, this might make some sense. If it were true that fighting insurgents in Baghdad meant that we would not have to fight them elsewhere, all of the costs of this policy might make some sense. But these things are not true. Iraq is not the silver bullet in the fight against global terrorist networks. As I have argued in some detail, it is quite possible that the Administration's policies in Iraq are actually strengthening the terrorists by helping them to recruit new fighters from around the world, giving those jihadists on-the-ground training in terrorism, and building new, transnational networks among our enemies. Meanwhile the costs of staying this course indefinitely, the consequences of weakening America's military and America's economy, loom more ominously before us with each passing week. There is no leadership in simply hoping for the best. We must insist on an Iraq policy that works."
Feingold detailed concerns about the damage done to the U.S. military by pursuit of the misguided mission in Iraq. "The Administration's policies in Iraq are breaking the United States Army," explained the Wisconsin Democrat, who reviewed concerns about the stress placed on soldiers and their families and about shortfalls in recruitment for the armed services.
"Make no mistake, our military readiness is already suffering," Feingold explained. "According to a recent RAND study, the Army has been stretched so thin that active-duty soldiers are now spending one of every two years abroad, leaving little of the Army left in any appropriate condition to respond to crises that may emerge elsewhere in the world. In an era in which we confront a globally networked enemy, and at a time when nuclear weapons proliferation is an urgent threat, continuing on our present course is irresponsible at best."
While the military is taking a hit, Feingold noted, so too is the economy. Noting that all of the cost of the war -- "every penny" -- "has been added to the already massive debt that will be paid by future generations of Americans," Feingold asked, "How much longer can the elected representatives of the American people in this Congress allow the President to rack up over a billion dollars a week in new debts? This war is draining, by one estimate, $5.6 billion every month from our economy, funds that might be used to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina recover, or to help address the skyrocketing health care costs facing businesses and families, or to help pay down the enormous debt this government has already piled up."
Feingold remarks were more than a critique of the administration. They were a call to action for the Congress.
"Bush Administration's policies in Iraq are making America weaker," he told the Senate. "And none of us should stand by and allow this to continue."
Truer words have rarely been spoken in the Capitol -- especially in recent years. Feingold's call deserves the attention, and the encouragement, not just of responsible members of the Congress but of the great mass of Americans who know that something has gone very wrong in Iraq -- and Washington.
John Nichols
Indicting the President's Policies
In Washington, where it is exceeding difficult to get the political players or the press corps to pay attention to more than one story at once, no0 one would suggest that it was "smart politics" to deliver a major address on the day that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay being forced to step aside after being indicted on criminal conspiracy charges.
But sometimes the work of Washington involves more than political games.
Sometimes it involves life and death questions of national policy. And it is particularly frustrating in such moments to see vital statements about the nation's future get lost in the rush to discuss the scandal du jour. To be sure, the well-deserved indictment of DeLay merited the attention it received. But the indictment of President Bush's "stay-the-course" approach with regard to the Iraq War, which was delivered on the same day by U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, should have gotten a lot more attention than it did.
At a time when too many members of Congress, in both parties, are afraid to address the crisis Bush's missteps, misdeeds, arrogance and intransigence have created, Feingold broke the silence in the Senate.
"I cannot support an Iraq policy that makes our enemies stronger and our own country weaker, and that is why I will not support staying the course the President has set," Feingold told the Senate on the same day official Washington was focusing all its attention on the trials of Tom DeLay
Feingold's declaration came as part of scathing assessment of the Bush administration's determination to continue pursuing failed strategies not just in the Middle East but internationally.
"If Iraq were truly the solution to our national security challenges, this gamble with the future of the military and with our own economy might make sense," explained the senator, who last month called for a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country. "If Iraq, rather than such strategically more significant countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were really at the heart of the global fight against violent Islamist terrorism, this might make some sense. If it were true that fighting insurgents in Baghdad meant that we would not have to fight them elsewhere, all of the costs of this policy might make some sense. But these things are not true. Iraq is not the silver bullet in the fight against global terrorist networks. As I have argued in some detail, it is quite possible that the Administration's policies in Iraq are actually strengthening the terrorists by helping them to recruit new fighters from around the world, giving those jihadists on-the-ground training in terrorism, and building new, transnational networks among our enemies. Meanwhile the costs of staying this course indefinitely, the consequences of weakening America's military and America's economy, loom more ominously before us with each passing week. There is no leadership in simply hoping for the best. We must insist on an Iraq policy that works."
Feingold detailed concerns about the damage done to the U.S. military by pursuit of the misguided mission in Iraq. "The Administration's policies in Iraq are breaking the United States Army," explained the Wisconsin Democrat, who reviewed concerns about the stress placed on soldiers and their families and about shortfalls in recruitment for the armed services.
"Make no mistake, our military readiness is already suffering," Feingold explained. "According to a recent RAND study, the Army has been stretched so thin that active-duty soldiers are now spending one of every two years abroad, leaving little of the Army left in any appropriate condition to respond to crises that may emerge elsewhere in the world. In an era in which we confront a globally networked enemy, and at a time when nuclear weapons proliferation is an urgent threat, continuing on our present course is irresponsible at best."
While the military is taking a hit, Feingold noted, so too is the economy. Noting that all of the cost of the war -- "every penny" -- "has been added to the already massive debt that will be paid by future generations of Americans," Feingold asked, "How much longer can the elected representatives of the American people in this Congress allow the President to rack up over a billion dollars a week in new debts? This war is draining, by one estimate, $5.6 billion every month from our economy, funds that might be used to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina recover, or to help address the skyrocketing health care costs facing businesses and families, or to help pay down the enormous debt this government has already piled up."
Feingold remarks were more than a critique of the administration. They were a call to action for the Congress.
"Bush Administration's policies in Iraq are making America weaker," he told the Senate. "And none of us should stand by and allow this to continue."
Truer words have rarely been spoken in the Capitol -- especially in recent years. Feingold's call deserves the attention, and the encouragement, not just of responsible members of the Congress but of the great mass of Americans who know that something has gone very wrong in Iraq -- and Washington.
The Sky "Seems" Blue
HuffingtonPost.com
Eric Boehlert: The Sky "Seems" Blue
Even with the administration's troubles mounting, the press cannot shed its five-year-old habit of extending exaggerated deference to the White House—a habit the same Beltway press corps discarded about five weeks into Clinton's first term.
Just look at Sunday's Washington Post article about the ongoing Valarie Plame investigation for evidence of the telltale timidity. The Post article noted that both Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, as well as Bush's deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, played key roles in the Plame controversy, with each speaking to reporters about Plame before columnist Robert Novak outed her in his column. That, according to attorneys who are familiar with Rove and Libby's grand jury testimony. The Post also reported that news of Rove and Libby's central roles does not mesh with what administration officials told reporters when the scandal first broke.
But note the Post's payoff passage: "Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public." [Emphasis added.]
According to the Post, if you look at White House comments about Libby and Rove re: Plame from 2003 and study them side-by-side with the current testimony from Libby and Rove re: Plame, they seem to contradict each other. That's like saying coach Charlie Weis seems to be a popular man in South Bend, Ind. these days.
A more accurate Post description for its Sunday article would have been, "Their testimony completely contradicts what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public." Or "flatly," or "fully," or just plain "contradicts." But "seems"? That makes no sense.
Even more peculiar is the fact he Post itself points out how clear the contradictions are, citing White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who told reporters in 2003 that he personally asked Libby and Rove whether they were involved, "so I could come back to you and say they were not involved." Asked if that was a categorical denial, McClellan answered, "That is correct." And if the paper wanted more proof, the Post could have also referenced this White House briefing back-and-forth from the same time period regarding the Plame investigation:
Question: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you --
McClellan: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.
The White House has been caught spreading glaring lies regarding a criminal investigation, but the Post only musters enough courage to report contradictions seem to be in play.
Eric Boehlert: The Sky "Seems" Blue
Even with the administration's troubles mounting, the press cannot shed its five-year-old habit of extending exaggerated deference to the White House—a habit the same Beltway press corps discarded about five weeks into Clinton's first term.
Just look at Sunday's Washington Post article about the ongoing Valarie Plame investigation for evidence of the telltale timidity. The Post article noted that both Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, as well as Bush's deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, played key roles in the Plame controversy, with each speaking to reporters about Plame before columnist Robert Novak outed her in his column. That, according to attorneys who are familiar with Rove and Libby's grand jury testimony. The Post also reported that news of Rove and Libby's central roles does not mesh with what administration officials told reporters when the scandal first broke.
But note the Post's payoff passage: "Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public." [Emphasis added.]
According to the Post, if you look at White House comments about Libby and Rove re: Plame from 2003 and study them side-by-side with the current testimony from Libby and Rove re: Plame, they seem to contradict each other. That's like saying coach Charlie Weis seems to be a popular man in South Bend, Ind. these days.
A more accurate Post description for its Sunday article would have been, "Their testimony completely contradicts what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public." Or "flatly," or "fully," or just plain "contradicts." But "seems"? That makes no sense.
Even more peculiar is the fact he Post itself points out how clear the contradictions are, citing White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who told reporters in 2003 that he personally asked Libby and Rove whether they were involved, "so I could come back to you and say they were not involved." Asked if that was a categorical denial, McClellan answered, "That is correct." And if the paper wanted more proof, the Post could have also referenced this White House briefing back-and-forth from the same time period regarding the Plame investigation:
Question: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you --
McClellan: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.
The White House has been caught spreading glaring lies regarding a criminal investigation, but the Post only musters enough courage to report contradictions seem to be in play.
