The New York Times
Wiretapping Review Is Criticized
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, July 14 — Critics of the Bush administration’s program for wiretapping without warrants said Friday that they would fight a new White House agreement to let a secret court decide the constitutionality of the operation, and the compromise plan failed to deter lawmakers from offering up competing proposals of their own.
The agreement, completed Thursday by Senator Arlen Specter after negotiations with the White House, drew immediate scrutiny in Washington, as politicians, national security lawyers and civil rights advocates debated its impact and legal nuances.
The plan would allow the secret court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which normally issues wiretapping warrants in terror and spying cases, to review the program and decide on its legality. The proposal would have to be approved by Congress.
Representative Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who has been critical of the National Security Agency wiretapping program, said in an interview Friday that he saw the White House-Specter proposal as “a further abdication” of the role of Congress in setting rules for federal surveillance and wiretapping.
“We’re going to let a secret court decide for us what to do?” Mr. Schiff asked. “I think it’s a cop-out.”
Mr. Schiff and three other lawmakers, including one Republican, introduced an amendment last month to the Defense Department appropriations bill seeking to block the use of any money on the N.S.A. program unless intelligence warrants are used. The amendment failed, but it drew 23 Republican supporters, an increase from four Republicans in an earlier vote.
“The momentum is clearly moving in the direction of reining in the program,” Mr. Schiff said.
He said he planned to introduce the de-financing proposal again and would also pursue a separate bipartisan bill proposed this year affirming that the government must obtain a court warrant for eavesdropping.
Meanwhile, Representative Heather A. Wilson, the New Mexico Republican who leads the intelligence subcommittee with oversight of the N.S.A., proposed legislation Friday that she said would strengthen Congressional oversight of the surveillance program and “modernize” intelligence-gathering techniques. Among other provisions, Ms. Wilson’s bill would allow the government to monitor the communications of suspected terrorist targets without a court order “for a period not to exceed 45 days following a terrorist attack” and require Congressional certification for any extensions.
“We can gather intelligence about terrorist organizations and prevent them from attacking us while also protecting civil liberties,” Ms. Wilson said in a telephone interview Friday, “and you do that by dividing power among the three branches of government.”
She said that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was ill-suited to rule on the constitutionality of the wiretapping program and that Mr. Specter’s agreement with the White House seemed “a little odd to me.”
Civil rights advocates attacked the Specter plan in even stronger terms.
“Senator Specter has sold out his committee by caving to everything the White House requested to continue illegal, warrantless spying on American citizens,” Shayana Kadidal, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which is suing the government over the N.S.A. program, said Friday. “This is not a compromise. It is a sellout.”
Civil rights groups and privacy advocates said they were concerned not only that the secret intelligence court would rule on the constitutionality of the security agency’s program, but also by the fact that Mr. Specter’s proposal would consolidate all the legal challenges to the program now pending in federal courts around the country and allow the intelligence court to hear all those challenges. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the government in federal court in California over the wiretapping program, called the proposal “a rubber stamp” for spying programs.
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, noted that the only ruling ever issued by the intelligence court’s appellate panel, in 2002, cited “the president’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance.”
“I think the government clearly expects that if these challenges are transferred to the FISA court, their chances of winning are greatly increased,” Ms. Martin said.
Mr. Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Friday that he was surprised by the strong attacks on his proposal, which was developed after three weeks of talks between him and White House officials, including President Bush.
The senator said civil rights advocates should take some satisfaction from the idea that the intelligence court would be allowed to rule on the program’s legitimacy.
“I can understand if they’d like more, but this is an important step,” Mr. Specter said. “I want to know whether the program is unconstitutional. The question is whether you’re going to have some sort of court review or nothing.”
GEORGE W. BUSH: "THE SACRIFICE IN IRAQ HAS BEEN WORTH IT." 6/28/2005
IF YOU AREN'T OUTRAGED, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION.
"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." – John F. Kennedy
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Another mysterious death of someone close to Bush
washingtonpost.com
Ex-Bush Aide Fatally Shoots Son, Himself
Gunfire at McLean Home Followed Fight With Wife
By Tom Jackman and Stephanie McCrummen
Washington Post Staff Writers
A former Bush administration official, after arguing violently with his wife Thursday night, shot and killed his 12-year-old son inside their McLean home, then turned a shotgun on himself and committed suicide, Fairfax County police said.
William H. Lash III, 45, was an assistant secretary of commerce from 2001 until last year, then returned to teach at George Mason University Law School in Arlington, where he had begun as a professor in 1994. His wife, Sharon K. Zackula, fled the house before the shootings, and police said yesterday they were not sure what ignited the murder-suicide in a first-floor bedroom.
Friends and neighbors described Lash as devoted to his only child, William H. Lash IV, who was autistic. Will Lash had just completed sixth grade at Haycock Elementary School in the Falls Church area, Fairfax school officials said. The father and son could often be seen side by side on the swing set in their back yard, one neighbor said, and the pair often attended Washington Nationals baseball games.
Police said they had not been summoned this year to the blue expanded Cape Cod-style home on Pathfinder Lane in the West McLean neighborhood. There was no record of any domestic complaints. Neighbors said the family kept a low profile.
But shortly before 10 p.m. Thursday, police said, Lash and Zackula had a dispute and Zackula ran from the house and called police. Zackula was not hurt, but the dispute was physical enough that police later obtained a warrant charging Lash with domestic assault, Officer Richard Henry said.
Lash never knew about the warrant. When three or four officers arrived at 9:55 p.m., Henry said, they knocked on several doors but got no answer. Within 10 minutes, while trying to decide their next move, the officers heard two gunshots from inside the house, Henry said.
Not knowing who was shooting -- and who was being shot at -- the officers called for help. Teams of tactical officers and hostage negotiators were summoned, Henry said. Black-clad officers with rifles darted across front lawns, a command post bus was brought in, and police dispatchers phoned neighbors with urgent instructions: Turn off all lights and get in the basement, neighbors said.
After phone calls failed, a police negotiator began circling the house with a bullhorn, two neighbors said. The negotiator gently pleaded with Lash, "Bill, we need to know you're okay," the neighbors said. "Please give us a sign. Answer the phone. Turn on a light."
The negotiator tried to reach Lash for more than two hours. "He was incredibly compassionate," said one neighbor, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
After 1 a.m., police released a remote-controlled robot, equipped with a video camera, so police could gauge what was happening inside. The neighbor said the robot rolled slowly down Pathfinder Lane, up the Lash driveway and into the house.
Finally, at 3:50 a.m., officers went inside and found Lash and his son, both dead from gunshots to the upper body.
Daniel D. Polsby, dean of GMU's law school, said, "This thing just doesn't belong to the normal range of human experience, and we're all just heartbroken for his family, his community and for ourselves."
Lash's résumé was long and quintessential of the Washington elite -- an Ivy League pedigree, high-powered law firms, a presidential appointment, think tanks, boards of directors, guest spots on television news programs, and prestigious university positions.
He had an undergraduate degree from Yale University, a law degree from Harvard University. He clerked for a New Jersey Supreme Court justice. He served as counsel to the chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission during the Reagan years, worked for the law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson and served on the boards of directors of private and publicly traded corporations. In 1994, he found a place in academia on the GMU law faculty.
He specialized in the arcana of business law there and earned a reputation as a generous and jovial cigar-smoking colleague, an approachable professor and a sharp-minded and willing debater of ideology.
"He was a wonderful colleague, lively and full of ideas, full of energy," Polsby said. "I would describe him as an engaged and articulate person, not at all the sort of person whose last act would be what it appears to have been."
Polsby said "there was nothing" to suggest that Lash was troubled.
Lash took a leave from the law school in 2001, when President Bush appointed him assistant secretary of commerce for market access and compliance. Among his duties at the Commerce Department, Lash headed a task force on the reconstruction of Iraq, in which he dealt with businesses seeking contracts.
In a statement, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez said: "Bill was a passionate, committed and hard working individual who was much loved and respected by his colleagues. . . . He was a vivacious, expansive, and tenacious Assistant Secretary."
Lash resigned the post last year and returned to GMU. He also was a senior adviser to the Brunswick Group LLC, a firm specializing in corporate public relations.
A few weeks ago, he had dinner at his house with a Mason colleague, Todd J. Zywicki, whose office was next door. Zywicki said he detected no signs of trouble that night, not even in retrospect.
"I'm just stunned," Zywicki said yesterday. "He loved his son so much. He really loved his son . . . and he did everything for him."
It was the impression Lash left on most everyone.
"I have no explanation," said Michael Krauss, another GMU colleague. "There are people who seem troubled, but I never would have thought that about Bill Lash. Never."
Lash was born and raised in New Jersey, where his parents still live. They declined to comment yesterday.
Zackula, a lawyer with the National Association of Securities Dealers, could not be located yesterday.
Ex-Bush Aide Fatally Shoots Son, Himself
Gunfire at McLean Home Followed Fight With Wife
By Tom Jackman and Stephanie McCrummen
Washington Post Staff Writers
A former Bush administration official, after arguing violently with his wife Thursday night, shot and killed his 12-year-old son inside their McLean home, then turned a shotgun on himself and committed suicide, Fairfax County police said.
William H. Lash III, 45, was an assistant secretary of commerce from 2001 until last year, then returned to teach at George Mason University Law School in Arlington, where he had begun as a professor in 1994. His wife, Sharon K. Zackula, fled the house before the shootings, and police said yesterday they were not sure what ignited the murder-suicide in a first-floor bedroom.
Friends and neighbors described Lash as devoted to his only child, William H. Lash IV, who was autistic. Will Lash had just completed sixth grade at Haycock Elementary School in the Falls Church area, Fairfax school officials said. The father and son could often be seen side by side on the swing set in their back yard, one neighbor said, and the pair often attended Washington Nationals baseball games.
Police said they had not been summoned this year to the blue expanded Cape Cod-style home on Pathfinder Lane in the West McLean neighborhood. There was no record of any domestic complaints. Neighbors said the family kept a low profile.
But shortly before 10 p.m. Thursday, police said, Lash and Zackula had a dispute and Zackula ran from the house and called police. Zackula was not hurt, but the dispute was physical enough that police later obtained a warrant charging Lash with domestic assault, Officer Richard Henry said.
Lash never knew about the warrant. When three or four officers arrived at 9:55 p.m., Henry said, they knocked on several doors but got no answer. Within 10 minutes, while trying to decide their next move, the officers heard two gunshots from inside the house, Henry said.
Not knowing who was shooting -- and who was being shot at -- the officers called for help. Teams of tactical officers and hostage negotiators were summoned, Henry said. Black-clad officers with rifles darted across front lawns, a command post bus was brought in, and police dispatchers phoned neighbors with urgent instructions: Turn off all lights and get in the basement, neighbors said.
After phone calls failed, a police negotiator began circling the house with a bullhorn, two neighbors said. The negotiator gently pleaded with Lash, "Bill, we need to know you're okay," the neighbors said. "Please give us a sign. Answer the phone. Turn on a light."
The negotiator tried to reach Lash for more than two hours. "He was incredibly compassionate," said one neighbor, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
After 1 a.m., police released a remote-controlled robot, equipped with a video camera, so police could gauge what was happening inside. The neighbor said the robot rolled slowly down Pathfinder Lane, up the Lash driveway and into the house.
Finally, at 3:50 a.m., officers went inside and found Lash and his son, both dead from gunshots to the upper body.
Daniel D. Polsby, dean of GMU's law school, said, "This thing just doesn't belong to the normal range of human experience, and we're all just heartbroken for his family, his community and for ourselves."
Lash's résumé was long and quintessential of the Washington elite -- an Ivy League pedigree, high-powered law firms, a presidential appointment, think tanks, boards of directors, guest spots on television news programs, and prestigious university positions.
He had an undergraduate degree from Yale University, a law degree from Harvard University. He clerked for a New Jersey Supreme Court justice. He served as counsel to the chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission during the Reagan years, worked for the law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson and served on the boards of directors of private and publicly traded corporations. In 1994, he found a place in academia on the GMU law faculty.
He specialized in the arcana of business law there and earned a reputation as a generous and jovial cigar-smoking colleague, an approachable professor and a sharp-minded and willing debater of ideology.
"He was a wonderful colleague, lively and full of ideas, full of energy," Polsby said. "I would describe him as an engaged and articulate person, not at all the sort of person whose last act would be what it appears to have been."
Polsby said "there was nothing" to suggest that Lash was troubled.
Lash took a leave from the law school in 2001, when President Bush appointed him assistant secretary of commerce for market access and compliance. Among his duties at the Commerce Department, Lash headed a task force on the reconstruction of Iraq, in which he dealt with businesses seeking contracts.
In a statement, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez said: "Bill was a passionate, committed and hard working individual who was much loved and respected by his colleagues. . . . He was a vivacious, expansive, and tenacious Assistant Secretary."
Lash resigned the post last year and returned to GMU. He also was a senior adviser to the Brunswick Group LLC, a firm specializing in corporate public relations.
A few weeks ago, he had dinner at his house with a Mason colleague, Todd J. Zywicki, whose office was next door. Zywicki said he detected no signs of trouble that night, not even in retrospect.
"I'm just stunned," Zywicki said yesterday. "He loved his son so much. He really loved his son . . . and he did everything for him."
It was the impression Lash left on most everyone.
"I have no explanation," said Michael Krauss, another GMU colleague. "There are people who seem troubled, but I never would have thought that about Bill Lash. Never."
Lash was born and raised in New Jersey, where his parents still live. They declined to comment yesterday.
Zackula, a lawyer with the National Association of Securities Dealers, could not be located yesterday.
Teach to impeach
Teach to impeach
Events nationwide aim to educate public about impeachment
By Kathryn Casa / Vermont Guardian
Here’s an impeachment pop quiz: true or false?
* If impeached, a public official is removed from office.
* One U.S. president has been impeached.
* Impeachment can occur only at the federal level.
The answers are: false, false, and false. Impeachment is the first of two distinct phases to remove a government official. Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached. Impeachment can occur at the state and federal levels.
Many in the United States don’t know much about the impeachment process, according to organizers of a national day of impeachment teach-ins. So on Wednesday, they are seeking to change that.
Impeachment teach-ins have been organized in more than 100 U.S. communities, including three in Vermont — Waitsfield, Burlington, and Brattleboro — where they are precursors to a month-end impeachment organizing effort featuring anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.
The July 19 teach-ins will feature the premiere of a short documentary, How to Impeach a President, featuring lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights who have developed a legal case for the impeachment of Pres. George W. Bush.
The New York-based center, along with Melville House Books, has developed an impeachment how-to kit, including the video and a 144-page handbook, Articles of Impeachment Against George. W. Bush.
The pamphlet details four articles of impeachment on four separate charges: warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq War, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution’s separation of powers.
“We were interested in making a book that would be like a handbook to the legal case for impeachment,” said Melville House publisher Dennis Johnson. “We wanted an inexpensive handbook that the average person can buy to understand what’s going on, the relevant rules and laws, and that the Constitution has a means in it to deal with exactly this kind of situation.”
Johnson described the response to the handbooks as “amazing.” More than 2,000 constituents have paid Melville House to send copies of the handbook to more than 300 representatives in Congress, he said.
According to Dan DeWalt, a Newfane selectboard member and architect of impeachment town meeting resolutions that passed in seven Vermont communities, “The whole concept of impeachment is very fuzzy in people’s heads. You talk about impeachment and they say, ‘Gee, shouldn’t we try him first?’ A certain amount of people’s reticence toward the idea of impeachment comes from them not understanding what it really is.”
After Town Meeting Day, a pair of U.S. missionaries serving abroad were among the hundreds who wrote to DeWalt to congratulate him. “You have set an example for the entire country,” wrote Graham and Dory Hutchins. “It is unfortunate that so many find your actions reprehensible and do not understand the value in the process in which you all engaged. It demonstrates that far too many people have forgotten, or were never taught, the basics of the republic in which they live. Those traditions that you abide by are in grave danger from an imperial orientation that values power over liberty, deception over truth.”
DeWalt’s efforts in Vermont helped spark similar resolutions at state and local levels throughout the country.
Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson wrote last spring: “It’s all over the blogosphere. It’s the cover story in the current Harper’s. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed an impeachment resolution. Antiwar activists, civil libertarians, all the usual-suspect constituencies have growing impeachment tendencies. But it’s reaching beyond the usual suspects.”
But it did not reach as far as Congress, where impeachment and censure failed to resonate, and even Vermont’s lone representative, self-professed socialist Bernie Sanders, refused to pursue impeachment in a body dominated by Republicans. Only a handful of representatives signed on to Rep. John Conyers’, D-MI, resolution calling for the creation of a select committee to investigate the administration, and the media soon lost interest.
Nevertheless, Johnson believes there is still strong grassroots support for impeachment that will come to the political fore after the November elections. “Vermont started something, and I think there have been numerous other town councils, boards of supervisors, and state Democratic parties that have passed similar resolutions,” he said.
On June 27, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to let voters decide whether the president should be impeached. The measure will appear on the city’s Nov. 7 ballot. The question is also on ballots in two Illinois cities, according to ImpeachPAC, a political action committee that has raised more than $41,000 to help elect candidates who support the simultaneous impeachment of Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney.
Three state legislatures, including Vermont’s, have passed impeachment resolutions, joining 16 state Democratic parties, and more than 22 towns and cities and dozen more local Democratic committees nationwide. In a continuing education effort, DeWalt said Sheehan will be in Brattleboro and Montpelier on July 30 to strategize with activists from throughout New England on how to pursue impeachment.
Sheehan and DeWalt will be joined at a 1 p.m. rally on the Brattleboro Common by Frances Crowe, who advocates for conscientious objectors; Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space; Rob Shetterly of Americanswhotellthetruth.org; Dud Hendrick, a former Naval officer and member of Maine Veterans for Peace; and Sunny Miller of Traprock Peace Center in Deerfield, MA.
Sheehan and DeWalt will travel to Montpelier the same day for a 6 p.m. rally on the Statehouse lawn.
Events nationwide aim to educate public about impeachment
By Kathryn Casa / Vermont Guardian
Here’s an impeachment pop quiz: true or false?
* If impeached, a public official is removed from office.
* One U.S. president has been impeached.
* Impeachment can occur only at the federal level.
The answers are: false, false, and false. Impeachment is the first of two distinct phases to remove a government official. Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached. Impeachment can occur at the state and federal levels.
Many in the United States don’t know much about the impeachment process, according to organizers of a national day of impeachment teach-ins. So on Wednesday, they are seeking to change that.
Impeachment teach-ins have been organized in more than 100 U.S. communities, including three in Vermont — Waitsfield, Burlington, and Brattleboro — where they are precursors to a month-end impeachment organizing effort featuring anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.
The July 19 teach-ins will feature the premiere of a short documentary, How to Impeach a President, featuring lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights who have developed a legal case for the impeachment of Pres. George W. Bush.
The New York-based center, along with Melville House Books, has developed an impeachment how-to kit, including the video and a 144-page handbook, Articles of Impeachment Against George. W. Bush.
The pamphlet details four articles of impeachment on four separate charges: warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq War, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution’s separation of powers.
“We were interested in making a book that would be like a handbook to the legal case for impeachment,” said Melville House publisher Dennis Johnson. “We wanted an inexpensive handbook that the average person can buy to understand what’s going on, the relevant rules and laws, and that the Constitution has a means in it to deal with exactly this kind of situation.”
Johnson described the response to the handbooks as “amazing.” More than 2,000 constituents have paid Melville House to send copies of the handbook to more than 300 representatives in Congress, he said.
According to Dan DeWalt, a Newfane selectboard member and architect of impeachment town meeting resolutions that passed in seven Vermont communities, “The whole concept of impeachment is very fuzzy in people’s heads. You talk about impeachment and they say, ‘Gee, shouldn’t we try him first?’ A certain amount of people’s reticence toward the idea of impeachment comes from them not understanding what it really is.”
After Town Meeting Day, a pair of U.S. missionaries serving abroad were among the hundreds who wrote to DeWalt to congratulate him. “You have set an example for the entire country,” wrote Graham and Dory Hutchins. “It is unfortunate that so many find your actions reprehensible and do not understand the value in the process in which you all engaged. It demonstrates that far too many people have forgotten, or were never taught, the basics of the republic in which they live. Those traditions that you abide by are in grave danger from an imperial orientation that values power over liberty, deception over truth.”
DeWalt’s efforts in Vermont helped spark similar resolutions at state and local levels throughout the country.
Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson wrote last spring: “It’s all over the blogosphere. It’s the cover story in the current Harper’s. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed an impeachment resolution. Antiwar activists, civil libertarians, all the usual-suspect constituencies have growing impeachment tendencies. But it’s reaching beyond the usual suspects.”
But it did not reach as far as Congress, where impeachment and censure failed to resonate, and even Vermont’s lone representative, self-professed socialist Bernie Sanders, refused to pursue impeachment in a body dominated by Republicans. Only a handful of representatives signed on to Rep. John Conyers’, D-MI, resolution calling for the creation of a select committee to investigate the administration, and the media soon lost interest.
Nevertheless, Johnson believes there is still strong grassroots support for impeachment that will come to the political fore after the November elections. “Vermont started something, and I think there have been numerous other town councils, boards of supervisors, and state Democratic parties that have passed similar resolutions,” he said.
On June 27, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to let voters decide whether the president should be impeached. The measure will appear on the city’s Nov. 7 ballot. The question is also on ballots in two Illinois cities, according to ImpeachPAC, a political action committee that has raised more than $41,000 to help elect candidates who support the simultaneous impeachment of Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney.
Three state legislatures, including Vermont’s, have passed impeachment resolutions, joining 16 state Democratic parties, and more than 22 towns and cities and dozen more local Democratic committees nationwide. In a continuing education effort, DeWalt said Sheehan will be in Brattleboro and Montpelier on July 30 to strategize with activists from throughout New England on how to pursue impeachment.
Sheehan and DeWalt will be joined at a 1 p.m. rally on the Brattleboro Common by Frances Crowe, who advocates for conscientious objectors; Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space; Rob Shetterly of Americanswhotellthetruth.org; Dud Hendrick, a former Naval officer and member of Maine Veterans for Peace; and Sunny Miller of Traprock Peace Center in Deerfield, MA.
Sheehan and DeWalt will travel to Montpelier the same day for a 6 p.m. rally on the Statehouse lawn.
Veteran cafeteria workers can't find out why Homeland Security had them yanked from their jobs
Two out of work at Federal Building after 20-plus years' service
Veteran cafeteria workers can't find out why Homeland Security had them yanked from their jobs
By Paula Reed Ward / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Judy Miller, who greets each customer in line with friendly conversation, just wants to get back to her spot behind the cash register.
Mary Broughton, who cooks for hundreds of people each day like she would for her own family, misses her work, too.
But for now, the women are barred from their positions in the cafeterias of the federal buildings Downtown because they failed to pass required background checks with the Department of Homeland Security.
Even after seeking help from their union and a local congressman, they still don't know what it is that's keeping them away, and they're becoming increasingly frustrated.
"This not knowing when we can go back to work is ridiculous because they screwed up in Washington," Ms. Miller said.
Ms. Broughton, 58, of Crafton Heights, who said she's never been in trouble, agreed.
"I can't understand it," she said.
The two women were asked to leave the U.S. Courthouse and the William S. Moorhead Federal Building across the street on July 5. Since then, both women have filed for unemployment.
On Tuesday, their employer, Sodexho Inc., which is contracted to run the cafeterias in the two buildings, said the women were on paid administrative leave.
Yesterday, though, the company backtracked from that statement. Instead, according to Stacy Bowman-Hade, the women were given a choice of using up their vacation pay or being laid off.
Both Ms. Miller and Ms. Broughton have filed for unemployment.
Still, Ms. Bowman-Hade insisted, the company is trying to work with them to come up with a solution to the problem.
"We're trying to be as supportive as possible," she said. "We have to take it day by day because we don't know what the outcome's going to be."
In the meantime, Sodexho is trying to find the women temporary positions at other area locations, Ms. Bowman-Hade said, though that has not happened yet.
Company officials were informed last week that both Ms. Miller, who's worked for the company for 20 years, and Ms. Broughton, who has 24 years, were deemed "unsuitable," by Homeland Security to work in the federal buildings.
No reasons were cited at the time, and no answers have been forthcoming.
They assume it's a problem with their paperwork.
"I haven't even been arrested for jaywalking," said Ms. Miller, 52, of the North Side. "I've never even gotten a traffic ticket."
She didn't mind doing the background check a few months ago, she said, because she has nothing to hide. Now, though, she's mad.
"I want to get back to my people," she said.
Ms. Broughton concurred.
"I love it," she said. "I've been cooking for all my life."
She says she's most well-known for her chili and soups, but customers are fond of her veal parmesan and chicken marsala, as well.
"I fix it like I was at home," Ms. Broughton said. "I won't give people anything I wouldn't eat."
Both women have sought help from U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills.
"Our office works as sort of an ombudsman to the federal government," said spokesman Matt Dinkel. "We normally get results pretty quickly."
This time, though, the congressman's office has been foiled in trying to get information.
A liaison with Homeland Security told Rep. Doyle's office only that the women needed to appeal and would give no further information.
"It's one of the most frustrating interactions our office has ever had with a federal agency," Mr. Dinkel said. "It's unlike the response we usually get from other agencies," citing the IRS, Social Security Administration, State Department, and Housing and Urban Development.
After calling an automated information line in Washington dozens of times during the past week and leaving unanswered messages, the women finally learned yesterday that they must submit a written letter to the Department of Homeland Security appealing the "unsuitable" status.
Rep. Doyle's office helped in the preparation of that letter, and it will be faxed today, Mr. Dinkel said. The appeals process typically takes less than 30 days.
Last month, another Sodexho employee was removed from the cafeteria in the federal building, as well, following the background checks. That man, whose name has not been released, chose to file for unemployment and has not returned to work.
Veteran cafeteria workers can't find out why Homeland Security had them yanked from their jobs
By Paula Reed Ward / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Judy Miller, who greets each customer in line with friendly conversation, just wants to get back to her spot behind the cash register.
Mary Broughton, who cooks for hundreds of people each day like she would for her own family, misses her work, too.
But for now, the women are barred from their positions in the cafeterias of the federal buildings Downtown because they failed to pass required background checks with the Department of Homeland Security.
Even after seeking help from their union and a local congressman, they still don't know what it is that's keeping them away, and they're becoming increasingly frustrated.
"This not knowing when we can go back to work is ridiculous because they screwed up in Washington," Ms. Miller said.
Ms. Broughton, 58, of Crafton Heights, who said she's never been in trouble, agreed.
"I can't understand it," she said.
The two women were asked to leave the U.S. Courthouse and the William S. Moorhead Federal Building across the street on July 5. Since then, both women have filed for unemployment.
On Tuesday, their employer, Sodexho Inc., which is contracted to run the cafeterias in the two buildings, said the women were on paid administrative leave.
Yesterday, though, the company backtracked from that statement. Instead, according to Stacy Bowman-Hade, the women were given a choice of using up their vacation pay or being laid off.
Both Ms. Miller and Ms. Broughton have filed for unemployment.
Still, Ms. Bowman-Hade insisted, the company is trying to work with them to come up with a solution to the problem.
"We're trying to be as supportive as possible," she said. "We have to take it day by day because we don't know what the outcome's going to be."
In the meantime, Sodexho is trying to find the women temporary positions at other area locations, Ms. Bowman-Hade said, though that has not happened yet.
Company officials were informed last week that both Ms. Miller, who's worked for the company for 20 years, and Ms. Broughton, who has 24 years, were deemed "unsuitable," by Homeland Security to work in the federal buildings.
No reasons were cited at the time, and no answers have been forthcoming.
They assume it's a problem with their paperwork.
"I haven't even been arrested for jaywalking," said Ms. Miller, 52, of the North Side. "I've never even gotten a traffic ticket."
She didn't mind doing the background check a few months ago, she said, because she has nothing to hide. Now, though, she's mad.
"I want to get back to my people," she said.
Ms. Broughton concurred.
"I love it," she said. "I've been cooking for all my life."
She says she's most well-known for her chili and soups, but customers are fond of her veal parmesan and chicken marsala, as well.
"I fix it like I was at home," Ms. Broughton said. "I won't give people anything I wouldn't eat."
Both women have sought help from U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills.
"Our office works as sort of an ombudsman to the federal government," said spokesman Matt Dinkel. "We normally get results pretty quickly."
This time, though, the congressman's office has been foiled in trying to get information.
A liaison with Homeland Security told Rep. Doyle's office only that the women needed to appeal and would give no further information.
"It's one of the most frustrating interactions our office has ever had with a federal agency," Mr. Dinkel said. "It's unlike the response we usually get from other agencies," citing the IRS, Social Security Administration, State Department, and Housing and Urban Development.
After calling an automated information line in Washington dozens of times during the past week and leaving unanswered messages, the women finally learned yesterday that they must submit a written letter to the Department of Homeland Security appealing the "unsuitable" status.
Rep. Doyle's office helped in the preparation of that letter, and it will be faxed today, Mr. Dinkel said. The appeals process typically takes less than 30 days.
Last month, another Sodexho employee was removed from the cafeteria in the federal building, as well, following the background checks. That man, whose name has not been released, chose to file for unemployment and has not returned to work.
Young veterans join unemployment lines
USA Today
Young veterans join unemployment lines
By Katherine Hutt Scott, Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Young veterans returning from Iraq and other tours of duty aren't always coming back to a hero's welcome — at least from employers.
The jobless rate for veterans between ages 20 and 24 was a startling 15.6% last year, more than three times the national unemployment rate of 5.1%. The jobless rate for all 20- to 24-year-olds last year was 8.7%.
No one claims to know the reasons behind the employment travails of returning veterans. But lawmakers and labor officials have some theories:
• They want to take a break and either accept state unemployment benefits or take advantage of GI Bill educational assistance to enroll in college or trade schools.
• Some are entering the workforce for the first time and aren't adept at explaining their military skills to civilian employers.
• Some who saw combat in Iraq or Afghanistan suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, which makes it difficult for them to work and makes employers leery of hiring them.
"Of course, there is an alarm," said Ron Fairnot, a Michigan state employee who helps find jobs for veterans in the greater Lansing area. "There are certain positions where you would not put an individual (with post-traumatic stress disorder)."
Those positions include jobs working with the public or with heavy machinery that makes lots of noise, Fairnot said.
Dustin Dockins of Rockford, a staff sergeant with the Army Reserve, didn't want to relax after he returned from a year of non-combat duty in Afghanistan in May 2005. Before being deployed, he had worked as a cabinet maker.
But Dockins, then 25, learned that finding a job stateside was tougher than he had anticipated.
"There was a lot of stress trying to get it all lined up," said Dockins, a father of four.
After almost three months of searching, he took a civilian job with the Army Reserve as administrator of a unit in Rockford.
Historically, veterans have enjoyed a lower unemployment rate than the population as a whole. Employers generally want to hire veterans, according to Charles Ciccolella, assistant secretary for veterans employment and training with the Department of Labor.
"They're disciplined and they come to work on time," Ciccolella said. "They've got leadership and management (skills)."
But every year since 1990, the jobless rate for veterans between ages 20 and 24 has been higher than the overall rate for that age range, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The Labor Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs are collaborating on a survey of young veterans that the agencies hope will shed light on why so many are jobless.
Ciccolella said one attempt to solve the problem is a three-day workshop called the Transition Assistance Program that is offered to service members just before they leave the military. The Labor Department runs an employment segment of the workshop that includes training in resume writing, interviewing and salary negotiations.
Ciccolella said his goal is to get all departing service members to take the training. Currently, about 60% of departing service members take the workshop. They typically find their first civilian job three weeks earlier than non-participants, according to the Labor Department.
Veterans also can check in with one of 3,500 government-run employment offices across the country that give priority to veterans for job training and job placement. The Labor Department uses six regional offices to oversee the career centers' veterans services.
The federal agency sent $155 million to the states this year to help the job-placement efforts for veterans. Illinois received $6.4 million.
In Illinois, 62,486 veterans registered with the state Department of Employment Security for job placement and other services during the last 12 months, said Lane Knox, the state's veterans program coordinator.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, has taken an interest in the young veterans employment issue. He wants to put teeth into a requirement that government contractors advertise available jobs to veterans, so that the contractors are actively recruiting the veterans.
The freshman senator also is crafting legislation to make sure all returning veterans receive medical screening to catch post-traumatic stress disorder early, so they can begin treatment.
Mental health experts have said at least 15% of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will develop post-traumatic stress disorder, similar to the rate for Vietnam War veterans, according to a Government Accountability Office report in September 2004.
"We have to look at how do we work with both vets and employers to craft pathways to employment when they come out," Obama said.
Young veterans join unemployment lines
By Katherine Hutt Scott, Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Young veterans returning from Iraq and other tours of duty aren't always coming back to a hero's welcome — at least from employers.
The jobless rate for veterans between ages 20 and 24 was a startling 15.6% last year, more than three times the national unemployment rate of 5.1%. The jobless rate for all 20- to 24-year-olds last year was 8.7%.
No one claims to know the reasons behind the employment travails of returning veterans. But lawmakers and labor officials have some theories:
• They want to take a break and either accept state unemployment benefits or take advantage of GI Bill educational assistance to enroll in college or trade schools.
• Some are entering the workforce for the first time and aren't adept at explaining their military skills to civilian employers.
• Some who saw combat in Iraq or Afghanistan suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, which makes it difficult for them to work and makes employers leery of hiring them.
"Of course, there is an alarm," said Ron Fairnot, a Michigan state employee who helps find jobs for veterans in the greater Lansing area. "There are certain positions where you would not put an individual (with post-traumatic stress disorder)."
Those positions include jobs working with the public or with heavy machinery that makes lots of noise, Fairnot said.
Dustin Dockins of Rockford, a staff sergeant with the Army Reserve, didn't want to relax after he returned from a year of non-combat duty in Afghanistan in May 2005. Before being deployed, he had worked as a cabinet maker.
But Dockins, then 25, learned that finding a job stateside was tougher than he had anticipated.
"There was a lot of stress trying to get it all lined up," said Dockins, a father of four.
After almost three months of searching, he took a civilian job with the Army Reserve as administrator of a unit in Rockford.
Historically, veterans have enjoyed a lower unemployment rate than the population as a whole. Employers generally want to hire veterans, according to Charles Ciccolella, assistant secretary for veterans employment and training with the Department of Labor.
"They're disciplined and they come to work on time," Ciccolella said. "They've got leadership and management (skills)."
But every year since 1990, the jobless rate for veterans between ages 20 and 24 has been higher than the overall rate for that age range, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The Labor Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs are collaborating on a survey of young veterans that the agencies hope will shed light on why so many are jobless.
Ciccolella said one attempt to solve the problem is a three-day workshop called the Transition Assistance Program that is offered to service members just before they leave the military. The Labor Department runs an employment segment of the workshop that includes training in resume writing, interviewing and salary negotiations.
Ciccolella said his goal is to get all departing service members to take the training. Currently, about 60% of departing service members take the workshop. They typically find their first civilian job three weeks earlier than non-participants, according to the Labor Department.
Veterans also can check in with one of 3,500 government-run employment offices across the country that give priority to veterans for job training and job placement. The Labor Department uses six regional offices to oversee the career centers' veterans services.
The federal agency sent $155 million to the states this year to help the job-placement efforts for veterans. Illinois received $6.4 million.
In Illinois, 62,486 veterans registered with the state Department of Employment Security for job placement and other services during the last 12 months, said Lane Knox, the state's veterans program coordinator.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, has taken an interest in the young veterans employment issue. He wants to put teeth into a requirement that government contractors advertise available jobs to veterans, so that the contractors are actively recruiting the veterans.
The freshman senator also is crafting legislation to make sure all returning veterans receive medical screening to catch post-traumatic stress disorder early, so they can begin treatment.
Mental health experts have said at least 15% of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will develop post-traumatic stress disorder, similar to the rate for Vietnam War veterans, according to a Government Accountability Office report in September 2004.
"We have to look at how do we work with both vets and employers to craft pathways to employment when they come out," Obama said.
Poll: Most Americans Hold Republican Congress in Low Regard, Plan to Vote for Democrats
ABC News
Poll: Americans Want Democrats in Power
AP-Ipsos Poll: Most Americans Hold Republican Congress in Low Regard, Plan to Vote for Democrats
By DONNA CASSATA
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November. With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.
Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic. The party out of power also holds the edge among persuadable voters, a prospect that doesn't bode well for the Republicans.
The election ultimately will be decided in 435 House districts and 33 Senate contests, in which incumbents typically hold the upper hand. But the survey underscored the difficulty Republicans face in trying to persuade a skeptical public to return them to Washington.
The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults conducted Monday through Wednesday found that President Bush has stopped his political freefall, with his approval rating of 36 percent basically unchanged from last month. Bush received slightly higher marks for his handling of the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism, weeks after his surprise trip to Baghdad and the killing of Iraqi terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike last month.
But a Democratic takeover of either the House or Senate would be disastrous for the president, leaving both his agenda for the last two years in office and the chairmanship of investigative committees in the hands of the opposition party. To seize control of Congress, the Democrats must displace 15 Republicans from House seats and six Republicans from the Senate.
The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.
Not surprisingly, 81 percent of self-described liberals said they would vote for the Democrat. Among moderates, though, 56 percent backed a Democrat in their district and almost a quarter of conservatives 24 percent said they will vote Democratic.
Democrats also held the advantage among persuadable voters those who are undecided or wouldn't say whom they prefer. A total of 51 percent said they were leaning Democrat, while 41 percent were leaning Republican.
"We still have wind in our face. It's a midterm election in the president's second term," said Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Today is a little bit better in the atmospherics of Washington than it was maybe a month ago."
The president's party historically has lost seats in the sixth year of his service. Franklin D. Roosevelt lost 72 House seats in 1938; Dwight D. Eisenhower 48 in 1958. The exception was Bill Clinton in 1998.
By another comparison, polls in 1994 when a Republican tidal wave swept Democrats from power the two parties were in a dead heat in July on the question of whom voters preferred in their district.
"It comes down to a fairly simply question: Can Democrats nationalize all the elections? If Republicans prevent that, they have a shot. If they don't, they lose," said Doug Gross, the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Iowa in 2002 and the state finance director for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.
Overall, only 27 percent approved of the way Congress is doing its job. Lawmakers get favorable marks from 36 percent of conservatives, 28 percent of moderates and 17 percent of liberals.
Some criticism of Congress has focused on lawmakers' inability to control spending, with lawmakers tucking in special projects for their home districts.
"They used to say there's nothing worse than a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat," said Gary Wilson, 51, a self-described liberal from Gaithersburg, Md. "There is something worse: It's a borrow-and-spend Republican. This is going to come back to haunt us."
One bright spot for the GOP is that Republicans hold an advantage over Democrats on issues such as foreign policy and fighting terrorism 43 percent to 33 percent and a smaller edge on handling Iraq 36 percent to 32 percent.
The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted after the divisive Democratic debate in the Senate over setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. Potential voters were paying attention to the GOP complaint that Democrats want to "cut and run."
"It seems like the Democrats want to pull out or start to pull out, and I don't think that's the correct thing to do," said Eric Bean, 24, a college minister in Fort Worth, Texas. "I'd much rather see a Congress that would support our president. I think George Bush is doing the best he can. I think Republicans will support him."
John Dendahl, the Republican candidate for governor in New Mexico, said Democrats, with the help of some Republicans, have been successful at obstructing legislation in Congress while heaping the blame on the GOP.
Tom Courtney, a Democratic state senator in Iowa, said U.S. voters are ready to trust his party to lead.
"I honestly think it's ours to lose," Courtney said. "My experience, we're not above that. Americans are ready for change."
The poll of adults had a margin of error of 3 percentage points and the survey of registered voters had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
Associated Press Writers Philip Elliott and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
Poll: Americans Want Democrats in Power
AP-Ipsos Poll: Most Americans Hold Republican Congress in Low Regard, Plan to Vote for Democrats
By DONNA CASSATA
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November. With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.
Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic. The party out of power also holds the edge among persuadable voters, a prospect that doesn't bode well for the Republicans.
The election ultimately will be decided in 435 House districts and 33 Senate contests, in which incumbents typically hold the upper hand. But the survey underscored the difficulty Republicans face in trying to persuade a skeptical public to return them to Washington.
The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults conducted Monday through Wednesday found that President Bush has stopped his political freefall, with his approval rating of 36 percent basically unchanged from last month. Bush received slightly higher marks for his handling of the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism, weeks after his surprise trip to Baghdad and the killing of Iraqi terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike last month.
But a Democratic takeover of either the House or Senate would be disastrous for the president, leaving both his agenda for the last two years in office and the chairmanship of investigative committees in the hands of the opposition party. To seize control of Congress, the Democrats must displace 15 Republicans from House seats and six Republicans from the Senate.
The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.
Not surprisingly, 81 percent of self-described liberals said they would vote for the Democrat. Among moderates, though, 56 percent backed a Democrat in their district and almost a quarter of conservatives 24 percent said they will vote Democratic.
Democrats also held the advantage among persuadable voters those who are undecided or wouldn't say whom they prefer. A total of 51 percent said they were leaning Democrat, while 41 percent were leaning Republican.
"We still have wind in our face. It's a midterm election in the president's second term," said Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Today is a little bit better in the atmospherics of Washington than it was maybe a month ago."
The president's party historically has lost seats in the sixth year of his service. Franklin D. Roosevelt lost 72 House seats in 1938; Dwight D. Eisenhower 48 in 1958. The exception was Bill Clinton in 1998.
By another comparison, polls in 1994 when a Republican tidal wave swept Democrats from power the two parties were in a dead heat in July on the question of whom voters preferred in their district.
"It comes down to a fairly simply question: Can Democrats nationalize all the elections? If Republicans prevent that, they have a shot. If they don't, they lose," said Doug Gross, the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Iowa in 2002 and the state finance director for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.
Overall, only 27 percent approved of the way Congress is doing its job. Lawmakers get favorable marks from 36 percent of conservatives, 28 percent of moderates and 17 percent of liberals.
Some criticism of Congress has focused on lawmakers' inability to control spending, with lawmakers tucking in special projects for their home districts.
"They used to say there's nothing worse than a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat," said Gary Wilson, 51, a self-described liberal from Gaithersburg, Md. "There is something worse: It's a borrow-and-spend Republican. This is going to come back to haunt us."
One bright spot for the GOP is that Republicans hold an advantage over Democrats on issues such as foreign policy and fighting terrorism 43 percent to 33 percent and a smaller edge on handling Iraq 36 percent to 32 percent.
The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted after the divisive Democratic debate in the Senate over setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. Potential voters were paying attention to the GOP complaint that Democrats want to "cut and run."
"It seems like the Democrats want to pull out or start to pull out, and I don't think that's the correct thing to do," said Eric Bean, 24, a college minister in Fort Worth, Texas. "I'd much rather see a Congress that would support our president. I think George Bush is doing the best he can. I think Republicans will support him."
John Dendahl, the Republican candidate for governor in New Mexico, said Democrats, with the help of some Republicans, have been successful at obstructing legislation in Congress while heaping the blame on the GOP.
Tom Courtney, a Democratic state senator in Iowa, said U.S. voters are ready to trust his party to lead.
"I honestly think it's ours to lose," Courtney said. "My experience, we're not above that. Americans are ready for change."
The poll of adults had a margin of error of 3 percentage points and the survey of registered voters had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
Associated Press Writers Philip Elliott and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
Al Qaeda, American Style
The New York Times
Al Qaeda, American Style
By JESSICA STERN
Cambridge, Mass.
JUST before the first anniversary of the July 7 bombings in London that killed 52 people, Al Qaeda released a video that reflects a significant change in how it operates: terrorism is being brought home. The new video tries to recruit ordinary American Muslims who might be offended, as many ordinary Americans are, by America’s mistakes and moral failings in carrying out the war on terrorism.
The film stars three terrorists: Shehzad Tanweer, one of the July 7 bombers who died during the attack; Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy and long-time chief ideologue; and Adam Gadahn, a 28-year-old American who grew up on a goat ranch in Riverside, Calif., and converted to radical Islam.
Mr. Gadahn’s speech is revolutionary — not because it warns about blood-curdling terrorist strikes to come, but precisely because it doesn’t. Mr. Gadahn has appeared on Qaeda videos before. In previous performances, his face obscured by a mask, he came across as a zealot, describing his fellow Americans as guilty of decades of tyranny and oppression in the Islamic world, warning us in October 2004, “Allah willing, the streets of America will run red with blood.” Last September, a masked man believed to be Mr. Gadahn appeared on another Qaeda video warning: “Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne.”
Unlike in his previous performances, in last week’s video Mr. Gadahn is articulate, reasonable and troublingly persuasive. He accuses the United States of deliberately harming Muslim civilians in various conflicts around the world. If this were American policy, needless to say, it would violate not only Islamic teaching, but also the Judeo-Christian just war tradition.
Mr. Gadahn tells us, “I’ve carried the victims in my arms — women, children, toddlers, babies in their mother’s wombs.” He argues that American voters, not just their leaders, are to blame for this purported strategy of hurting innocents. The implication is that American civilians are, as Osama bin Laden first argued in February 1998, legitimate targets for Al Qaeda’s strikes.
Unfortunately, some of what Mr. Gadahn claims about our war on terrorism cannot be denied. He notes that American soldiers captured Muslim civilians and shipped them off to Guantánamo or worse places. “Many were handed over to the American and British-backed despotic regimes of the Islamic world to be brutally interrogated,” he tells us, referring to the strategy of extraordinary rendition.
While most previous Qaeda propaganda vehicles appear to have been written to strengthen the resolve of already committed zealots, Mr. Gadahn’s monologue seems intended for a different audience. He tells the story of the gang rape of a teenage Iraqi girl, who was murdered along with her family, allegedly by five American soldiers seeking to cover their tracks. This story would move any American listener to shame, even knowing that it has been put to a highly manipulative use.
I am afraid that these accusations of American atrocities, which are likely to proliferate the longer we remain in Iraq, will vastly increase the pool from which Al Qaeda and its sympathizers can recruit new members and supporters. Most troubling of all is that such stories will help Al Qaeda recruit Americans. That, in turn, will make it easier for the movement to achieve the sort of attack Mr. Gadahn warned of in October 2004 — the kind that involves blood running in our streets.
Al Qaeda’s shift in strategy requires a shift in our own. We need to recognize that we are fighting two wars simultaneously — a global war on terrorism and a ground war in Iraq. Mistakes in one area degrade our effectiveness in the other, in part because those mistakes are likely to be filmed and disseminated around the globe. For example, interrogation techniques intended to extract information by humiliating the enemy help our enemies “prove” that humiliating Muslims is our goal.
War is hell, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman wisely observed. It almost always results in foreseeable, but still unforeseen, atrocities on both sides. That is why, when a president puts his nation’s youths at risk in war, he should be certain that there is a high likelihood of success and that the anticipated gains exceed the likely collateral damage visited on both sides.
We made a major error by going to war in Iraq. We overestimated the probability of success and ignored warnings of a likely insurgency. We were unprepared for a long occupation and unprepared to create a functioning state. And we did not fully consider how a protracted war would benefit our terrorist enemies for decades to come by allowing them to train against the most powerful military in history and reinforcing the incorrect but increasingly compelling idea that America is determined to humiliate and harm the Islamic world.
Some errors yield not only bad outcomes, but also bad choices, and this is one. It will be dangerous for both Iraqis and Americans if we leave Iraq as a failed state. But it is even more dangerous to remain where our continuing presence will inevitably result in further cruelties and atrocities, providing more arguments for more videos to attract more terrorist recruits around the globe — including here at home.
Jessica Stern, a lecturer on terrorism at Harvard, is the author of “Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill.”
Al Qaeda, American Style
By JESSICA STERN
Cambridge, Mass.
JUST before the first anniversary of the July 7 bombings in London that killed 52 people, Al Qaeda released a video that reflects a significant change in how it operates: terrorism is being brought home. The new video tries to recruit ordinary American Muslims who might be offended, as many ordinary Americans are, by America’s mistakes and moral failings in carrying out the war on terrorism.
The film stars three terrorists: Shehzad Tanweer, one of the July 7 bombers who died during the attack; Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy and long-time chief ideologue; and Adam Gadahn, a 28-year-old American who grew up on a goat ranch in Riverside, Calif., and converted to radical Islam.
Mr. Gadahn’s speech is revolutionary — not because it warns about blood-curdling terrorist strikes to come, but precisely because it doesn’t. Mr. Gadahn has appeared on Qaeda videos before. In previous performances, his face obscured by a mask, he came across as a zealot, describing his fellow Americans as guilty of decades of tyranny and oppression in the Islamic world, warning us in October 2004, “Allah willing, the streets of America will run red with blood.” Last September, a masked man believed to be Mr. Gadahn appeared on another Qaeda video warning: “Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne.”
Unlike in his previous performances, in last week’s video Mr. Gadahn is articulate, reasonable and troublingly persuasive. He accuses the United States of deliberately harming Muslim civilians in various conflicts around the world. If this were American policy, needless to say, it would violate not only Islamic teaching, but also the Judeo-Christian just war tradition.
Mr. Gadahn tells us, “I’ve carried the victims in my arms — women, children, toddlers, babies in their mother’s wombs.” He argues that American voters, not just their leaders, are to blame for this purported strategy of hurting innocents. The implication is that American civilians are, as Osama bin Laden first argued in February 1998, legitimate targets for Al Qaeda’s strikes.
Unfortunately, some of what Mr. Gadahn claims about our war on terrorism cannot be denied. He notes that American soldiers captured Muslim civilians and shipped them off to Guantánamo or worse places. “Many were handed over to the American and British-backed despotic regimes of the Islamic world to be brutally interrogated,” he tells us, referring to the strategy of extraordinary rendition.
While most previous Qaeda propaganda vehicles appear to have been written to strengthen the resolve of already committed zealots, Mr. Gadahn’s monologue seems intended for a different audience. He tells the story of the gang rape of a teenage Iraqi girl, who was murdered along with her family, allegedly by five American soldiers seeking to cover their tracks. This story would move any American listener to shame, even knowing that it has been put to a highly manipulative use.
I am afraid that these accusations of American atrocities, which are likely to proliferate the longer we remain in Iraq, will vastly increase the pool from which Al Qaeda and its sympathizers can recruit new members and supporters. Most troubling of all is that such stories will help Al Qaeda recruit Americans. That, in turn, will make it easier for the movement to achieve the sort of attack Mr. Gadahn warned of in October 2004 — the kind that involves blood running in our streets.
Al Qaeda’s shift in strategy requires a shift in our own. We need to recognize that we are fighting two wars simultaneously — a global war on terrorism and a ground war in Iraq. Mistakes in one area degrade our effectiveness in the other, in part because those mistakes are likely to be filmed and disseminated around the globe. For example, interrogation techniques intended to extract information by humiliating the enemy help our enemies “prove” that humiliating Muslims is our goal.
War is hell, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman wisely observed. It almost always results in foreseeable, but still unforeseen, atrocities on both sides. That is why, when a president puts his nation’s youths at risk in war, he should be certain that there is a high likelihood of success and that the anticipated gains exceed the likely collateral damage visited on both sides.
We made a major error by going to war in Iraq. We overestimated the probability of success and ignored warnings of a likely insurgency. We were unprepared for a long occupation and unprepared to create a functioning state. And we did not fully consider how a protracted war would benefit our terrorist enemies for decades to come by allowing them to train against the most powerful military in history and reinforcing the incorrect but increasingly compelling idea that America is determined to humiliate and harm the Islamic world.
Some errors yield not only bad outcomes, but also bad choices, and this is one. It will be dangerous for both Iraqis and Americans if we leave Iraq as a failed state. But it is even more dangerous to remain where our continuing presence will inevitably result in further cruelties and atrocities, providing more arguments for more videos to attract more terrorist recruits around the globe — including here at home.
Jessica Stern, a lecturer on terrorism at Harvard, is the author of “Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill.”
Playing Hamas’s Game
The New York Times
Playing Hamas’s Game
With the circle of violence in the Middle East expanding alarmingly, it is important to be clear about not only who is responsible for the latest outbreak, but who stands to gain most from its continued escalation.
Both questions have the same answer: Hamas and Hezbollah. And Israel needs to be careful that its far-reaching military responses, however legally and morally justified, do not end up advancing the political agenda that Hamas and Hezbollah hard-liners had in mind when they conceived and executed the kidnappings of Israeli soldiers that detonated the fighting.
The Palestinian Authority, which Hamas controls, and the Lebanese government, in which Hezbollah is a minority participant, inexcusably failed to prevent or halt these incidents. Iran, which arms Hezbollah, and Syria, which shelters the most violent wing of Hamas, also share some responsibility.
Israel is fully justified in treating these two incidents as unacceptable acts of aggression. But it needs to better adapt its methods to the circumstances it now faces. The point is to weaken and isolate Hamas and Hezbollah, while denying them opportunities to rally broader Arab support. To that end, Israel must focus its fire much more directly at the leaders and fighters of these two groups, and do far more to minimize the damage to civilian bystanders.
Here’s why: The military chieftains of Hamas and Hezbollah fully understand that their primitively armed guerrillas and limited-range unguided missiles are no match for Israel’s world-class military forces. When they engage in provocative operations, like the recent kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and shelling of Israeli towns, they do not expect to win any kind of traditional military victory.
What they more realistically hope for is that the inevitably fierce and devastating Israeli military response will hand them an opportunity to radicalize Arab politics and thereby pressure moderate Arab leaders to distance themselves from Israel and embrace the guerrilla cause. That is a tactic that secular Palestinian guerrilla groups like Fatah pioneered decades ago, and that Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah now use for similar ends.
This perverse dynamic is again coming into play after Israel’s wide-ranging forays into Gaza and Lebanon. Most Arabs are not blaming Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking these Israeli raids. They are blaming Israel for carrying them out.
That is not fair. But it is the way things work in the real world, and the provocateurs of Hamas and Hezbollah and their allies in Damascus and Tehran understand how to use it to their long-term advantage. Israel’s political and military leaders need to understand it too and not let themselves be drawn into the provocateurs’ game.
Playing Hamas’s Game
With the circle of violence in the Middle East expanding alarmingly, it is important to be clear about not only who is responsible for the latest outbreak, but who stands to gain most from its continued escalation.
Both questions have the same answer: Hamas and Hezbollah. And Israel needs to be careful that its far-reaching military responses, however legally and morally justified, do not end up advancing the political agenda that Hamas and Hezbollah hard-liners had in mind when they conceived and executed the kidnappings of Israeli soldiers that detonated the fighting.
The Palestinian Authority, which Hamas controls, and the Lebanese government, in which Hezbollah is a minority participant, inexcusably failed to prevent or halt these incidents. Iran, which arms Hezbollah, and Syria, which shelters the most violent wing of Hamas, also share some responsibility.
Israel is fully justified in treating these two incidents as unacceptable acts of aggression. But it needs to better adapt its methods to the circumstances it now faces. The point is to weaken and isolate Hamas and Hezbollah, while denying them opportunities to rally broader Arab support. To that end, Israel must focus its fire much more directly at the leaders and fighters of these two groups, and do far more to minimize the damage to civilian bystanders.
Here’s why: The military chieftains of Hamas and Hezbollah fully understand that their primitively armed guerrillas and limited-range unguided missiles are no match for Israel’s world-class military forces. When they engage in provocative operations, like the recent kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and shelling of Israeli towns, they do not expect to win any kind of traditional military victory.
What they more realistically hope for is that the inevitably fierce and devastating Israeli military response will hand them an opportunity to radicalize Arab politics and thereby pressure moderate Arab leaders to distance themselves from Israel and embrace the guerrilla cause. That is a tactic that secular Palestinian guerrilla groups like Fatah pioneered decades ago, and that Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah now use for similar ends.
This perverse dynamic is again coming into play after Israel’s wide-ranging forays into Gaza and Lebanon. Most Arabs are not blaming Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking these Israeli raids. They are blaming Israel for carrying them out.
That is not fair. But it is the way things work in the real world, and the provocateurs of Hamas and Hezbollah and their allies in Damascus and Tehran understand how to use it to their long-term advantage. Israel’s political and military leaders need to understand it too and not let themselves be drawn into the provocateurs’ game.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Electronic voting machines - The Fix Is In!
USA TODAY
Electronic voting machines come under legal attack from activists
The Associated Press
Computerized voting was supposed to be the cure for ballot fiascos such as the 2000 presidential election, but activist groups say it has only worsened the problem and they've gone to court across the country to ban the new machines.
Lawsuits have been filed in at least nine states, alleging that the machines are wide open to computer hackers and prone to temperamental fits of technology that have assigned votes to the wrong candidate.
Manufacturers say their machines are more reliable than punch cards and other traditional voting technologies.
But they face a determined opponent in Voter Action, which has filed lawsuits in Colorado, California, Arizona and New Mexico. Similar bans have been sought by voters in Texas, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. On Thursday, a coalition of groups filed a lawsuit in Georgia.
"The designers of video games have built far more sophisticated security into their systems than have the manufacturers of voting machines," said Lowell Finley, co-director of Voter Action, a non-profit and non-partisan group based in Berkeley, Calif. "The biggest problem is security against tampering."
About 80% of American voters will use some form of electronic voting in the November election, where every seat in the House of Representatives is up for re-election, as are 33 Senate offices and 36 governorships.
New York University's Brennan Center for Justice released a one-year study last month that determined that the three most popular types of U.S. voting machines "pose a real danger" to election integrity.
The survey examined optical scanners, which electronically read ballots, and touch-screen machines, which operate like ATMs. Some produced paper receipts, others didn't.
More than 120 security threats were identified, including wireless machines that could be hacked "by virtually any member of the public with some (computer) knowledge" and a PC card; the failure of most states to install software that could detect outside attacks; and the failure of many states to audit their electronic systems.
Voter Action's lawsuits target the most popular machine manufacturers: California-based Sequoia Voting Systems, Nebraska-based Electronic Systems & Software, and the biggest of them all, Diebold Election Systems of Ohio, a subsidiary of giant ATM maker Diebold Inc.
Diebold spokesman David Bear said his company's technology "has proven to be more accurate" than punch cards, and most Americans prefer to vote electronically. He also dismissed recent studies that showed computerized systems were vulnerable to hackers, saying "those are what-if scenarios."
The company's former CEO, Wally O'Dell, authored a 2003 Republican fundraising letter that promised, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
As it turned out, Ohio did push George Bush over the top, but only after problems at voting precincts — including malfunctioning Diebold machines — prompted lines as long as 11 hours. Diebold denied any wrongdoing, as did the other machine makers, who say e-voting problems are coincidental, reflecting expected glitches in new technology.
The jump to electronic voting was spurred by the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which reworked election standards and encouraged states to get rid of punch-card systems by making $3.9 billion available to states for upgrading election equipment.
Manufacturers of touch-screen machines and optical scanners touted their young technology to election officials as the best way to get those funds, and to avoid the chaos caused by punch cards in the 2000 election.
But according to voters' rights groups, much the money was disbursed well before a mandated HAVA committee published its stringent new election standards.
Bear said there has been no evidence in any election of hackers breaching electronic security measures and manipulating votes. However, Finley said Voter Action has documented other problems with e-voting.
"We had dozens of affidavits from voters in New Mexico who said they touched one candidate's name, but the machine picked the opponent," he said. In the state's biggest county, home to Albuquerque, touch-screens machines purchased from Sequoia lost 13,000 votes, Finley said.
In the end, Voter Action agreed to drop its New Mexico lawsuit when the state stopped purchases of the machines and reverted to paper ballots that would be electronically scanned for results.
Other states had similar problems during the current primary season. In Arkansas, for example, one county's results were delayed for four days because of faulty software, machines that wouldn't boot up and a shortage of technicians to fix the $15.9 million system recently purchased from ES&S.
The company's machines also drew complaints from officials in Indiana, Oregon and West Virginia, where Secretary of State Betty Ireland blamed ES&S for "vast delays" and "broken promises" and reported the firm to the Federal Election Assistance Commission.
Finley says there is an easy solution to the problems.
"The best and simplest way is to have voters vote on paper," he said. "You can use modern technology — like scanners — to verify the vote," he said. "But you always have the assurance that you can go back and hand count those ballots."
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-13-evoting_x.htm?csp=34
Electronic voting machines come under legal attack from activists
The Associated Press
Computerized voting was supposed to be the cure for ballot fiascos such as the 2000 presidential election, but activist groups say it has only worsened the problem and they've gone to court across the country to ban the new machines.
Lawsuits have been filed in at least nine states, alleging that the machines are wide open to computer hackers and prone to temperamental fits of technology that have assigned votes to the wrong candidate.
Manufacturers say their machines are more reliable than punch cards and other traditional voting technologies.
But they face a determined opponent in Voter Action, which has filed lawsuits in Colorado, California, Arizona and New Mexico. Similar bans have been sought by voters in Texas, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. On Thursday, a coalition of groups filed a lawsuit in Georgia.
"The designers of video games have built far more sophisticated security into their systems than have the manufacturers of voting machines," said Lowell Finley, co-director of Voter Action, a non-profit and non-partisan group based in Berkeley, Calif. "The biggest problem is security against tampering."
About 80% of American voters will use some form of electronic voting in the November election, where every seat in the House of Representatives is up for re-election, as are 33 Senate offices and 36 governorships.
New York University's Brennan Center for Justice released a one-year study last month that determined that the three most popular types of U.S. voting machines "pose a real danger" to election integrity.
The survey examined optical scanners, which electronically read ballots, and touch-screen machines, which operate like ATMs. Some produced paper receipts, others didn't.
More than 120 security threats were identified, including wireless machines that could be hacked "by virtually any member of the public with some (computer) knowledge" and a PC card; the failure of most states to install software that could detect outside attacks; and the failure of many states to audit their electronic systems.
Voter Action's lawsuits target the most popular machine manufacturers: California-based Sequoia Voting Systems, Nebraska-based Electronic Systems & Software, and the biggest of them all, Diebold Election Systems of Ohio, a subsidiary of giant ATM maker Diebold Inc.
Diebold spokesman David Bear said his company's technology "has proven to be more accurate" than punch cards, and most Americans prefer to vote electronically. He also dismissed recent studies that showed computerized systems were vulnerable to hackers, saying "those are what-if scenarios."
The company's former CEO, Wally O'Dell, authored a 2003 Republican fundraising letter that promised, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
As it turned out, Ohio did push George Bush over the top, but only after problems at voting precincts — including malfunctioning Diebold machines — prompted lines as long as 11 hours. Diebold denied any wrongdoing, as did the other machine makers, who say e-voting problems are coincidental, reflecting expected glitches in new technology.
The jump to electronic voting was spurred by the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which reworked election standards and encouraged states to get rid of punch-card systems by making $3.9 billion available to states for upgrading election equipment.
Manufacturers of touch-screen machines and optical scanners touted their young technology to election officials as the best way to get those funds, and to avoid the chaos caused by punch cards in the 2000 election.
But according to voters' rights groups, much the money was disbursed well before a mandated HAVA committee published its stringent new election standards.
Bear said there has been no evidence in any election of hackers breaching electronic security measures and manipulating votes. However, Finley said Voter Action has documented other problems with e-voting.
"We had dozens of affidavits from voters in New Mexico who said they touched one candidate's name, but the machine picked the opponent," he said. In the state's biggest county, home to Albuquerque, touch-screens machines purchased from Sequoia lost 13,000 votes, Finley said.
In the end, Voter Action agreed to drop its New Mexico lawsuit when the state stopped purchases of the machines and reverted to paper ballots that would be electronically scanned for results.
Other states had similar problems during the current primary season. In Arkansas, for example, one county's results were delayed for four days because of faulty software, machines that wouldn't boot up and a shortage of technicians to fix the $15.9 million system recently purchased from ES&S.
The company's machines also drew complaints from officials in Indiana, Oregon and West Virginia, where Secretary of State Betty Ireland blamed ES&S for "vast delays" and "broken promises" and reported the firm to the Federal Election Assistance Commission.
Finley says there is an easy solution to the problems.
"The best and simplest way is to have voters vote on paper," he said. "You can use modern technology — like scanners — to verify the vote," he said. "But you always have the assurance that you can go back and hand count those ballots."
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-13-evoting_x.htm?csp=34
Watching Finances Of Terror Suspects Discussed in 2002
washingtonpost.com
Watching Finances Of Terror Suspects Discussed in 2002
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
At a House subcommittee hearing five months after the Sept. 11 attacks, plans were openly discussed to give the government a highly secure, real-time electronic capability to request and receive data from financial institutions about suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations. The approach was closely similar to the effort described in news reports last month, which the Bush administration has said endangered national security.
In February 2002, Jeffrey P. Neubert, president and chief executive of the New York Clearing House Association LLC, described the intelligence-gathering system at a hearing of the House Financial Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations. Neubert said under the proposed system, government agencies would electronically send the names of suspected terrorists or terrorist organization to financial institutions "seeking account and/or transaction 'hits' which would be returned to the respective [government] organizations."
Neubert's New York Clearing House runs the CHIPS payment system, which describes itself as "the leading private-sector payment system infrastructure for clearing and settling U.S. dollar payments." Providing payment services to more than 1,600 financial institutions worldwide, CHIPS handles $1.5 trillion through about 8 million domestic and international transactions each day. Neubert told the subcommittee how a task force of government and financial industry personnel was also focused "on the issue beyond our borders" and proposed to "work globally to remove obstacles to the flow of information" to government entities.
The testimony was one of several examples where government and industry officials have publicly described how counterterrorism agencies access financial records to track terrorists and shut down their funding, leading some lawmakers and counterterrorism specialists to doubt assertions that the most recent revelations have significantly helped al-Qaeda or other terrorists by disclosing valuable new information.
Last month, the New York Times, followed quickly by other newspapers, including The Washington Post, published articles about how the Bush administration has been secretly tapping into a global database of financial transactions to track the identities and activities of suspected terrorists. The reports named the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) as one cooperating organization. SWIFT is a Belgium-based company that operates a financial messaging system used by 7,800 financial institutions in 200 countries.
Bush administration officials attacked the newspapers for publishing the articles, which they said hurt the war on terrorism. Vice President Cheney said at a campaign fundraiser on June 30, "Publishing this highly classified information about our sources and methods for collecting intelligence will enable the terrorists to look for ways to defeat our efforts."
But over several years, public testimony and documents have described those kinds of methods for tracking terror suspects.
The U.N. Security Council Monitoring Group, set up after Sept. 11, 2001, to encourage countries and international organizations to follow and block al-Qaeda financing worldwide, filed a public report in 2002 that drew attention to U.S. monitoring of international transactions, and identified SWIFT -- as well as the U.S.-based CHIPS system -- as likely sources of data.
"The U.S. has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions," the group's December 2002 report said, pointing specifically to international transactions "handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payments systems, such as SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centers are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information."
"I don't think anyone who deals with this topic could have been surprised" about using those organizations, said Victor D. Comras, a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer who participated in the U.N. group. "What it was at best was an open secret" that SWIFT was involved, he added. Comras, who helped draft the report, said those details came from unclassified sources and were "vetted with the U.S. government" before being published.
The report noted that even at that date, al-Qaeda was aware of "increased vigilance over traditional bank transfers and the increased ability of law enforcement agencies in a number of countries to trace such transactions."
As a result, the terrorist group "often routed [funds] through a combination of bank transfers and informal transfer mechanisms such as hawala [which involves passing money person to person] and through multiple intermediaries in order to further obscure their origins and final destinations," the report said.
Subsequent government reports have also highlighted counterterrorism officials' reliance on financial records. The FBI's Terrorist Financing Operations Section, according to an August 2004 report by the 9/11 commission, has a list of contacts "within the financial community, banks, brokerage house, credit card vendors, and money services businesses -- to whom it can turn to get financial information on an expedited basis at any time, including nights, weekends and holidays" after serving them "with a subpoena or other legal process."
The 9/11 commission, in its July 2004 report, publicly praised the cooperation that financial institutions worldwide were providing to the U.S. government: "The U.S. financial community and some international financial institutions have generally provided law enforcement and intelligence agencies with extraordinary cooperation, particularly in supplying information to support quickly developing investigations."
At a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, lawmakers challenged Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey on whether the recent articles about SWIFT had jeopardized national security.
We announced that "it's a critical part of the overall campaign against al-Qaeda, following the money," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "Did they not infer from that we would be looking at their bank accounts? . . . I mean, was this really not known to them that we were carefully tracking financial records?"
Levey responded: "What was done very commonly was that we would discuss that we're following the money. But that leaves people in some doubt as to what exactly we're able to look at. Once the SWIFT program is disclosed, it's my fear that they'll now know exactly what it is."
Levey added that there has been no evidence yet that the program has been harmed "because the data that we're accessing right now was data that was created before the news stories." He added that logically "public discussion of this will be harmful to the program. But . . . I'm hopeful that we have some value from the program, and we intend to continue with it."
Watching Finances Of Terror Suspects Discussed in 2002
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
At a House subcommittee hearing five months after the Sept. 11 attacks, plans were openly discussed to give the government a highly secure, real-time electronic capability to request and receive data from financial institutions about suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations. The approach was closely similar to the effort described in news reports last month, which the Bush administration has said endangered national security.
In February 2002, Jeffrey P. Neubert, president and chief executive of the New York Clearing House Association LLC, described the intelligence-gathering system at a hearing of the House Financial Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations. Neubert said under the proposed system, government agencies would electronically send the names of suspected terrorists or terrorist organization to financial institutions "seeking account and/or transaction 'hits' which would be returned to the respective [government] organizations."
Neubert's New York Clearing House runs the CHIPS payment system, which describes itself as "the leading private-sector payment system infrastructure for clearing and settling U.S. dollar payments." Providing payment services to more than 1,600 financial institutions worldwide, CHIPS handles $1.5 trillion through about 8 million domestic and international transactions each day. Neubert told the subcommittee how a task force of government and financial industry personnel was also focused "on the issue beyond our borders" and proposed to "work globally to remove obstacles to the flow of information" to government entities.
The testimony was one of several examples where government and industry officials have publicly described how counterterrorism agencies access financial records to track terrorists and shut down their funding, leading some lawmakers and counterterrorism specialists to doubt assertions that the most recent revelations have significantly helped al-Qaeda or other terrorists by disclosing valuable new information.
Last month, the New York Times, followed quickly by other newspapers, including The Washington Post, published articles about how the Bush administration has been secretly tapping into a global database of financial transactions to track the identities and activities of suspected terrorists. The reports named the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) as one cooperating organization. SWIFT is a Belgium-based company that operates a financial messaging system used by 7,800 financial institutions in 200 countries.
Bush administration officials attacked the newspapers for publishing the articles, which they said hurt the war on terrorism. Vice President Cheney said at a campaign fundraiser on June 30, "Publishing this highly classified information about our sources and methods for collecting intelligence will enable the terrorists to look for ways to defeat our efforts."
But over several years, public testimony and documents have described those kinds of methods for tracking terror suspects.
The U.N. Security Council Monitoring Group, set up after Sept. 11, 2001, to encourage countries and international organizations to follow and block al-Qaeda financing worldwide, filed a public report in 2002 that drew attention to U.S. monitoring of international transactions, and identified SWIFT -- as well as the U.S.-based CHIPS system -- as likely sources of data.
"The U.S. has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions," the group's December 2002 report said, pointing specifically to international transactions "handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payments systems, such as SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centers are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information."
"I don't think anyone who deals with this topic could have been surprised" about using those organizations, said Victor D. Comras, a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer who participated in the U.N. group. "What it was at best was an open secret" that SWIFT was involved, he added. Comras, who helped draft the report, said those details came from unclassified sources and were "vetted with the U.S. government" before being published.
The report noted that even at that date, al-Qaeda was aware of "increased vigilance over traditional bank transfers and the increased ability of law enforcement agencies in a number of countries to trace such transactions."
As a result, the terrorist group "often routed [funds] through a combination of bank transfers and informal transfer mechanisms such as hawala [which involves passing money person to person] and through multiple intermediaries in order to further obscure their origins and final destinations," the report said.
Subsequent government reports have also highlighted counterterrorism officials' reliance on financial records. The FBI's Terrorist Financing Operations Section, according to an August 2004 report by the 9/11 commission, has a list of contacts "within the financial community, banks, brokerage house, credit card vendors, and money services businesses -- to whom it can turn to get financial information on an expedited basis at any time, including nights, weekends and holidays" after serving them "with a subpoena or other legal process."
The 9/11 commission, in its July 2004 report, publicly praised the cooperation that financial institutions worldwide were providing to the U.S. government: "The U.S. financial community and some international financial institutions have generally provided law enforcement and intelligence agencies with extraordinary cooperation, particularly in supplying information to support quickly developing investigations."
At a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, lawmakers challenged Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey on whether the recent articles about SWIFT had jeopardized national security.
We announced that "it's a critical part of the overall campaign against al-Qaeda, following the money," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "Did they not infer from that we would be looking at their bank accounts? . . . I mean, was this really not known to them that we were carefully tracking financial records?"
Levey responded: "What was done very commonly was that we would discuss that we're following the money. But that leaves people in some doubt as to what exactly we're able to look at. Once the SWIFT program is disclosed, it's my fear that they'll now know exactly what it is."
Levey added that there has been no evidence yet that the program has been harmed "because the data that we're accessing right now was data that was created before the news stories." He added that logically "public discussion of this will be harmful to the program. But . . . I'm hopeful that we have some value from the program, and we intend to continue with it."
Novak Caught Lying about Murray Waas
Huffington Post
John Amato
Novak Caught Lying about Murray Waas
Robert Novak lied about Murray Waas and says that Newsday misquoted him when he appeared as a guest on Hannity & Colmes last night. (see video) He claimed that no other news agency picked up the story that Novak told Rove he wouldn't identify him to Patrick Fitzgerald.
Yesterday Novak said:
COLMES: So you're saying "Newsday" was wrong in this report, and Murray Waas, "National Journal," was wrong...
NOVAK: Absolutely.
COLMES: ... and these people have purposefully misrepresented you?
NOVAK: I never give motives, but I know that the Murray Waas piece in the "National Journal," which interestingly was not picked up by anybody, was totally wrong and a total lie,...
Murray Waas wrote this back on
Rove testified to the grand jury that during his telephone call with Novak, the columnist said words to the effect: "You are not going to get burned" and "I don't give up my sources," according to people familiar with his testimony.
This should refute Novak's claim all by itself-via Bloomberg:
Syndicated columnist Robert Novak assured presidential adviser Karl Rove that he wouldn't identify him to prosecutors investigating the disclosure of a CIA agent's name, a person familiar with the matter said.
Rove told a grand jury that Novak called him shortly after the Central Intelligence Agency asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of operative Valerie Plame to Novak and other reporters, the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said. Novak revealed Plame's name in a July 14, 2003, column, citing unnamed administration officials. The National Journal, which reported earlier today on the Sept. 29, 2003, conversation between Rove and Novak, said Justice Department prosecutors were concerned that Rove and Novak may have been working on a cover story to protect Rove. The report, citing people familiar with the grand jury testimony of both men, said then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed on the matter.
However, MSNBC also carried the story on May 25th :
Sources close to Karl Rove are now confirming a story first reported in the National Journal that Rove, who was a source for columnist Bob Novak, later had a separate conversation with Novak after the investigation began.
Former federal prosecutors are convinced Fitzgerald has explored whether Rove and Novak coordinated their testimony.
It's no secret that Novak and Rove are old pals which led to Rove being fired by Bush #41. The NY Times (reg req):
Rove and Novak, a 20-Year Friendship Born in Texas
In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary."
Need I say more? Novak also said he would reveal all his sources on CNN:
NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.
Now he is refusing to do so which makes the case stronger that Novak cannot be trusted, Will the media hold him accountable?
(John Amato is the proprietor of Crooksandliars.com)
John Amato
Novak Caught Lying about Murray Waas
Robert Novak lied about Murray Waas and says that Newsday misquoted him when he appeared as a guest on Hannity & Colmes last night. (see video) He claimed that no other news agency picked up the story that Novak told Rove he wouldn't identify him to Patrick Fitzgerald.
Yesterday Novak said:
COLMES: So you're saying "Newsday" was wrong in this report, and Murray Waas, "National Journal," was wrong...
NOVAK: Absolutely.
COLMES: ... and these people have purposefully misrepresented you?
NOVAK: I never give motives, but I know that the Murray Waas piece in the "National Journal," which interestingly was not picked up by anybody, was totally wrong and a total lie,...
Murray Waas wrote this back on
May 25, 2005
Rove testified to the grand jury that during his telephone call with Novak, the columnist said words to the effect: "You are not going to get burned" and "I don't give up my sources," according to people familiar with his testimony.
This should refute Novak's claim all by itself-via Bloomberg:
Syndicated columnist Robert Novak assured presidential adviser Karl Rove that he wouldn't identify him to prosecutors investigating the disclosure of a CIA agent's name, a person familiar with the matter said.
Rove told a grand jury that Novak called him shortly after the Central Intelligence Agency asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of operative Valerie Plame to Novak and other reporters, the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said. Novak revealed Plame's name in a July 14, 2003, column, citing unnamed administration officials. The National Journal, which reported earlier today on the Sept. 29, 2003, conversation between Rove and Novak, said Justice Department prosecutors were concerned that Rove and Novak may have been working on a cover story to protect Rove. The report, citing people familiar with the grand jury testimony of both men, said then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed on the matter.
However, MSNBC also carried the story on May 25th :
Sources close to Karl Rove are now confirming a story first reported in the National Journal that Rove, who was a source for columnist Bob Novak, later had a separate conversation with Novak after the investigation began.
Former federal prosecutors are convinced Fitzgerald has explored whether Rove and Novak coordinated their testimony.
It's no secret that Novak and Rove are old pals which led to Rove being fired by Bush #41. The NY Times (reg req):
Rove and Novak, a 20-Year Friendship Born in Texas
In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary."
Need I say more? Novak also said he would reveal all his sources on CNN:
NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.
Now he is refusing to do so which makes the case stronger that Novak cannot be trusted, Will the media hold him accountable?
(John Amato is the proprietor of Crooksandliars.com)
High-ranking Republicans including former White House officials can be questioned over jamming Democratic party phone lines in a key US Senate race
Yahoo! News
Republicans can be questioned in N.Hampshire suit
High-ranking Republicans including former White House officials can be questioned in a civil suit over jamming Democratic party phone lines in a key U.S. Senate race, a New Hampshire judge ruled on Thursday.
A senior official in President George W. Bush's reelection campaign and two Republican campaign operatives have already been convicted in the phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in a 2002 election.
But Democrats want an investigation into 22 telephone calls made by one of those convicted, James Tobin, and New Hampshire Republican Party officials to the White House on November 5 and 6, 2002, and say they believe national Republican officials may be involved in the scheme.
"This is about the fundamental right of the American people to vote and have their vote heard," said Damien Lavera, a Democratic Party spokesman in Washington. "We want to know who knew what about it and when they knew it."
The national Republican Party, which paid more than $2.5 million in legal fees to defend Tobin, says the calls to the White House were routine during a tight state Senate race and had nothing to do with the phone-jamming.
Tobin, the former New England regional director of the Republican National Committee, stepped down as New England chairman of Bush's 2004 reelection campaign when he became subject of a federal criminal investigation.
In May, he was sentenced to 10 months in prison.
Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Philip Mangones granted the New Hampshire Democratic Party's motion to take sworn depositions from Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie and former White House political director Ken Mehlman, the party's current chairman, according to a copy of the motion.
Get-out-the-vote hot lines set up by state Democrats and a firefighter's association to urge residents to vote were jammed by more than 800 hang-up calls. State Republican officials say they tried to stop it once they learned of the scheme.
Republican John Sununu beat then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in the election and state Republicans swept a number of close polls.
Democrats also want to question a former associate director of the White House Political Affairs Office, Alicia Davis, and the former executive director of the Republican Party's political operations, Terry Nelson.
On Thursday, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman referred calls on the matter to the U.S. Justice Department.
Republicans can be questioned in N.Hampshire suit
High-ranking Republicans including former White House officials can be questioned in a civil suit over jamming Democratic party phone lines in a key U.S. Senate race, a New Hampshire judge ruled on Thursday.
A senior official in President George W. Bush's reelection campaign and two Republican campaign operatives have already been convicted in the phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in a 2002 election.
But Democrats want an investigation into 22 telephone calls made by one of those convicted, James Tobin, and New Hampshire Republican Party officials to the White House on November 5 and 6, 2002, and say they believe national Republican officials may be involved in the scheme.
"This is about the fundamental right of the American people to vote and have their vote heard," said Damien Lavera, a Democratic Party spokesman in Washington. "We want to know who knew what about it and when they knew it."
The national Republican Party, which paid more than $2.5 million in legal fees to defend Tobin, says the calls to the White House were routine during a tight state Senate race and had nothing to do with the phone-jamming.
Tobin, the former New England regional director of the Republican National Committee, stepped down as New England chairman of Bush's 2004 reelection campaign when he became subject of a federal criminal investigation.
In May, he was sentenced to 10 months in prison.
Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Philip Mangones granted the New Hampshire Democratic Party's motion to take sworn depositions from Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie and former White House political director Ken Mehlman, the party's current chairman, according to a copy of the motion.
Get-out-the-vote hot lines set up by state Democrats and a firefighter's association to urge residents to vote were jammed by more than 800 hang-up calls. State Republican officials say they tried to stop it once they learned of the scheme.
Republican John Sununu beat then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen in the election and state Republicans swept a number of close polls.
Democrats also want to question a former associate director of the White House Political Affairs Office, Alicia Davis, and the former executive director of the Republican Party's political operations, Terry Nelson.
On Thursday, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman referred calls on the matter to the U.S. Justice Department.
Brother of GOP candidate calls her 'evil'
Yahoo! News
Brother of GOP candidate calls her 'evil'
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
A Reagan-era Pentagon official hoping to unseat U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton faced yet another problem with her campaign Thursday when a brother called her "evil" for accusing their father of child abuse.
The brother of Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland said in an interview published Thursday that McFarland's allegations were a complete fabrication.
"If I had one word to describe my sister, it would be 'evil,'" Tom Troia told The New York Post.
The story came the same day McFarland hosted the first major fundraiser of her campaign, a $1,000-per-ticket reception featuring several high-profile members of the Reagan-era national security and defense establishment, including former National Security Adviser Bud McFarlane.
Asked about Troia's allegations at a campaign event in Brooklyn, McFarland refused to comment.
"I don't have anything to say about that. ... I didn't choose to have this issue come up, but when it did, I addressed it. I don't have anything to add," she said.
McFarland is competing with former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer for the GOP nomination to challenge Clinton. Clinton is widely favored to win re-election.
Stories of McFarland's allegedly messy family history have dominated her campaign since June, when she went public with allegations that she had endured years of physical abuse at the hands of her father. The announcement came after New York Magazine published excerpts from letters McFarland wrote to her parents 14 years ago, blaming them for pushing a gay brother, Michael, into a reckless sexual lifestyle that led to his death from AIDS in 1995.
"I was beaten up, I was whipped with a belt, I was kicked, I was shoved, and my father took a gun to us on a couple of occasions at a very young age," McFarland told The Associated Press in June.
Her father, Augie Troia, angrily denied the allegations in a New York Post interview late last month. In Thursday's interview, Tom Troia acknowledged that his father was prone to flashes of anger and would sometimes discipline his children by spanking them with a belt. But, he said, the standards of that era were different from today.
"It was a different attitude in the early 1960s," he said. "The punishment was on an acceptable level of the time." Troia added that his father never kicked him or his sister, and that "there was never, ever a gun in the house."
McFarland's campaign has been beset with problems since she announced her candidacy in March. She's been accused of embellishing her resume, and was forced to acknowledge that she hasn't voted in several elections in recent years.
Brother of GOP candidate calls her 'evil'
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
A Reagan-era Pentagon official hoping to unseat U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton faced yet another problem with her campaign Thursday when a brother called her "evil" for accusing their father of child abuse.
The brother of Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland said in an interview published Thursday that McFarland's allegations were a complete fabrication.
"If I had one word to describe my sister, it would be 'evil,'" Tom Troia told The New York Post.
The story came the same day McFarland hosted the first major fundraiser of her campaign, a $1,000-per-ticket reception featuring several high-profile members of the Reagan-era national security and defense establishment, including former National Security Adviser Bud McFarlane.
Asked about Troia's allegations at a campaign event in Brooklyn, McFarland refused to comment.
"I don't have anything to say about that. ... I didn't choose to have this issue come up, but when it did, I addressed it. I don't have anything to add," she said.
McFarland is competing with former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer for the GOP nomination to challenge Clinton. Clinton is widely favored to win re-election.
Stories of McFarland's allegedly messy family history have dominated her campaign since June, when she went public with allegations that she had endured years of physical abuse at the hands of her father. The announcement came after New York Magazine published excerpts from letters McFarland wrote to her parents 14 years ago, blaming them for pushing a gay brother, Michael, into a reckless sexual lifestyle that led to his death from AIDS in 1995.
"I was beaten up, I was whipped with a belt, I was kicked, I was shoved, and my father took a gun to us on a couple of occasions at a very young age," McFarland told The Associated Press in June.
Her father, Augie Troia, angrily denied the allegations in a New York Post interview late last month. In Thursday's interview, Tom Troia acknowledged that his father was prone to flashes of anger and would sometimes discipline his children by spanking them with a belt. But, he said, the standards of that era were different from today.
"It was a different attitude in the early 1960s," he said. "The punishment was on an acceptable level of the time." Troia added that his father never kicked him or his sister, and that "there was never, ever a gun in the house."
McFarland's campaign has been beset with problems since she announced her candidacy in March. She's been accused of embellishing her resume, and was forced to acknowledge that she hasn't voted in several elections in recent years.
Intel to ax 1,000 managers
ZDNet News
Intel to ax 1,000 managers
By Stephen Shankland, and Michael Kanellos, CNET News.com
Intel will begin cutting about 1,000 manager jobs worldwide this week as part of an effort to become more competitive.
"This step is important because it addresses a key problem we've found in our efficiency analysis: slow and ineffective decision-making, resulting, in part, from too many management layers," Chief Executive Paul Otellini told employees in a memo sent out Thursday and seen by CNET News.com.
Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy confirmed the layoffs Thursday, saying they would "both reduce costs and improve decision-making and communications." He didn't disclose the financial costs or benefits of the cuts, but said Intel plans to share more details July 19 when it discusses financial results for the last quarter.
The restructuring and regrouping effort comes after two years of sluggish performance at Intel. In 2004, the company had to delay or cancel a number of products. In 2005, Intel steadily lost market share to rival Advance Micro Devices.
The move, along with the sale of some communications processor assets to Marvell Technology Group in June, is part of an efficiency review Intel launched in April to become more competitive. More cuts are likely as a result of the review, Otellini said.
"You should expect that we will continue to take actions, including selective reductions, as we complete analyses and decisions about investments, expense levels and organizational structures," Otellini said in the memo. "Over the last five years at Intel, the number of managers has grown faster than our overall employee population. Our efficiency analysis and industry benchmarking have shown that we have too many management layers, top to bottom, to be effective."
Most managers losing their jobs will be notified Thursday and Friday, Otellini said, and will get a minimum of three months' separation pay.
Henri Richard, executive vice president of sales and marketing at AMD, earlier this year said that AMD made some of its gains in part because of Intel's complacency. Characterizing Intel as fat and sluggish has become a recurring theme with AMD.
Institutional intertia
In an interview Wednesday, Thomas Sonderman, director of automated precision manufacturing at AMD, said that the chipmaker realized in the 1990s that it never would be able to have as large a factory footprint as Intel. As a result, it optimized what it could do in a single factory.
"We didn't have the luxury to be fat, dumb and happy," he said.
Otellini rebuffed the notion that Intel had become self-satisfied earlier this year. Still, Intel has had trouble overcoming institutional inertia. In early 2004, CNET News.com asked then-CEO Craig Barrett and Otellini if the company's emerging problems were the result of overconfidence. The two said no, arguing that the problems that had emerged had fairly specific causes. A few months and a few more product problems later, Barrett issued an internal memo warning employees that the company had become somewhat complacent and needed to refocus.
Despite the warning, Intel didn't rebound. And employee head count went from about 85,000 at the end of 2004 to 100,000 at the end of 2005.
Otellini called for a thorough examination during the first-quarter earnings call in April. The project was then reiterated at a meeting with analysts.
The 90-day efficiency review began in late April and therefore should be complete in coming weeks. Mulloy declined to say when actions resulting from the review would be done because the company doesn't yet know, he said.
That review has already resulted in the sale of Intel's XScale communications and applications chip technology to Marvell. There have been some smaller actions from the review, Mulloy said, including the closure of a 19-person lab in Glasgow, Scotland.
Intel periodically conducts purges. After a mini downturn in 1998, the company reduced head count through voluntary departures and layoffs. After bulking up with several acquisitions in the dot-com era, the company subsequently whacked divisions and sold off other groups.
In Thursday's memo, Otellini sought to fan Intel employees' competitive fires.
"We have done extremely well over the past 25 years of the PC era. But we need to adjust now for where our industry is going. Competition will intensify across our product lines. Pricing will be aggressive," he said. "Our objective, and our destiny, is to refashion Intel now while we have the means and the time to do so, and ensure we continue to remain No. 1."
Intel to ax 1,000 managers
By Stephen Shankland, and Michael Kanellos, CNET News.com
Intel will begin cutting about 1,000 manager jobs worldwide this week as part of an effort to become more competitive.
"This step is important because it addresses a key problem we've found in our efficiency analysis: slow and ineffective decision-making, resulting, in part, from too many management layers," Chief Executive Paul Otellini told employees in a memo sent out Thursday and seen by CNET News.com.
Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy confirmed the layoffs Thursday, saying they would "both reduce costs and improve decision-making and communications." He didn't disclose the financial costs or benefits of the cuts, but said Intel plans to share more details July 19 when it discusses financial results for the last quarter.
The restructuring and regrouping effort comes after two years of sluggish performance at Intel. In 2004, the company had to delay or cancel a number of products. In 2005, Intel steadily lost market share to rival Advance Micro Devices.
The move, along with the sale of some communications processor assets to Marvell Technology Group in June, is part of an efficiency review Intel launched in April to become more competitive. More cuts are likely as a result of the review, Otellini said.
"You should expect that we will continue to take actions, including selective reductions, as we complete analyses and decisions about investments, expense levels and organizational structures," Otellini said in the memo. "Over the last five years at Intel, the number of managers has grown faster than our overall employee population. Our efficiency analysis and industry benchmarking have shown that we have too many management layers, top to bottom, to be effective."
Most managers losing their jobs will be notified Thursday and Friday, Otellini said, and will get a minimum of three months' separation pay.
Henri Richard, executive vice president of sales and marketing at AMD, earlier this year said that AMD made some of its gains in part because of Intel's complacency. Characterizing Intel as fat and sluggish has become a recurring theme with AMD.
Institutional intertia
In an interview Wednesday, Thomas Sonderman, director of automated precision manufacturing at AMD, said that the chipmaker realized in the 1990s that it never would be able to have as large a factory footprint as Intel. As a result, it optimized what it could do in a single factory.
"We didn't have the luxury to be fat, dumb and happy," he said.
Otellini rebuffed the notion that Intel had become self-satisfied earlier this year. Still, Intel has had trouble overcoming institutional inertia. In early 2004, CNET News.com asked then-CEO Craig Barrett and Otellini if the company's emerging problems were the result of overconfidence. The two said no, arguing that the problems that had emerged had fairly specific causes. A few months and a few more product problems later, Barrett issued an internal memo warning employees that the company had become somewhat complacent and needed to refocus.
Despite the warning, Intel didn't rebound. And employee head count went from about 85,000 at the end of 2004 to 100,000 at the end of 2005.
Otellini called for a thorough examination during the first-quarter earnings call in April. The project was then reiterated at a meeting with analysts.
The 90-day efficiency review began in late April and therefore should be complete in coming weeks. Mulloy declined to say when actions resulting from the review would be done because the company doesn't yet know, he said.
That review has already resulted in the sale of Intel's XScale communications and applications chip technology to Marvell. There have been some smaller actions from the review, Mulloy said, including the closure of a 19-person lab in Glasgow, Scotland.
Intel periodically conducts purges. After a mini downturn in 1998, the company reduced head count through voluntary departures and layoffs. After bulking up with several acquisitions in the dot-com era, the company subsequently whacked divisions and sold off other groups.
In Thursday's memo, Otellini sought to fan Intel employees' competitive fires.
"We have done extremely well over the past 25 years of the PC era. But we need to adjust now for where our industry is going. Competition will intensify across our product lines. Pricing will be aggressive," he said. "Our objective, and our destiny, is to refashion Intel now while we have the means and the time to do so, and ensure we continue to remain No. 1."
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Top Cyber Security Post Still Unfilled After a Year
washingtonpost.com
Top Cyber Security Post Still Unfilled After a Year
By Brian Krebs
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
One year after the Department of Homeland Security created a high-level post for coordinating U.S. government efforts to deal with attacks on the nation's critical technological infrastructure, the agency still has not identified a candidate for the job.
On July 13, 2005, as frustration with the Bush administration's cyber security policy grew on Capitol Hill and Congress appeared poised to force its hand, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the new assistant-secretary job opening.
Critics say the yearlong vacancy is further evidence that the administration is no better prepared for responding to a major cyber attack than it was for dealing with Hurricane Katrina, leaving vulnerable the information systems that support large portions of the national economy, from telecommunications networks to power grids to chemical manufacturing and transportation systems.
"What this tells me is that ... [Chertoff] still hasn't made this a priority ... to push forward and find whoever would be the best fit," said Paul Kurtz, a former cyber security advisor in the early Bush administration and now a chief lobbyist for software and hardware security companies.
"Having a senior person at DHS... is not going to stop a major cyber attack on our critical infrastructures," Kurtz said, "but [it] will definitely help us develop an infrastructure that can withstand serious attacks and recover quickly."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a co-author of the bill that would have forced the department to create the position last year, did not mince words: "I think DHS is pathetic and incompetent. It's a complete mystery what's happening over there."
But a DHS official assured critics that the agency is "in the final stretch" of approving a candidate.
"We are hopeful we'll be able to announce in the not-too-distant future an individual we think would be able to continue the work we've been doing," said George W. Foresman, undersecretary for preparedness.
Around the time of the agency's inception in early 2003, the Bush administration released the "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," a detailed roadmap for securing the nation's most critical information networks and for crafting a disaster-recovery and response plan in case of a major cyber attack or other massive malfunction.
The far-reaching plan led many in the high-tech community to hope that DHS would establish a cyber security post with influence over the department's policy and spending priorities. But when administration officials relegated it to a lower hierarchical rung -- one without daily access to DHS top decision-makers -- nearly two years of bureaucratic turf wars ensued. Three different cyber security officials resigned, two of them complaining publicly of their lack of authority.
James Lewis, director of technology and public policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the administration had already adopted the position that cyber initiatives would siphon funds away from physical security for high-value potential terrorist targets.
The high-level post "was forced on them by Capitol Hill," Lewis said. "Left to their own devices, the White House wouldn't have created the position."
"A department that has failed [for a year] to find an assistant secretary, even by Washington standards ... has to be some kind of record," said Roger Cressey, former chief of staff of the president's critical infrastructure advisory board, which was dissolved in 2003 just before the formation of the Homeland Security Department.
Foresman maintained that the department is not sitting still: "We've looked at candidates who had solid backgrounds in telecommunications and in cyber security, but we have found a lesser number of candidates who had a great background in both areas."
One candidate for the post -- Guy Copeland, vice president for information infrastructure at El Segundo, Calif.-based Computer Sciences Corp. -- said he was among nearly a dozen similarly qualified industry experts he knew of who were approached. He said he declined for personal and financial reasons, but noted that others were apparently knocked out of the running for political or professional considerations.
Copeland said he hopes DHS can find a worthy candidate soon -- someone who has the clout within industry and government "who can not only go to [Congress] and argue for the resources ... but also someone who can help organize the [post-attack] response from various industry sectors," he said.
John McCarthy, director of the critical infrastructure program at the George Mason University School of Law, agreed and related that just a few months after the administration released its cyber plan in 2003, one of his graduate students submitted a dissertation containing detailed maps zeroing in on key points in the Internet infrastructure that -- if targeted by terrorists -- could wreak a cascading series of outages capable of bringing major U.S. industries to a screeching halt.
Government officials suggested that the dissertation be classified, but ultimately the student simply agreed not to publish the details, according to McCarthy, who said he was also approached about the vacant DHS post but eventually was passed over.
"E-commerce is now the vehicle for delivering a wealth of private sector and government services," McCarthy said. "But cyber is now also the vehicle of choice for the bad guys to deliver and organize their services."
Security experts say many of the computers that operate critical infrastructure -- known as supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks -- are increasingly being connected to Microsoft Windows systems and to the Internet to offer public utilities a cost-effective way to manage their far-flung assets. But that exposure also makes power, water, sewage and other such systems dangerously vulnerable to online attack, said Alan Paller, director of research for the SANS Institute, a computer security training group based in Bethesda.
"Hackers have discovered that owners of SCADA systems are very sensitive and that they can make money by threatening to do damage," Paller said, adding that he is aware of at least two incidents just this year in which attackers broke into and threatened to disrupt utility operations unless the owners paid a ransom demand.
Foresman defended the agency's progress, noting that DHS recently conducted simulation exercises with IT companies to determine how government and industry could better collaborate to "build better layers of resilience" into critical systems.
But McCarthy said he believes it is a question of when -- not if -- a major portion of the U.S. economy comes under a targeted cyber attack, and that the nation desperately needs the technical and social leadership in place to deal with it when the time comes.
"I believe that as we as a society and economy move towards a greater reliance on these vulnerable communications networks, that those who would wish us harm will find ways to target those infrastructures in ways we haven't thought about yet, and that's going to present a major challenge for whoever is picked for that position."
Top Cyber Security Post Still Unfilled After a Year
By Brian Krebs
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
One year after the Department of Homeland Security created a high-level post for coordinating U.S. government efforts to deal with attacks on the nation's critical technological infrastructure, the agency still has not identified a candidate for the job.
On July 13, 2005, as frustration with the Bush administration's cyber security policy grew on Capitol Hill and Congress appeared poised to force its hand, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the new assistant-secretary job opening.
Critics say the yearlong vacancy is further evidence that the administration is no better prepared for responding to a major cyber attack than it was for dealing with Hurricane Katrina, leaving vulnerable the information systems that support large portions of the national economy, from telecommunications networks to power grids to chemical manufacturing and transportation systems.
"What this tells me is that ... [Chertoff] still hasn't made this a priority ... to push forward and find whoever would be the best fit," said Paul Kurtz, a former cyber security advisor in the early Bush administration and now a chief lobbyist for software and hardware security companies.
"Having a senior person at DHS... is not going to stop a major cyber attack on our critical infrastructures," Kurtz said, "but [it] will definitely help us develop an infrastructure that can withstand serious attacks and recover quickly."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a co-author of the bill that would have forced the department to create the position last year, did not mince words: "I think DHS is pathetic and incompetent. It's a complete mystery what's happening over there."
But a DHS official assured critics that the agency is "in the final stretch" of approving a candidate.
"We are hopeful we'll be able to announce in the not-too-distant future an individual we think would be able to continue the work we've been doing," said George W. Foresman, undersecretary for preparedness.
Around the time of the agency's inception in early 2003, the Bush administration released the "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," a detailed roadmap for securing the nation's most critical information networks and for crafting a disaster-recovery and response plan in case of a major cyber attack or other massive malfunction.
The far-reaching plan led many in the high-tech community to hope that DHS would establish a cyber security post with influence over the department's policy and spending priorities. But when administration officials relegated it to a lower hierarchical rung -- one without daily access to DHS top decision-makers -- nearly two years of bureaucratic turf wars ensued. Three different cyber security officials resigned, two of them complaining publicly of their lack of authority.
James Lewis, director of technology and public policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the administration had already adopted the position that cyber initiatives would siphon funds away from physical security for high-value potential terrorist targets.
The high-level post "was forced on them by Capitol Hill," Lewis said. "Left to their own devices, the White House wouldn't have created the position."
"A department that has failed [for a year] to find an assistant secretary, even by Washington standards ... has to be some kind of record," said Roger Cressey, former chief of staff of the president's critical infrastructure advisory board, which was dissolved in 2003 just before the formation of the Homeland Security Department.
Foresman maintained that the department is not sitting still: "We've looked at candidates who had solid backgrounds in telecommunications and in cyber security, but we have found a lesser number of candidates who had a great background in both areas."
One candidate for the post -- Guy Copeland, vice president for information infrastructure at El Segundo, Calif.-based Computer Sciences Corp. -- said he was among nearly a dozen similarly qualified industry experts he knew of who were approached. He said he declined for personal and financial reasons, but noted that others were apparently knocked out of the running for political or professional considerations.
Copeland said he hopes DHS can find a worthy candidate soon -- someone who has the clout within industry and government "who can not only go to [Congress] and argue for the resources ... but also someone who can help organize the [post-attack] response from various industry sectors," he said.
John McCarthy, director of the critical infrastructure program at the George Mason University School of Law, agreed and related that just a few months after the administration released its cyber plan in 2003, one of his graduate students submitted a dissertation containing detailed maps zeroing in on key points in the Internet infrastructure that -- if targeted by terrorists -- could wreak a cascading series of outages capable of bringing major U.S. industries to a screeching halt.
Government officials suggested that the dissertation be classified, but ultimately the student simply agreed not to publish the details, according to McCarthy, who said he was also approached about the vacant DHS post but eventually was passed over.
"E-commerce is now the vehicle for delivering a wealth of private sector and government services," McCarthy said. "But cyber is now also the vehicle of choice for the bad guys to deliver and organize their services."
Security experts say many of the computers that operate critical infrastructure -- known as supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks -- are increasingly being connected to Microsoft Windows systems and to the Internet to offer public utilities a cost-effective way to manage their far-flung assets. But that exposure also makes power, water, sewage and other such systems dangerously vulnerable to online attack, said Alan Paller, director of research for the SANS Institute, a computer security training group based in Bethesda.
"Hackers have discovered that owners of SCADA systems are very sensitive and that they can make money by threatening to do damage," Paller said, adding that he is aware of at least two incidents just this year in which attackers broke into and threatened to disrupt utility operations unless the owners paid a ransom demand.
Foresman defended the agency's progress, noting that DHS recently conducted simulation exercises with IT companies to determine how government and industry could better collaborate to "build better layers of resilience" into critical systems.
But McCarthy said he believes it is a question of when -- not if -- a major portion of the U.S. economy comes under a targeted cyber attack, and that the nation desperately needs the technical and social leadership in place to deal with it when the time comes.
"I believe that as we as a society and economy move towards a greater reliance on these vulnerable communications networks, that those who would wish us harm will find ways to target those infrastructures in ways we haven't thought about yet, and that's going to present a major challenge for whoever is picked for that position."
Ritual Dance
huffington post
Norman Horowitz
Ritual Dance
Published in TelevisionWeek July 10th
Our Vice President Cheney was quoted last week speaking about government financial surveillance that was reported in the New York Times; "What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people, that offends me."
Without going into detail or defending the paper, I believe that what the New York Times and others disclosed was good for America.
Few if any governments are happy being "watched" by an unencumbered print media.
The FCC is ready to help a few companies and the government by re-examining its cross ownership rulings. Why, you might ask? Because the GIGANTIC media companies want to own more pieces of the media then they already do. These companies are not in dire straights and need no additional help at the expense of the public.
Is there a reason that benefits the public to change the rules? I think not.
Over 3 years ago the complicit FCC issued a report and order that allowed the TV station ownership limits to be increased to 45% from the previous 35 %. Courts or Congress over-ruled the FCC and reduced the caps to near 39%.
The principles of today's pending actions are almost exactly the same now as they were then, America needs diversity, more diversity, and still more diversity.
The FCC will hear testimony, examine studies, and then do what they have already decided to do--remake the rules in order to allow the media companies to further consolidate.
In order to validate their actions, they will engage in a massive "Ritual Dance," before announcing their favorable opinion.
No matter how many versions of the truth we are presented with by the media, we need more of them.
Americans need as many opinions from as many sources as possible. The FCC is trying to tell us that we have as much information as we need, so why not narrow the sources? Why would the FCC give News Corp., Disney, General Electric, and Viacom more voices than they already have?
We need an independent print media as well, one that is truly independent. With more diversity and more opinions we can come closer to the truth.
The FCC is the "spectrum" equivalent of the Antitrust Division. They should enhance and/or strengthen the notion of competition, diversity, and localism and not do as they have done in the past, to act as a rubber stamp on behalf of the major media companies.
Nearly 40 years ago. There was no internet, and the only large delivery of mass market news and other content were CBS. ABC. and NBC. The people who are advocating the proliferation of other informational voices as a reason to deregulate are partially correct in what they say, but they ignore one big time thing. Almost all news and related programs are delivered to a mass audience by CBS, General Electric (NBC, MSNBC, CNBC), Walt Disney (ABC), News Corp (FOX and Fox Cable) and Time Warner (CNN). Broadcast network ratings have diminished, but if you look at all of these delivery systems almost all are OWNED and managed by a very few companies. Would the New York Times have published the financial spying story if they were owned by General Electric?
I have a Libertarian friend who would like to see the government out of the business of regulating media and I understand his position. I also understand that companies in the media want to get bigger and more profitable. The Feds organized it to be the way it is and they just can't walk away from these most important regulations and acquiesce to the massive lobbying that constantly goes on from the major media companies.
Most big media companies would like everyone to forget that they owe their business to the spectrum space belonging to the public that they have been given. They owe a debt to ALL of us for this largess.
How quickly they forget.
Norman Horowitz
Ritual Dance
Published in TelevisionWeek July 10th
Our Vice President Cheney was quoted last week speaking about government financial surveillance that was reported in the New York Times; "What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people, that offends me."
Without going into detail or defending the paper, I believe that what the New York Times and others disclosed was good for America.
Few if any governments are happy being "watched" by an unencumbered print media.
The FCC is ready to help a few companies and the government by re-examining its cross ownership rulings. Why, you might ask? Because the GIGANTIC media companies want to own more pieces of the media then they already do. These companies are not in dire straights and need no additional help at the expense of the public.
Is there a reason that benefits the public to change the rules? I think not.
Over 3 years ago the complicit FCC issued a report and order that allowed the TV station ownership limits to be increased to 45% from the previous 35 %. Courts or Congress over-ruled the FCC and reduced the caps to near 39%.
The principles of today's pending actions are almost exactly the same now as they were then, America needs diversity, more diversity, and still more diversity.
The FCC will hear testimony, examine studies, and then do what they have already decided to do--remake the rules in order to allow the media companies to further consolidate.
In order to validate their actions, they will engage in a massive "Ritual Dance," before announcing their favorable opinion.
No matter how many versions of the truth we are presented with by the media, we need more of them.
Americans need as many opinions from as many sources as possible. The FCC is trying to tell us that we have as much information as we need, so why not narrow the sources? Why would the FCC give News Corp., Disney, General Electric, and Viacom more voices than they already have?
We need an independent print media as well, one that is truly independent. With more diversity and more opinions we can come closer to the truth.
The FCC is the "spectrum" equivalent of the Antitrust Division. They should enhance and/or strengthen the notion of competition, diversity, and localism and not do as they have done in the past, to act as a rubber stamp on behalf of the major media companies.
Nearly 40 years ago. There was no internet, and the only large delivery of mass market news and other content were CBS. ABC. and NBC. The people who are advocating the proliferation of other informational voices as a reason to deregulate are partially correct in what they say, but they ignore one big time thing. Almost all news and related programs are delivered to a mass audience by CBS, General Electric (NBC, MSNBC, CNBC), Walt Disney (ABC), News Corp (FOX and Fox Cable) and Time Warner (CNN). Broadcast network ratings have diminished, but if you look at all of these delivery systems almost all are OWNED and managed by a very few companies. Would the New York Times have published the financial spying story if they were owned by General Electric?
I have a Libertarian friend who would like to see the government out of the business of regulating media and I understand his position. I also understand that companies in the media want to get bigger and more profitable. The Feds organized it to be the way it is and they just can't walk away from these most important regulations and acquiesce to the massive lobbying that constantly goes on from the major media companies.
Most big media companies would like everyone to forget that they owe their business to the spectrum space belonging to the public that they have been given. They owe a debt to ALL of us for this largess.
How quickly they forget.
The 2006 Election: The Fix Is In
Reuters
Republicans predict victory despite polls
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Republican lawmaker brushed off bad poll numbers on Wednesday and said his party would surprise analysts and Democrats by strengthening its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives in November elections.
"We have a good story to tell," House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois told reporters as he emerged from a closed-door meeting with fellow Republicans, many of whom are worried about their own chances for political survival.
Hastert's prediction of election victory heartened many Republicans, caught others off guard and drew some ridicule.
"Either he is out of touch or has contempt for his audience," said Stu Rothenberg of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report that tracks congressional races.
"We are winning in Iraq," said Hastert, who also declared that the economy is strong and that House Republicans will "increase our majority in November."
With polls showing most Americans believe the nation is on "the wrong track" and the Iraq war increasingly unpopular, Rothenberg and other analysts predict Democrats will gain seats in the 435-member House.
But they say it is unclear if Democrats can have a net gain of at least 15 seats to retake control of the chamber they lost in 1994.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, asked about Hastert's comments, said, "They don't seem grounded in reality."
Republican aides said Hastert has been encouraged by a recent rise in President George W. Bush's approval ratings to around 40 percent, as well as a new Gallup Poll that found House Democrats' advantage shrinking from 16 percentage points to 10 points.
They said Hastert has also been buoyed by new economic numbers including a reduction in the projected federal deficit this year. At $296 billion, the deficit would still be the fourth largest ever.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who chairs the House Democratic campaign committee and has ripped Bush and the Republican-led Congress for soaring gas prices, said: "Anyone who says the economy is doing well hasn't filled up their gas tank lately."
Republicans predict victory despite polls
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Republican lawmaker brushed off bad poll numbers on Wednesday and said his party would surprise analysts and Democrats by strengthening its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives in November elections.
"We have a good story to tell," House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois told reporters as he emerged from a closed-door meeting with fellow Republicans, many of whom are worried about their own chances for political survival.
Hastert's prediction of election victory heartened many Republicans, caught others off guard and drew some ridicule.
"Either he is out of touch or has contempt for his audience," said Stu Rothenberg of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report that tracks congressional races.
"We are winning in Iraq," said Hastert, who also declared that the economy is strong and that House Republicans will "increase our majority in November."
With polls showing most Americans believe the nation is on "the wrong track" and the Iraq war increasingly unpopular, Rothenberg and other analysts predict Democrats will gain seats in the 435-member House.
But they say it is unclear if Democrats can have a net gain of at least 15 seats to retake control of the chamber they lost in 1994.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, asked about Hastert's comments, said, "They don't seem grounded in reality."
Republican aides said Hastert has been encouraged by a recent rise in President George W. Bush's approval ratings to around 40 percent, as well as a new Gallup Poll that found House Democrats' advantage shrinking from 16 percentage points to 10 points.
They said Hastert has also been buoyed by new economic numbers including a reduction in the projected federal deficit this year. At $296 billion, the deficit would still be the fourth largest ever.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who chairs the House Democratic campaign committee and has ripped Bush and the Republican-led Congress for soaring gas prices, said: "Anyone who says the economy is doing well hasn't filled up their gas tank lately."
Army to rebid huge Halliburton contract
Reuters
Army to rebid huge Halliburton contract
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army said on Wednesday it will end a Halliburton Co. unit's multibillion-dollar contract to provide logistical support to soldiers in Iraq and other parts of the globe, and will rebid the contract later this year.
Army officials said they will not renew the contract awarded in 2001 to Halliburton subsidiary KBR to provide water, dining and laundry services and transport fuel and other items, including mail, to U.S. troops.
Instead, they described a plan to divide the work among three companies, with a fourth supporting the work. "It will be rebid," said Dave Foster, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, adding KBR is free to take part in the new competition.
Texas-based Halliburton, formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has drawn scrutiny from auditors, congressional Democrats and the Justice Department for the quality and pricing of its work in Iraq.
KBR has gotten orders worth $17.1 billion since the start of the contract, including about $15.4 billion in Iraq, according to Army figures.
"The termination of Halliburton's contract is long overdue. Taxpayers can breathe easier knowing that the days of $45 cases of soda and $100 bags of laundry are coming to a close," said Rep. Henry Waxman, top Democrat on the House of Representatives Government Reform Committee.
"It should not have taken five years for the Bush administration to realize that competition reduces costs and improves performance," added Waxman, of California.
Halliburton is the world's second-largest oil services company and the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq. Cheney's office has said the vice president played no role in securing the company's Iraq work.
The Army said it will solicit bids on July 28 and expects to award in late November a contract for one year with four option years.
Engineering and construction firm Fluor Corp. may bid. Lisa Glatch, president of Fluor's government group, said the opportunity to bid was "very interesting to us."
Northrop Grumman said it would study the Army's needs while Lockheed Martin said it was premature to comment. Boeing Co., the Pentagon's top supplier after Lockheed, said none of the work was in its core businesses.
LESSONS LEARNED
"It falls under lessons learned," the Army's Foster said when asked why the Army decided to rebid the contract. "We're constantly working the process -- lessons learned, how can we do things better, what may offer a better, more effective way of doing that."
Foster did not specify the nature of "lessons learned."
Halliburton said the U.S. Army's move did not come as a surprise.
"It is neither unusual nor unexpected that the LOGCAP contract may be replaced with another competitively bid approach as previous iterations of this contract vehicle have experienced," Halliburton spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said in a statement.
The company defended its troop support work. In Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, KBR said it has prepared nearly 375 million meals, washed more than 18.5 million bundles of laundry and transported supplies more than 100 million miles.
"By all accounts, KBR's logistical achievements in support of the troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan have been nothing short of amazing," Norcross said.
Shares of Halliburton ended down 70 cents at $74.88 on the New York Stock Exchange Wednesday, amid a broad retreat in U.S. stocks. Over the last 12 months its shares have traded a low as $45.77, in July last year, and as high as $83.95, on April 20.
Halliburton declined to comment on whether the Army's move would affect its planned initial public offering of KBR stock, expected to raise up to $550 million.
One company watcher said the company had been telling investors for months the government could end the contract.
"I wouldn't think this would have much impact on (KBR) one way or the other," Kurt Hallead, analyst with RBC Capital Markets said.
(Additional reporting by Matt Daily in Houston and Jim Wolf in Washington)
Army to rebid huge Halliburton contract
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army said on Wednesday it will end a Halliburton Co. unit's multibillion-dollar contract to provide logistical support to soldiers in Iraq and other parts of the globe, and will rebid the contract later this year.
Army officials said they will not renew the contract awarded in 2001 to Halliburton subsidiary KBR to provide water, dining and laundry services and transport fuel and other items, including mail, to U.S. troops.
Instead, they described a plan to divide the work among three companies, with a fourth supporting the work. "It will be rebid," said Dave Foster, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, adding KBR is free to take part in the new competition.
Texas-based Halliburton, formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has drawn scrutiny from auditors, congressional Democrats and the Justice Department for the quality and pricing of its work in Iraq.
KBR has gotten orders worth $17.1 billion since the start of the contract, including about $15.4 billion in Iraq, according to Army figures.
"The termination of Halliburton's contract is long overdue. Taxpayers can breathe easier knowing that the days of $45 cases of soda and $100 bags of laundry are coming to a close," said Rep. Henry Waxman, top Democrat on the House of Representatives Government Reform Committee.
"It should not have taken five years for the Bush administration to realize that competition reduces costs and improves performance," added Waxman, of California.
Halliburton is the world's second-largest oil services company and the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq. Cheney's office has said the vice president played no role in securing the company's Iraq work.
The Army said it will solicit bids on July 28 and expects to award in late November a contract for one year with four option years.
Engineering and construction firm Fluor Corp. may bid. Lisa Glatch, president of Fluor's government group, said the opportunity to bid was "very interesting to us."
Northrop Grumman said it would study the Army's needs while Lockheed Martin said it was premature to comment. Boeing Co., the Pentagon's top supplier after Lockheed, said none of the work was in its core businesses.
LESSONS LEARNED
"It falls under lessons learned," the Army's Foster said when asked why the Army decided to rebid the contract. "We're constantly working the process -- lessons learned, how can we do things better, what may offer a better, more effective way of doing that."
Foster did not specify the nature of "lessons learned."
Halliburton said the U.S. Army's move did not come as a surprise.
"It is neither unusual nor unexpected that the LOGCAP contract may be replaced with another competitively bid approach as previous iterations of this contract vehicle have experienced," Halliburton spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said in a statement.
The company defended its troop support work. In Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, KBR said it has prepared nearly 375 million meals, washed more than 18.5 million bundles of laundry and transported supplies more than 100 million miles.
"By all accounts, KBR's logistical achievements in support of the troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan have been nothing short of amazing," Norcross said.
Shares of Halliburton ended down 70 cents at $74.88 on the New York Stock Exchange Wednesday, amid a broad retreat in U.S. stocks. Over the last 12 months its shares have traded a low as $45.77, in July last year, and as high as $83.95, on April 20.
Halliburton declined to comment on whether the Army's move would affect its planned initial public offering of KBR stock, expected to raise up to $550 million.
One company watcher said the company had been telling investors for months the government could end the contract.
"I wouldn't think this would have much impact on (KBR) one way or the other," Kurt Hallead, analyst with RBC Capital Markets said.
(Additional reporting by Matt Daily in Houston and Jim Wolf in Washington)
Senate defeats more NY, DC security funding
Reuters
Senate defeats more NY, DC security funding
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday refused to restore $750 million in anti-terrorism funds that have been taken away from New York City and Washington and shifted to smaller cities thought to be at lower risk of attack.
By a vote of 53-47, the Senate killed an amendment by New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton and others, who protested the 40 percent funding reduction for New York this year and a 43 percent cut for Washington.
"New York City and Washington, D.C. remain at the top of any (threat) intelligence we get, but they were given drastic reductions," Clinton complained.
Both cities are Democratic strongholds.
Had Clinton's amendment been embraced by the Republican-controlled Senate, federal grants for protecting bridges, monuments and other possible targets of attack in New York and Washington would have been restored next year to their 2005 levels.
Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, acknowledged that he was "surprised and quite shocked" when he heard of the security funding cuts for the two cities that were attacked on September 11, 2001.
But he said adding $750 million to a $32.8 billion domestic security bill for fiscal 2007 would "bust the budget."
Judd also said that in recent years, $14.6 billion had been put "into the pipeline" for high-risk cities and about $8 billion was unused.
Last month the House of Representatives voted to refuse to give the $750 million back to New York and Washington, D.C.
Rural areas have been pitted against major population centers in competing for federal domestic security dollars.
Sen. Charles Schumer, also a New York Democrat, chastised the Department of Homeland Security's list of possible terrorist targets that includes a petting zoo and flea market in less populous areas.
"I've been to petting zoos when I was a kid and I took my children to petting zoos and I never saw a terrorist hiding behind one of the sheep in Little Bo Peep's flock," Schumer said.
The Senate also defeated, 50-50, an attempt by Schumer to add $300 million for beefing up mass transit security. Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, also failed to increase rail security funding by $1.1 billion.
Senate defeats more NY, DC security funding
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday refused to restore $750 million in anti-terrorism funds that have been taken away from New York City and Washington and shifted to smaller cities thought to be at lower risk of attack.
By a vote of 53-47, the Senate killed an amendment by New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton and others, who protested the 40 percent funding reduction for New York this year and a 43 percent cut for Washington.
"New York City and Washington, D.C. remain at the top of any (threat) intelligence we get, but they were given drastic reductions," Clinton complained.
Both cities are Democratic strongholds.
Had Clinton's amendment been embraced by the Republican-controlled Senate, federal grants for protecting bridges, monuments and other possible targets of attack in New York and Washington would have been restored next year to their 2005 levels.
Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, acknowledged that he was "surprised and quite shocked" when he heard of the security funding cuts for the two cities that were attacked on September 11, 2001.
But he said adding $750 million to a $32.8 billion domestic security bill for fiscal 2007 would "bust the budget."
Judd also said that in recent years, $14.6 billion had been put "into the pipeline" for high-risk cities and about $8 billion was unused.
Last month the House of Representatives voted to refuse to give the $750 million back to New York and Washington, D.C.
Rural areas have been pitted against major population centers in competing for federal domestic security dollars.
Sen. Charles Schumer, also a New York Democrat, chastised the Department of Homeland Security's list of possible terrorist targets that includes a petting zoo and flea market in less populous areas.
"I've been to petting zoos when I was a kid and I took my children to petting zoos and I never saw a terrorist hiding behind one of the sheep in Little Bo Peep's flock," Schumer said.
The Senate also defeated, 50-50, an attempt by Schumer to add $300 million for beefing up mass transit security. Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, also failed to increase rail security funding by $1.1 billion.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Read this while it's still legal
Seattle Times
Danny Westneat
Read this while it's still legal
As most of us toasted liberty and pursued happiness last week, Jim Harvill opened his mailbox and learned these rights are not as unalienable as he thought.
On July 3, Harvill, an affable operations manager for Sprint PCS near Spokane, got the following letter from the publisher of two magazines he has subscribed to for years. "It is with deep regret that we must inform you ... " it read, "we must cancel all subscriptions to Washington State."
The magazines are "Casino Player" — a monthly review of U.S. casinos and hotels — and "Strictly Slots" — a guide to one-armed bandits, video poker and other mechanized means of gambling.
Hardly classic literature. But Harvill liked them. And now he can no longer read them, thanks to a twisted reading of the state's new law against Internet gambling.
The state says placing bets online is against the law. Fine. But the state goes on to say that even writing about Internet gambling in a way that's promotional is "aiding and abetting" an illegal industry.
So now two print magazines consider themselves banned in this state. It's not clear whether the publisher pulled them on his own or was asked to by the state. The letter vaguely cites "new state laws regarding the legality of online gaming."
Mind you, no actual betting occurs via these magazines. People like Harvill buy them just to read about gambling.
"It's completely surreal," Harvill says. "My government is saying there is something I'm not allowed to read. I've lived in this country for 60 years and I can't remember anything like this happening to me before."
Well, it has certainly happened to others. Ask Larry Flynt. But it is almost never allowed to stand. Has to do with all that stuff we heard ad nauseam last week about independence and the freedom to think and speak as we want.
The nation's birthday week was a dark one for the most unruly and inconvenient of our freedoms, expression.
We learned that a high-school band in Everett had been barred from playing "Ave Maria" because the song is too religious. This is as baffling as if an art class were not permitted to study Michelangelo.
And then a Fort Lewis Army officer, who was properly accused of refusing to ship out to Iraq, was inexplicably charged for saying "contemptuous words against the President of the United States."
Lt. Ehren Watada had said the president misled us into a war that, in retrospect, was a mistake. Shocking! Even in the military, how can stating the obvious be a jailable offense?
I realize there are arguments for all these clampdowns. Still, it ought to give us pause that in one Fourth of July week we had two magazines banned in the state, one song muzzled in a school district and a slew of words outlawed in the military.
Would a confident people do this to themselves?
Oh, well. So we can't read up on Internet betting. Students can't play songs about Jesus' mother. Soldiers can't call the president a charlatan.
If we all get really bored, at least we can still burn the flag.
Danny Westneat's column appears Thursday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com.
Danny Westneat
Read this while it's still legal
As most of us toasted liberty and pursued happiness last week, Jim Harvill opened his mailbox and learned these rights are not as unalienable as he thought.
On July 3, Harvill, an affable operations manager for Sprint PCS near Spokane, got the following letter from the publisher of two magazines he has subscribed to for years. "It is with deep regret that we must inform you ... " it read, "we must cancel all subscriptions to Washington State."
The magazines are "Casino Player" — a monthly review of U.S. casinos and hotels — and "Strictly Slots" — a guide to one-armed bandits, video poker and other mechanized means of gambling.
Hardly classic literature. But Harvill liked them. And now he can no longer read them, thanks to a twisted reading of the state's new law against Internet gambling.
The state says placing bets online is against the law. Fine. But the state goes on to say that even writing about Internet gambling in a way that's promotional is "aiding and abetting" an illegal industry.
So now two print magazines consider themselves banned in this state. It's not clear whether the publisher pulled them on his own or was asked to by the state. The letter vaguely cites "new state laws regarding the legality of online gaming."
Mind you, no actual betting occurs via these magazines. People like Harvill buy them just to read about gambling.
"It's completely surreal," Harvill says. "My government is saying there is something I'm not allowed to read. I've lived in this country for 60 years and I can't remember anything like this happening to me before."
Well, it has certainly happened to others. Ask Larry Flynt. But it is almost never allowed to stand. Has to do with all that stuff we heard ad nauseam last week about independence and the freedom to think and speak as we want.
The nation's birthday week was a dark one for the most unruly and inconvenient of our freedoms, expression.
We learned that a high-school band in Everett had been barred from playing "Ave Maria" because the song is too religious. This is as baffling as if an art class were not permitted to study Michelangelo.
And then a Fort Lewis Army officer, who was properly accused of refusing to ship out to Iraq, was inexplicably charged for saying "contemptuous words against the President of the United States."
Lt. Ehren Watada had said the president misled us into a war that, in retrospect, was a mistake. Shocking! Even in the military, how can stating the obvious be a jailable offense?
I realize there are arguments for all these clampdowns. Still, it ought to give us pause that in one Fourth of July week we had two magazines banned in the state, one song muzzled in a school district and a slew of words outlawed in the military.
Would a confident people do this to themselves?
Oh, well. So we can't read up on Internet betting. Students can't play songs about Jesus' mother. Soldiers can't call the president a charlatan.
If we all get really bored, at least we can still burn the flag.
Danny Westneat's column appears Thursday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com.
2006 WHITE HOUSE SALARY LIST; Who's Making What In The White House
nationaljournal.com
2006 WHITE HOUSE SALARY LIST
Who's Making What In The White House
By Alexis Simendinger, for NationalJournal.com
President Bush’s most senior aides -- the ones who hold the coveted title of "assistant to the president" -- recently received a $4,200 cost-of-living bump-up in compensation and now earn a top pay rate of $165,200, according to an internal White House list of staff salaries. The list was compiled by the administration for the year that ended June 30 and is displayed both alphabetically, and by dollar ranking, below. Those at the bottom of the White House staff pay scale -- the folks answering phones and responding to the president’s mail, for example -- remain stuck at last year’s pay floor of $30,000, according to a year-to-year comparison of White House data obtained by National Journal.
At that level, the White House aide who keeps a log of the gifts sent to the president makes about as much as the average starting pay for a public school teacher. At $15 an hour, that’s almost three times the national minimum wage of $5.15. (Congress is debating this summer whether to raise the minimum wage, while the administration prefers to leave it where it is).
White House salaries and job titles are largely controlled at the discretion of the president, within the confines of the overall budget approved by Congress for the Executive Office of the President. For example, Anita McBride, chief of staff to the first lady, earns $149,000 this year, which is a jump of $16,000 above her listed pay rate in 2005 -- with no change in title. In 2005, the peak of the White House pay scale was $161,000 for 19 heavyweight job titles.
On this year’s list, the White House omitted Bush aides who left the White House payroll in recent weeks, even if the president intends to fill the posts at this year’s rate of pay. One anomaly: Unlike predecessor I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, David Addington, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was not included on the White House roster, even though he holds a dual title as assistant to the president.
Employees on loan to the White House from their home agencies appear on the list in italics; one intelligence operative was not identified by the White House by name. And there are other curiosities: a General Electric security specialist (and retired Air Force general) is listed as an “employee” and member of the president’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, at a per diem rate of $548. The White House is not required by law to make public any complete accounting of staff or individual salaries.
The list of 433 positions excludes White House residence employees, Office of Management and Budget personnel, and the staff members working in the Office of the Vice President who are on the payroll of the U.S. Senate by virtue of the vice president’s role as Senate president. By law, President Bush’s salary is $400,000. The vice president’s compensation in 2006 is $212,100.
To search for a specific White House employee, enter the last name and click "Find." Or, browse the entire list in alphabetical order or descending salary rank.
White House Salary List
Sorted by Salary Amount | Sort by Name
Name Title Salary
Bartlett, Daniel Counselor to the President $165,200
Bolten, Joshua B. Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff $165,200
Crouch II, Jack D Assistant to the President & Deputy National Security Advisor $165,200
Hadley, Stephen J. Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs $165,200
Hagin, Joseph W. Assistant to the President & Deputy Chief of Staff $165,200
Hubbard, Allan B. Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director, NEC $165,200
Kaplan, Joel D. Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy $165,200
McGurn, William J. Assistant to the President for Speechwriting $165,200
Miers, Harriet E. Counsel to the President $165,200
Renner, Liza W. Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel $165,200
Rove, Karl C. Assistant to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff & Senior Advisor $165,200
Snow, Robert A Assistant to the President and Press Secretary $165,200
Townsend, Frances Fragos Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism $165,200
Wallace, Nicolle Assistant to the President for Communications $165,200
Wolff, Candida Perotti Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $165,200
Yanes, Raul Francisco Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary $165,200
Zinsmeister, Walter Karl Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy $165,200
Gambatesa, Linda M. Deputy Assistant to the President for Management and Administration $149,000
Kelley, William K. Deputy Counsel to the President $149,000
McBride, Anita B. Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady $149,000
Rapuano, Kenneth P. Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security $149,000
Shirzad, Faryar Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs and Deputy, NSA $149,000
Burnham, Nealton Jay Acting Director of Cabinet Liaison $146,192
Badger, William Deputy Assistant for Legislative Affairs $137,000
Barrales, Ruben Director Intergovernmental Affairs $137,000
Bennett , Melissa S Deputy Assistant to the President for Appointments and Scheduling $137,000
Beyer, Todd W. Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Advance $137,000
Burck, William A. Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Staff Secretary $137,000
Conklin, Brian C. Deputy Assistant to the President For Legislative Affairs $137,000
Jackson, Barry S. Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy to the Senior Advisor $137,000
Keenum, Rhonda N. Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Public Liaison $137,000
Martin, Catherine J. Deputy Asstistant to the President and Deputy Director of Communications for Policy and Planning $137,000
O'Hollaren, Sean B. Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $137,000
Perino, Dana M. Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Press Secretary $137,000
Sayle, Desiree T. Deputy Assistant to the President & Director of USA Freedom Corps $137,000
Sforza, Scott N. Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Communication for Production $137,000
Taylor, Sara M. Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs $137,000
Wehner, Peter H. Deputy Assistant to the President & Director of Strategic Initiatives $137,000
Robbins, Mark A. Executive Director $133,900
Saunders, George T. Executive Clerk $132,607
Shannon, Paul John Director, Law Enforcement Policy $132,000
Hunter, Caroline Critchfield Deputy Director $129,023
Williams, Ronald Director of Nuclear Defense Policy $129,023
Baker, Douglas Assistant to President for Border/Transporation Security $122,000
Brosnahan, Jennifer R Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Dixton, Grant M. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Emling, John G. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $122,000
Fahrenkopf, Leslie A. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Fiddelke, Debbie S. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $122,000
Frech, Christopher W. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $122,000
Friedrich, Dabney L. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Goeglein, Timothy S. Special Assistant to the President & Deputy Director of Public Liaison $122,000
Grant, Margaret M. Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs $122,000
Hauck, Megan E. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $122,000
Hoover, Reynold N. Special Assistant to the President for Coop Policy $122,000
Hoyt, Robert F. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Klinger, Richard D. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Liang, Elan Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $122,000
Mamo, Jean S. Special Assistant to the President and Director of Media Affairs $122,000
Moy, Edmund C. Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel $122,000
Painter, Richard W. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Ralston, Susan B. Special Assistant to the President and Assistant to the Senior Advisor $122,000
Reyes, Luis A. Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel $122,000
Smith, Heidi Marquez Special Assistant to the President for Cabinet Liaison $122,000
Thiessen, Marc A. Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Speechwriting $122,000
Loughlin, Ann L. Associate Counsel to the President $121,856
Misir, Deborah Nirmala Ethics Advisor $114,688
Droege, Philip C. Director of Records Management $111,104
Gesiriech, Sarah J. Associate Director $107,521
Baker, Stuart Director for Lessons Learned $106,641
Bullock , Katja Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel $105,000
Gerry, Brett C. Associate Counsel to the President $105,000
Grace, Dennis J. Special Assistant to the President & Deputy Director, OFBCI $105,000
Karr, Elizabeth Barrett Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $105,000
Lisaius, Kenneth A. Special Assistant to President and Deputy Press Secretary $105,000
Looney, Andrea B. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $105,000
Mistri, Alexander M. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $105,000
Mitnick, John M. Associate Counsel to the President $105,000
Nielsen, Kirstjen M. Special Assistant to the President for Prevention, Preparedness and Response Policy $105,000
Rao, Neomi J. Associate Counsel to the President $105,000
Rounds III, Emory A. Deputy Associate Counsel $105,000
Rowan , Peter M. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $105,000
Smith, John M. Associate Counsel to the President $105,000
Wright, Katherine Wills Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director $105,000
Kalbaugh, David E. Deputy Executive Clerk $103,594
(Unnamed) Director of Coop Policy $100,547
Dornburg, Erica M. Ethics Advisor $100,547
Forgy, Michael O. Director, Training and Exercise Policy $100,547
Becker, Amanda Special Assistant to President for Personnel $95,000
Berman, Janet Lea Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary $95,000
Burke , John G. Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs $95,000
Clark, David M. Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel $95,000
Deservi, Robert G. Special Assistant to the President and Associate Director of Communications for Production $95,000
Edwards, Christian J. Special Assistant to the President, Deputy Director of Advance for Press $95,000
Fernandez, Rodolfo J. Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs $95,000
Gottesman, Blake L. Special Assistant to the President & Personal Aide $95,000
Griffin, John T. Special Assistant to the President & Deputy Director, OPA $95,000
Jennings, Jeffery Scott Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director for Political Affairs $95,000
Keller, Karen E. Special Assistant to the President and Personal Secretary $95,000
McCormack, Brian V. Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Public Liaison $95,000
Medina, Sonya E. Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Director of Projects for First Lady $95,000
Meyers, John M. Special Assistant to the President for Operations $95,000
Michel, Christopher G. Special Assistant to the President for Speechwriting $95,000
Rethmeier, Blain K. Special Assistant to the President for Communications $95,000
Robinson, Matthew S. Special Assistant to the President for Speechwriting $95,000
Weinstein, Jared B. Special Assistant to the President & Personal Aide $95,000
Aylward, Patrick Assistant to Chief of Staff $94,454
Dick, Denise Yvonne Director, Office of the Chief of Staff $94,000
Augustine, Rene Associate Counsel $93,100
Simpson, Wandra E. Supervisor of Search and File $92,820
Witcher, Eryn M. Director of Television $90,000
Trulio, David V. Deputy Executive Secretary $87,900
McCathran, William W. Assistant Executive Clerk $87,664
Thomas, Andrew D. Associate Director $85,000
Katz, Jeremy L. Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff for Policy $82,800
Lim, Marie Evelyn C. Director for Transportation Security Policy $82,800
Neifach, Michael H. Director of Visas and Screening Policy $82,800
Sciarrone, Marie O. Director of Infrastructure Protection Policy $82,800
Campbell, Frances L. Supervisor of Data Entry $82,509
Roach , Cynthia L. Supervisor of Classification $82,509
Silva, Stacey B. Director of the Travel Office $81,500
Swann, Caroline J. Director of White House Personnel $81,500
Jordan, Myriah L. Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff for Policy $80,000
Crable, Lynn Allison Lead Presidential Support Specialist $78,055
Taggart Jr., Hugh T. Assistant Supervisor of Search and File $78,055
Thomas III, Edwin R. Assistant to the Executive Clerk $78,055
Douglass, Kimberly A. Director of White House Management $77,800
Bossert, Thomas P. Director of Infrastructure Protection Policy $77,600
Dozor, Joshua C. Director of Preparedness Policy $77,600
Fullerton, Laura F. Director of Coop Policy $77,600
Kaniewski, Daniel J. Director of Response and Recovery Policy $77,600
Wendel, Matthew L. Senior Advance Representative $77,600
Chafin, Claude Hammond Communications Advisor $77,353
Armstrong, Sara Director White House Visitors Office $75,000
Roddick, Gertrude A. Director of Mail Analysis $73,720
Hipp, Darren K. Acting Director of Presidential Correspondence $72,400
Whitson, Susan D. Press Secretary to the First Lady $72,400
Tucker, Phyllis J. Supervisor of Computer Administration $71,522
Southerland, Virginia L. Shift Leader $70,588
Guillemard, Nicole M. Director of Specialty Media $70,000
Brooke, Mary J. Supervisor of Correspondence Review $69,384
Jones, Crystal B. Assistant Supervisor of Data Entry $69,384
Gerdelman, Sue H. Executive Assistant $69,100
Parrish, Jobi A. Executive Assistant to the Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security $68,800
West, Cristal Associate Director $68,800
Rust, Kathryn E. Special Assistant to the Director $68,600
Almacy, John Internet E-Communications Director $67,200
McDonald, Brian E. Deputy Director $67,200
Showers, Wendy W. Presidential Support Specialist $66,939
Blossman, Robert B. Director of Special Projects $66,000
Lang, Mary K. Executive Assistant $65,000
Spicer, Rebecca M. Associate Director $65,000
Bean, Eileen Shift Leader $64,213
Theis, Nancy A. Director of Comment Line, Greetings, and Volunteers $63,400
Wallace, Charity N. Director of Advance for the First Lady $63,300
Damas, Raul A. Associate Director $63,000
Felts, Jonathan D. Associate Director $63,000
Hanusa, Mary Ann Director, Presidential Personal Correspondence $63,000
Huntsberry, Jason R. Associate Director $63,000
Seaton, Jonathan A. Associate Director $63,000
Soper, Steven W. Associate Director $63,000
Burch , Therese M. Senior Advance Representative $62,800
Freeman, Myra B. Records Management Analyst $62,566
James Jr., Theodoric C. Records Management Analyst $62,566
Harris, Joel Allen Associate director $62,100
Hawks, Diane A. Deputy director $62,100
Jacobs Jr., Robert W. Director of Immigration Security Policy $62,100
Mason, Jeb J. Associate Director $62,100
Miller, Sonja Maria Deputy Director of Projects for the First Lady $62,100
Nelson, Margaret C. Director of Aviation Security Policy $62,100
Scanlon, Joel A. Associate Director $62,100
Becker, Kathleen Hotel Program Manager $60,700
Clyne, Meghan L. Speechwriter $60,000
Farr, Mary E. Director of Scheduling for the First Lady $60,000
Korn, Jennifer S. Associate Director $60,000
Watkins, Peter S. Spokesman $60,000
Binns, Mary U. Special Assistant $59,274
Evans, Madalene E.W. Records Management Analyst $59,274
Williams, Sherman A. Assistant to the Executive Clerk $59,274
Marshall, Misty C. Director of Correspondence for the First Lady $58,200
Houston, LaRhonda M. Deputy Director $58,000
Decamp, Mary S. Deputy Social Secretary $57,900
Kratovil, Lindley Special Assistant to the Assisant to the President for Legislative Affairs $57,900
Evans, Wanda M. Assistant to the Executive Clerk $57,628
Dryden, Logan E. Executive Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff $56,900
Houser, Elizabeth S Director of Student Correspondence $56,900
Hughes, Taylor A. Executive Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor $56,900
Kropp, Emily L. Executive Assistant $56,900
Kyle, Ross M. Associate Director $56,900
Levey, Collin Speechwriter $56,900
Miller, Martha Cagle Associate Director $56,900
Deguzman Jr., Danilo Presidential Support Specialist $55,982
Trainor, Gregory T. Manager of Mail and Messenger Operations $55,982
Bohn III, Carl H. Director of Radio $55,200
Arguello, Olga Associate Director $55,000
Bowman, Thomas A. Assistant Staff Secretary $55,000
Christie, Jennifer K. Associate Director $55,000
Parker, Doris Assistant Supervisor of Classification $54,336
O'Keefe, James A. Senior Advance Representative $53,900
Sunbarger, Rachael L. Senior Press Advance Representative $53,900
Graham, Lottie B. Assistant Shift Leader $53,830
Gamber, Gavin P. Senior Advance Representative $53,800
Price, Melissa R. Assistant Staff Secretary $53,800
Ellis, Linda M. Assistant Shift Leader $52,335
Jones, Deborah A. Records Management Analyst $52,335
Stubbs, Everette C. Director of Presidential Messages $52,000
Alexander, Colleen Director Presidential Support $51,700
Frans, Luke R. Director of Schedule C Appointments $51,700
Jones, Blair C. Spokesman $51,700
Krivijanski, Joseph R. Director of Presidential Writers $51,700
McClenning, Alyssa J. Associate Director $51,700
Parell, Christie B. Director of Coalitions Media $51,700
Reaves, Karen A. Senior Press Advance Representative $51,700
Recher, Jason J. Senior Advance Representative $51,700
Roebke, Heather M. Executive Assistant to the Counsel to the President $51,700
Sherzer, David Lloyd Special Projects Coordinator $51,700
Wessel, Carol S. Director of Presidential Proclamations $51,700
Pilato, Anna Director of Administration $50,800
Allman, Cora Associate Director $50,000
Cherry, Jane W. Associate Director $50,000
Conant, Roger Alexander Spokesman $50,000
Dorff, John E. Associate Director $50,000
Drogin, Leslie J. Assistant Staff Secretary $50,000
Drouin, Lindsey E. Executive Assistant $50,000
Edwards, Dana A. Associate Director $50,000
Ellis, Michael J. Associate Director $50,000
Graves, Caleb R. Associate director $50,000
Mosser, Kimberly A. Associate Director $50,000
Speight Watson, Kerri Lynn Director of Agency Liaison $50,000
Taplett, Claire Ross Director of the Gift Office $50,000
Barton, Michael Associate Director $49,800
Clarke, Kay F. Assistant Shift Leader $49,343
King, Taeshonnda Cherayl Records Management Analyst $49,343
Mattson, Philip C. Printer and Photograph Coordinator $49,343
Young Jr., Reginald D. Records management analyst $49,343
De La Torre, Lindsey M. Associate Director $48,600
Kraft, Nathaniel B. Special Assistant $48,600
Race, Karen E. Deputy Director and Intern Coordinator $48,600
Chiarappa, Amanda C Deputy Associate Director for Press Advance $48,500
Cassano, Lois A. Media Assistant $48,100
Anderson, Theresa Assistant Shift Leader $47,847
Grier, Judy E. Records Management Analyst $47,847
Lezotte, Darin R. Records Management Analyst $47,847
Millison, Chad L. Records Management Analyst $47,847
Samuels Jr., Wendell A. Records Management Analyst $47,847
Young, Latoya A. Records Management Analyst $47,847
Carson, Melissa M. Director of Fact Checking $46,500
Gatlin, Joshua C. Senior Press Advance Representative $46,500
Lauckhardt, Shelby L. Associate Director $46,500
Ludvigson, Dominique F. Associate Director $46,500
Sullivan, Jennifer M. Associate Director for Outreach $46,500
Tiffany, Mary F. Senior Press Advance Representative $46,500
Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady $46,300
Atilli, Candice Special Services Operator $46,026
Deckard, Joshua S. Assistant Press Secretary $45,500
Amorsingh, Lucius Deputy Director Student Correspondence $45,225
Danforth, Melissa C. Associate Director $45,000
Eppes, Brian S. Deputy Director of Presidential Messages $45,000
Johnson, Matthew S. Deputy Director of Presidential Writers $45,000
Loovis, Katie R. Associate Director of Public Liaison $45,000
Macdonald, Anne D. Associate Director $45,000
Nutter, Aaron D. Senior Press Advance Representative $45,000
Saliterman, Robert W. Director of Rapid Response $45,000
Sinatra, Nicholas A. Associate Director $45,000
King, Kristin Noel Deputy Associate Director for Scheduling $44,856
Claude, Lilia H. Special Services Operator $44,672
Suitt, Deborah D. Special Services Operator $44,672
Williams, Beverly D. Special Services Operator $44,672
Courtwright, Susan M. Paralegal $44,500
Lartey, Solomon D. Records Management Analyst $44,003
Dunne, Dianna L. Staff Assistant $43,400
Staley, Kenneth William Director, Food Agriculture and Water Security Policy $43,365
Ryun, Catherine A. Executive Assistant to the Director $43,000
Penny, Sarah A. West Wing Receptionist $42,400
Blockhorn, Lee F. Speechwriter $42,300
Su, Sahra Y. Deputy Associate Director $42,300
Higgins, Stefanie E. Confidential assistant $42,000
Sass , Joan C. Special Services Operator $41,965
Saunders, Cherita J. Records Management Analyst $41,965
Barks, Campbell Deputy Director of Correspondence for First Lady $41,400
Brakebill, Elizabeth B. Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the First Lady $41,400
Burdick, Amanda K. Executive Assistant $41,400
Carmichael, Ann E. Director of Legislative Correspondence $41,400
Degisi, Nina P. Associate Director $41,400
Drummond, Michael A. Staff Assistant $41,400
Gibbs, Landon M. Staff Assistant $41,400
Giblet, Timothy H. Deputy Director of Comment Line and Greetings $41,400
Hawkins, Jennifer N. Deputy Associate Director $41,400
Merritt, Meredith A. Deputy Associate Director $41,400
Nichols, Bethany A. Deputy Associate Director $41,400
Persinger, John M. Executive Assistant to the Deputy Counsel to the President $41,400
Teague, Matthew L. Executive Assistant $41,400
Vander Veur, Justin W. Deputy Director of Mail Analysis $41,400
Veerman, Jennifer L. Deputy Director of Proclamations $41,400
Wells, Sharon I. Deputy Associate Director $41,400
Whitman, Zachary R. Advanced Representative $41,000
McLaughlin, Mindy A. Associate Director of Scheduling $40,300
Taylor , Michael J. Aide to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security $40,200
Boyce, Lucas D. Deputy Associate Director $40,000
Curran, Kevin H. Deputy Associate Director $40,000
Freeman, Skyla M. Senior Writer $40,000
Johanson, Aaron L. Deputy Associate Director $40,000
McCarlie, Michael D. Deputy Associate Director $40,000
Hildebrand, Katherine S. Travel Manager $39,800
Pitts, Greg T. Travel Manager $39,800
Suskin, Jesse M. Travel Manager $39,800
Ward III, Richard J. Travel Manager $39,800
Wysocki, Candace M. Executive assistant $39,800
Austin, Elizabeth Deputy Associate Director $39,300
Gray, Jennifer Deputy Director of Agency Liaison $39,300
Hernandez, Angela R. Deputy Associate Director $39,300
Doty, Joan R. Senior Writer $38,200
Donoghue, Tarah C. Deputy Press Secretary $38,000
Leal, Veronica D. Deputy Associate Director $38,000
White, Jennifer Renee Staff Assistant $37,893
Carl, Jeremy A Deputy Associate Director for Invitations & Correspondence $37,200
Race, Katherine S. Special Services Operator $37,200
Aulds, Amanda Writer $37,000
Crocker, Erica A. Deputy Director $37,000
Jenkins, Laura M. Executive Assistant $37,000
Rue III, William H. Deputy Associate Director $37,000
Taylor, Meghan J. Senior Trip Coordinator $37,000
Baskerville, Chester Operator $36,671
Patlan, Phillip A. Staff Assistant $36,671
Vandall, Tobias A. Operator $36,671
Atlas, Nathan Staff Assistant $36,200
Breaux, Tiffany A. Deputy Associate Director $36,200
Carski, Kevin T. Deputy Associate Director $36,200
Hoare, Thomas H. Staff Assistant $36,200
Klunk, Kate A. Executive Assistant $36,200
Langdon, James Calhoun Executive Assistant $36,200
Noyes, Joel P. Deputy Associate Director $36,200
Scheneman, Elisabeth C. Staff Assistant $36,200
Stewart, Anne B. Special Assistant $36,200
Stone, Jonathan D. Deputy Associate Director $36,200
Wood, Ainsley R. Associate Director $36,200
Devuono, Amanda B. Deputy Assistant Staff Secretary $36,000
McArthur, Nikki L. Deputy Associate Director $36,000
Wilsbach, Cynthia C. Special Assistant to the Director $36,000
Fahy, Brian D. Research Assistant $35,200
Greer, Sarah M. Writer $35,200
Belter, Rachel M. Deputy Associate Director $35,000
Bruntin, Jennifer Lynch Deputy Associate Director $35,000
Graham, Ryan M. Press assistant $35,000
Green, Anneke E. Research assistant $35,000
Humphries, Amelia A. Senior Editor $35,000
Lee, Michelle J. Executive Assistant $35,000
McCoy, Joshua L. Deputy Associate Director $35,000
McIntosh, Sara B. Writer $35,000
Merkley, Brendon A. Research Assistant $35,000
Meyers, David R. Executive Assistant $35,000
Ransbottom, Sarah E. Executive Assistant $35,000
Segura, Millicent Staff Assistant $35,000
White, Davis C. Deputy Associate Director $35,000
Wilmoth IV, Benton M. Deputy Associate Director $35,000
Yee, Emily Research assistant $35,000
Barrett, Allison Scheduler $33,100
Kane, Mary Lauren Executive Assistant $33,100
Maxwell, Kyle D. Deputy Associate Director $33,100
Candrian, Brittany S. Staff Assistant $33,000
Lindsay, Christopher A. Staff Assistant $32,800
Rhodes, Elizabeth F. Staff Assistant $32,800
Anderson, Ashley Scheduler $32,000
Coletti, Kendell E. Executive Assistant $32,000
Lew, Veronica J. Staff Assistant $32,000
Maescher, Rebecca B. Scheduler $32,000
Swinehart, Riley Staff Assistant $31,800
Aires, Daniel Research Assistant $31,000
Barker, Janae Staff Assistant $31,000
Beebe, Vanessa J. Executive Assistant $31,000
Byrne, Christopher J. Staff Assistant $31,000
Cabral, Catalina Agency Coordinator $31,000
Carleton, Nathan L. Press Assistant $31,000
Carroll, Carlton F. Press Assistant $31,000
Chesley, David A. Correspondence Analyst $31,000
Cook, William C. Staff Assistant $31,000
Culvahouse, Sarah A. Press Assistant $31,000
Daniel, Megan E. Staff Assistant $31,000
Dennard, Paris P. Staff Assistant $31,000
Fabina, Lauren C. Staff Assistant $31,000
Fields, Ferrell L. Staff Assistant $31,000
Ford, Frederick Writer $31,000
Grosso, Kathryn M. Staff assistant $31,000
Huddleston, Caroline B. Invitation Assistant $31,000
Keep, Katherine E. Editor $31,000
Lynch, Michele M. Trip Coordinator $31,000
Mims, Matthew D. Staff Assistant $31,000
Moore, April K. Correspondence Analyst $31,000
Morgan, Margaret Taylor Correspondence Analyst $31,000
Navarro, Joanna C. Staff Assistant $31,000
Parell, Cara M. Writer $31,000
Perkins, Paul R. Staff Assistant $31,000
Perry , Tiffany S. Staff Assistant $31,000
Roberts, John S. Press Assistant $31,000
Schwartz, Daniel W. Staff Assistant $31,000
Seat, Peter A. Research Assistant $31,000
Tanner, Christon R. Staff Assistant $31,000
Vaughan, Frederick W. Writer $31,000
Walker, James H. Staff Assistant $31,000
Watts, Casey L. Staff Assistant $31,000
White, Sean C. Staff Assistant $31,000
Williams, Elizabeth W. Staff Assistant $31,000
Williamson, Angela N. Correspondence Analyst $31,000
Wolf, Heather S. Correspondence Analyst $31,000
Zeidman, Jay S. Staff Assistant $31,000
Adkins, Matthew Correspondence Analyst $30,000
Arogeti, Scott Correspondence Analyst $30,000
Brady, Ryan D. Writer $30,000
Britton, Christy L. Editor $30,000
Cavanaugh, Jeffrey C. Staff assistant $30,000
Coghlan, John V. Staff Assistant $30,000
Conrad, Samuel K. Staff Assistant $30,000
Dredge, Samantha M. Agency Coordinator $30,000
Ehni, Meaghan G. Trip Coordinator $30,000
Gamble, Kelly L. Staff Assistant $30,000
Holden, Chelsea M. Staff Assistant $30,000
Lien, Leslie E. Volunteer Coordinator $30,000
Lloyd, James R. Correspondence Analyst $30,000
Maniscalco, John R. Staff Assistant $30,000
McCoy, Maggie E. Gift Analyst $30,000
Meyers, Whitney J. Correspondence Analyst $30,000
Naughton, Peter N. Gift Analyst $30,000
Prehmus, Courtney L. Writer $30,000
Rodgers Jr., James P. Correspondence Analyst $30,000
Terrell, Jonathan M. Correspondence analyst $30,000
Vollrath, Matthew D. Writer $30,000
Webster, Jocelyn S. Staff Assistant $30,000
Olson, Theodore Bevry Board Member $548
per diem
Raul, Alan C. Vice Chairman $582
per diem
Dinkins, Carol E. Chairman $582
per diem
Davis, Lanny J. Board Member $548
per diem
Taylor, Francis X. Board Member $548
per diem
2006 WHITE HOUSE SALARY LIST
Who's Making What In The White House
By Alexis Simendinger, for NationalJournal.com
President Bush’s most senior aides -- the ones who hold the coveted title of "assistant to the president" -- recently received a $4,200 cost-of-living bump-up in compensation and now earn a top pay rate of $165,200, according to an internal White House list of staff salaries. The list was compiled by the administration for the year that ended June 30 and is displayed both alphabetically, and by dollar ranking, below. Those at the bottom of the White House staff pay scale -- the folks answering phones and responding to the president’s mail, for example -- remain stuck at last year’s pay floor of $30,000, according to a year-to-year comparison of White House data obtained by National Journal.
At that level, the White House aide who keeps a log of the gifts sent to the president makes about as much as the average starting pay for a public school teacher. At $15 an hour, that’s almost three times the national minimum wage of $5.15. (Congress is debating this summer whether to raise the minimum wage, while the administration prefers to leave it where it is).
White House salaries and job titles are largely controlled at the discretion of the president, within the confines of the overall budget approved by Congress for the Executive Office of the President. For example, Anita McBride, chief of staff to the first lady, earns $149,000 this year, which is a jump of $16,000 above her listed pay rate in 2005 -- with no change in title. In 2005, the peak of the White House pay scale was $161,000 for 19 heavyweight job titles.
On this year’s list, the White House omitted Bush aides who left the White House payroll in recent weeks, even if the president intends to fill the posts at this year’s rate of pay. One anomaly: Unlike predecessor I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, David Addington, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was not included on the White House roster, even though he holds a dual title as assistant to the president.
Employees on loan to the White House from their home agencies appear on the list in italics; one intelligence operative was not identified by the White House by name. And there are other curiosities: a General Electric security specialist (and retired Air Force general) is listed as an “employee” and member of the president’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, at a per diem rate of $548. The White House is not required by law to make public any complete accounting of staff or individual salaries.
The list of 433 positions excludes White House residence employees, Office of Management and Budget personnel, and the staff members working in the Office of the Vice President who are on the payroll of the U.S. Senate by virtue of the vice president’s role as Senate president. By law, President Bush’s salary is $400,000. The vice president’s compensation in 2006 is $212,100.
To search for a specific White House employee, enter the last name and click "Find." Or, browse the entire list in alphabetical order or descending salary rank.
White House Salary List
Sorted by Salary Amount | Sort by Name
Name Title Salary
Bartlett, Daniel Counselor to the President $165,200
Bolten, Joshua B. Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff $165,200
Crouch II, Jack D Assistant to the President & Deputy National Security Advisor $165,200
Hadley, Stephen J. Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs $165,200
Hagin, Joseph W. Assistant to the President & Deputy Chief of Staff $165,200
Hubbard, Allan B. Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director, NEC $165,200
Kaplan, Joel D. Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy $165,200
McGurn, William J. Assistant to the President for Speechwriting $165,200
Miers, Harriet E. Counsel to the President $165,200
Renner, Liza W. Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel $165,200
Rove, Karl C. Assistant to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff & Senior Advisor $165,200
Snow, Robert A Assistant to the President and Press Secretary $165,200
Townsend, Frances Fragos Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism $165,200
Wallace, Nicolle Assistant to the President for Communications $165,200
Wolff, Candida Perotti Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $165,200
Yanes, Raul Francisco Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary $165,200
Zinsmeister, Walter Karl Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy $165,200
Gambatesa, Linda M. Deputy Assistant to the President for Management and Administration $149,000
Kelley, William K. Deputy Counsel to the President $149,000
McBride, Anita B. Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady $149,000
Rapuano, Kenneth P. Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security $149,000
Shirzad, Faryar Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs and Deputy, NSA $149,000
Burnham, Nealton Jay Acting Director of Cabinet Liaison $146,192
Badger, William Deputy Assistant for Legislative Affairs $137,000
Barrales, Ruben Director Intergovernmental Affairs $137,000
Bennett , Melissa S Deputy Assistant to the President for Appointments and Scheduling $137,000
Beyer, Todd W. Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Advance $137,000
Burck, William A. Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Staff Secretary $137,000
Conklin, Brian C. Deputy Assistant to the President For Legislative Affairs $137,000
Jackson, Barry S. Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy to the Senior Advisor $137,000
Keenum, Rhonda N. Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Public Liaison $137,000
Martin, Catherine J. Deputy Asstistant to the President and Deputy Director of Communications for Policy and Planning $137,000
O'Hollaren, Sean B. Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $137,000
Perino, Dana M. Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Press Secretary $137,000
Sayle, Desiree T. Deputy Assistant to the President & Director of USA Freedom Corps $137,000
Sforza, Scott N. Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Communication for Production $137,000
Taylor, Sara M. Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs $137,000
Wehner, Peter H. Deputy Assistant to the President & Director of Strategic Initiatives $137,000
Robbins, Mark A. Executive Director $133,900
Saunders, George T. Executive Clerk $132,607
Shannon, Paul John Director, Law Enforcement Policy $132,000
Hunter, Caroline Critchfield Deputy Director $129,023
Williams, Ronald Director of Nuclear Defense Policy $129,023
Baker, Douglas Assistant to President for Border/Transporation Security $122,000
Brosnahan, Jennifer R Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Dixton, Grant M. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Emling, John G. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $122,000
Fahrenkopf, Leslie A. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Fiddelke, Debbie S. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $122,000
Frech, Christopher W. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $122,000
Friedrich, Dabney L. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Goeglein, Timothy S. Special Assistant to the President & Deputy Director of Public Liaison $122,000
Grant, Margaret M. Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs $122,000
Hauck, Megan E. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $122,000
Hoover, Reynold N. Special Assistant to the President for Coop Policy $122,000
Hoyt, Robert F. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Klinger, Richard D. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Liang, Elan Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $122,000
Mamo, Jean S. Special Assistant to the President and Director of Media Affairs $122,000
Moy, Edmund C. Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel $122,000
Painter, Richard W. Associate Counsel to the President $122,000
Ralston, Susan B. Special Assistant to the President and Assistant to the Senior Advisor $122,000
Reyes, Luis A. Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel $122,000
Smith, Heidi Marquez Special Assistant to the President for Cabinet Liaison $122,000
Thiessen, Marc A. Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Speechwriting $122,000
Loughlin, Ann L. Associate Counsel to the President $121,856
Misir, Deborah Nirmala Ethics Advisor $114,688
Droege, Philip C. Director of Records Management $111,104
Gesiriech, Sarah J. Associate Director $107,521
Baker, Stuart Director for Lessons Learned $106,641
Bullock , Katja Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel $105,000
Gerry, Brett C. Associate Counsel to the President $105,000
Grace, Dennis J. Special Assistant to the President & Deputy Director, OFBCI $105,000
Karr, Elizabeth Barrett Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $105,000
Lisaius, Kenneth A. Special Assistant to President and Deputy Press Secretary $105,000
Looney, Andrea B. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $105,000
Mistri, Alexander M. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $105,000
Mitnick, John M. Associate Counsel to the President $105,000
Nielsen, Kirstjen M. Special Assistant to the President for Prevention, Preparedness and Response Policy $105,000
Rao, Neomi J. Associate Counsel to the President $105,000
Rounds III, Emory A. Deputy Associate Counsel $105,000
Rowan , Peter M. Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs $105,000
Smith, John M. Associate Counsel to the President $105,000
Wright, Katherine Wills Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director $105,000
Kalbaugh, David E. Deputy Executive Clerk $103,594
(Unnamed) Director of Coop Policy $100,547
Dornburg, Erica M. Ethics Advisor $100,547
Forgy, Michael O. Director, Training and Exercise Policy $100,547
Becker, Amanda Special Assistant to President for Personnel $95,000
Berman, Janet Lea Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary $95,000
Burke , John G. Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs $95,000
Clark, David M. Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel $95,000
Deservi, Robert G. Special Assistant to the President and Associate Director of Communications for Production $95,000
Edwards, Christian J. Special Assistant to the President, Deputy Director of Advance for Press $95,000
Fernandez, Rodolfo J. Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs $95,000
Gottesman, Blake L. Special Assistant to the President & Personal Aide $95,000
Griffin, John T. Special Assistant to the President & Deputy Director, OPA $95,000
Jennings, Jeffery Scott Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director for Political Affairs $95,000
Keller, Karen E. Special Assistant to the President and Personal Secretary $95,000
McCormack, Brian V. Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Public Liaison $95,000
Medina, Sonya E. Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Director of Projects for First Lady $95,000
Meyers, John M. Special Assistant to the President for Operations $95,000
Michel, Christopher G. Special Assistant to the President for Speechwriting $95,000
Rethmeier, Blain K. Special Assistant to the President for Communications $95,000
Robinson, Matthew S. Special Assistant to the President for Speechwriting $95,000
Weinstein, Jared B. Special Assistant to the President & Personal Aide $95,000
Aylward, Patrick Assistant to Chief of Staff $94,454
Dick, Denise Yvonne Director, Office of the Chief of Staff $94,000
Augustine, Rene Associate Counsel $93,100
Simpson, Wandra E. Supervisor of Search and File $92,820
Witcher, Eryn M. Director of Television $90,000
Trulio, David V. Deputy Executive Secretary $87,900
McCathran, William W. Assistant Executive Clerk $87,664
Thomas, Andrew D. Associate Director $85,000
Katz, Jeremy L. Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff for Policy $82,800
Lim, Marie Evelyn C. Director for Transportation Security Policy $82,800
Neifach, Michael H. Director of Visas and Screening Policy $82,800
Sciarrone, Marie O. Director of Infrastructure Protection Policy $82,800
Campbell, Frances L. Supervisor of Data Entry $82,509
Roach , Cynthia L. Supervisor of Classification $82,509
Silva, Stacey B. Director of the Travel Office $81,500
Swann, Caroline J. Director of White House Personnel $81,500
Jordan, Myriah L. Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff for Policy $80,000
Crable, Lynn Allison Lead Presidential Support Specialist $78,055
Taggart Jr., Hugh T. Assistant Supervisor of Search and File $78,055
Thomas III, Edwin R. Assistant to the Executive Clerk $78,055
Douglass, Kimberly A. Director of White House Management $77,800
Bossert, Thomas P. Director of Infrastructure Protection Policy $77,600
Dozor, Joshua C. Director of Preparedness Policy $77,600
Fullerton, Laura F. Director of Coop Policy $77,600
Kaniewski, Daniel J. Director of Response and Recovery Policy $77,600
Wendel, Matthew L. Senior Advance Representative $77,600
Chafin, Claude Hammond Communications Advisor $77,353
Armstrong, Sara Director White House Visitors Office $75,000
Roddick, Gertrude A. Director of Mail Analysis $73,720
Hipp, Darren K. Acting Director of Presidential Correspondence $72,400
Whitson, Susan D. Press Secretary to the First Lady $72,400
Tucker, Phyllis J. Supervisor of Computer Administration $71,522
Southerland, Virginia L. Shift Leader $70,588
Guillemard, Nicole M. Director of Specialty Media $70,000
Brooke, Mary J. Supervisor of Correspondence Review $69,384
Jones, Crystal B. Assistant Supervisor of Data Entry $69,384
Gerdelman, Sue H. Executive Assistant $69,100
Parrish, Jobi A. Executive Assistant to the Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security $68,800
West, Cristal Associate Director $68,800
Rust, Kathryn E. Special Assistant to the Director $68,600
Almacy, John Internet E-Communications Director $67,200
McDonald, Brian E. Deputy Director $67,200
Showers, Wendy W. Presidential Support Specialist $66,939
Blossman, Robert B. Director of Special Projects $66,000
Lang, Mary K. Executive Assistant $65,000
Spicer, Rebecca M. Associate Director $65,000
Bean, Eileen Shift Leader $64,213
Theis, Nancy A. Director of Comment Line, Greetings, and Volunteers $63,400
Wallace, Charity N. Director of Advance for the First Lady $63,300
Damas, Raul A. Associate Director $63,000
Felts, Jonathan D. Associate Director $63,000
Hanusa, Mary Ann Director, Presidential Personal Correspondence $63,000
Huntsberry, Jason R. Associate Director $63,000
Seaton, Jonathan A. Associate Director $63,000
Soper, Steven W. Associate Director $63,000
Burch , Therese M. Senior Advance Representative $62,800
Freeman, Myra B. Records Management Analyst $62,566
James Jr., Theodoric C. Records Management Analyst $62,566
Harris, Joel Allen Associate director $62,100
Hawks, Diane A. Deputy director $62,100
Jacobs Jr., Robert W. Director of Immigration Security Policy $62,100
Mason, Jeb J. Associate Director $62,100
Miller, Sonja Maria Deputy Director of Projects for the First Lady $62,100
Nelson, Margaret C. Director of Aviation Security Policy $62,100
Scanlon, Joel A. Associate Director $62,100
Becker, Kathleen Hotel Program Manager $60,700
Clyne, Meghan L. Speechwriter $60,000
Farr, Mary E. Director of Scheduling for the First Lady $60,000
Korn, Jennifer S. Associate Director $60,000
Watkins, Peter S. Spokesman $60,000
Binns, Mary U. Special Assistant $59,274
Evans, Madalene E.W. Records Management Analyst $59,274
Williams, Sherman A. Assistant to the Executive Clerk $59,274
Marshall, Misty C. Director of Correspondence for the First Lady $58,200
Houston, LaRhonda M. Deputy Director $58,000
Decamp, Mary S. Deputy Social Secretary $57,900
Kratovil, Lindley Special Assistant to the Assisant to the President for Legislative Affairs $57,900
Evans, Wanda M. Assistant to the Executive Clerk $57,628
Dryden, Logan E. Executive Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff $56,900
Houser, Elizabeth S Director of Student Correspondence $56,900
Hughes, Taylor A. Executive Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor $56,900
Kropp, Emily L. Executive Assistant $56,900
Kyle, Ross M. Associate Director $56,900
Levey, Collin Speechwriter $56,900
Miller, Martha Cagle Associate Director $56,900
Deguzman Jr., Danilo Presidential Support Specialist $55,982
Trainor, Gregory T. Manager of Mail and Messenger Operations $55,982
Bohn III, Carl H. Director of Radio $55,200
Arguello, Olga Associate Director $55,000
Bowman, Thomas A. Assistant Staff Secretary $55,000
Christie, Jennifer K. Associate Director $55,000
Parker, Doris Assistant Supervisor of Classification $54,336
O'Keefe, James A. Senior Advance Representative $53,900
Sunbarger, Rachael L. Senior Press Advance Representative $53,900
Graham, Lottie B. Assistant Shift Leader $53,830
Gamber, Gavin P. Senior Advance Representative $53,800
Price, Melissa R. Assistant Staff Secretary $53,800
Ellis, Linda M. Assistant Shift Leader $52,335
Jones, Deborah A. Records Management Analyst $52,335
Stubbs, Everette C. Director of Presidential Messages $52,000
Alexander, Colleen Director Presidential Support $51,700
Frans, Luke R. Director of Schedule C Appointments $51,700
Jones, Blair C. Spokesman $51,700
Krivijanski, Joseph R. Director of Presidential Writers $51,700
McClenning, Alyssa J. Associate Director $51,700
Parell, Christie B. Director of Coalitions Media $51,700
Reaves, Karen A. Senior Press Advance Representative $51,700
Recher, Jason J. Senior Advance Representative $51,700
Roebke, Heather M. Executive Assistant to the Counsel to the President $51,700
Sherzer, David Lloyd Special Projects Coordinator $51,700
Wessel, Carol S. Director of Presidential Proclamations $51,700
Pilato, Anna Director of Administration $50,800
Allman, Cora Associate Director $50,000
Cherry, Jane W. Associate Director $50,000
Conant, Roger Alexander Spokesman $50,000
Dorff, John E. Associate Director $50,000
Drogin, Leslie J. Assistant Staff Secretary $50,000
Drouin, Lindsey E. Executive Assistant $50,000
Edwards, Dana A. Associate Director $50,000
Ellis, Michael J. Associate Director $50,000
Graves, Caleb R. Associate director $50,000
Mosser, Kimberly A. Associate Director $50,000
Speight Watson, Kerri Lynn Director of Agency Liaison $50,000
Taplett, Claire Ross Director of the Gift Office $50,000
Barton, Michael Associate Director $49,800
Clarke, Kay F. Assistant Shift Leader $49,343
King, Taeshonnda Cherayl Records Management Analyst $49,343
Mattson, Philip C. Printer and Photograph Coordinator $49,343
Young Jr., Reginald D. Records management analyst $49,343
De La Torre, Lindsey M. Associate Director $48,600
Kraft, Nathaniel B. Special Assistant $48,600
Race, Karen E. Deputy Director and Intern Coordinator $48,600
Chiarappa, Amanda C Deputy Associate Director for Press Advance $48,500
Cassano, Lois A. Media Assistant $48,100
Anderson, Theresa Assistant Shift Leader $47,847
Grier, Judy E. Records Management Analyst $47,847
Lezotte, Darin R. Records Management Analyst $47,847
Millison, Chad L. Records Management Analyst $47,847
Samuels Jr., Wendell A. Records Management Analyst $47,847
Young, Latoya A. Records Management Analyst $47,847
Carson, Melissa M. Director of Fact Checking $46,500
Gatlin, Joshua C. Senior Press Advance Representative $46,500
Lauckhardt, Shelby L. Associate Director $46,500
Ludvigson, Dominique F. Associate Director $46,500
Sullivan, Jennifer M. Associate Director for Outreach $46,500
Tiffany, Mary F. Senior Press Advance Representative $46,500
Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady $46,300
Atilli, Candice Special Services Operator $46,026
Deckard, Joshua S. Assistant Press Secretary $45,500
Amorsingh, Lucius Deputy Director Student Correspondence $45,225
Danforth, Melissa C. Associate Director $45,000
Eppes, Brian S. Deputy Director of Presidential Messages $45,000
Johnson, Matthew S. Deputy Director of Presidential Writers $45,000
Loovis, Katie R. Associate Director of Public Liaison $45,000
Macdonald, Anne D. Associate Director $45,000
Nutter, Aaron D. Senior Press Advance Representative $45,000
Saliterman, Robert W. Director of Rapid Response $45,000
Sinatra, Nicholas A. Associate Director $45,000
King, Kristin Noel Deputy Associate Director for Scheduling $44,856
Claude, Lilia H. Special Services Operator $44,672
Suitt, Deborah D. Special Services Operator $44,672
Williams, Beverly D. Special Services Operator $44,672
Courtwright, Susan M. Paralegal $44,500
Lartey, Solomon D. Records Management Analyst $44,003
Dunne, Dianna L. Staff Assistant $43,400
Staley, Kenneth William Director, Food Agriculture and Water Security Policy $43,365
Ryun, Catherine A. Executive Assistant to the Director $43,000
Penny, Sarah A. West Wing Receptionist $42,400
Blockhorn, Lee F. Speechwriter $42,300
Su, Sahra Y. Deputy Associate Director $42,300
Higgins, Stefanie E. Confidential assistant $42,000
Sass , Joan C. Special Services Operator $41,965
Saunders, Cherita J. Records Management Analyst $41,965
Barks, Campbell Deputy Director of Correspondence for First Lady $41,400
Brakebill, Elizabeth B. Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the First Lady $41,400
Burdick, Amanda K. Executive Assistant $41,400
Carmichael, Ann E. Director of Legislative Correspondence $41,400
Degisi, Nina P. Associate Director $41,400
Drummond, Michael A. Staff Assistant $41,400
Gibbs, Landon M. Staff Assistant $41,400
Giblet, Timothy H. Deputy Director of Comment Line and Greetings $41,400
Hawkins, Jennifer N. Deputy Associate Director $41,400
Merritt, Meredith A. Deputy Associate Director $41,400
Nichols, Bethany A. Deputy Associate Director $41,400
Persinger, John M. Executive Assistant to the Deputy Counsel to the President $41,400
Teague, Matthew L. Executive Assistant $41,400
Vander Veur, Justin W. Deputy Director of Mail Analysis $41,400
Veerman, Jennifer L. Deputy Director of Proclamations $41,400
Wells, Sharon I. Deputy Associate Director $41,400
Whitman, Zachary R. Advanced Representative $41,000
McLaughlin, Mindy A. Associate Director of Scheduling $40,300
Taylor , Michael J. Aide to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security $40,200
Boyce, Lucas D. Deputy Associate Director $40,000
Curran, Kevin H. Deputy Associate Director $40,000
Freeman, Skyla M. Senior Writer $40,000
Johanson, Aaron L. Deputy Associate Director $40,000
McCarlie, Michael D. Deputy Associate Director $40,000
Hildebrand, Katherine S. Travel Manager $39,800
Pitts, Greg T. Travel Manager $39,800
Suskin, Jesse M. Travel Manager $39,800
Ward III, Richard J. Travel Manager $39,800
Wysocki, Candace M. Executive assistant $39,800
Austin, Elizabeth Deputy Associate Director $39,300
Gray, Jennifer Deputy Director of Agency Liaison $39,300
Hernandez, Angela R. Deputy Associate Director $39,300
Doty, Joan R. Senior Writer $38,200
Donoghue, Tarah C. Deputy Press Secretary $38,000
Leal, Veronica D. Deputy Associate Director $38,000
White, Jennifer Renee Staff Assistant $37,893
Carl, Jeremy A Deputy Associate Director for Invitations & Correspondence $37,200
Race, Katherine S. Special Services Operator $37,200
Aulds, Amanda Writer $37,000
Crocker, Erica A. Deputy Director $37,000
Jenkins, Laura M. Executive Assistant $37,000
Rue III, William H. Deputy Associate Director $37,000
Taylor, Meghan J. Senior Trip Coordinator $37,000
Baskerville, Chester Operator $36,671
Patlan, Phillip A. Staff Assistant $36,671
Vandall, Tobias A. Operator $36,671
Atlas, Nathan Staff Assistant $36,200
Breaux, Tiffany A. Deputy Associate Director $36,200
Carski, Kevin T. Deputy Associate Director $36,200
Hoare, Thomas H. Staff Assistant $36,200
Klunk, Kate A. Executive Assistant $36,200
Langdon, James Calhoun Executive Assistant $36,200
Noyes, Joel P. Deputy Associate Director $36,200
Scheneman, Elisabeth C. Staff Assistant $36,200
Stewart, Anne B. Special Assistant $36,200
Stone, Jonathan D. Deputy Associate Director $36,200
Wood, Ainsley R. Associate Director $36,200
Devuono, Amanda B. Deputy Assistant Staff Secretary $36,000
McArthur, Nikki L. Deputy Associate Director $36,000
Wilsbach, Cynthia C. Special Assistant to the Director $36,000
Fahy, Brian D. Research Assistant $35,200
Greer, Sarah M. Writer $35,200
Belter, Rachel M. Deputy Associate Director $35,000
Bruntin, Jennifer Lynch Deputy Associate Director $35,000
Graham, Ryan M. Press assistant $35,000
Green, Anneke E. Research assistant $35,000
Humphries, Amelia A. Senior Editor $35,000
Lee, Michelle J. Executive Assistant $35,000
McCoy, Joshua L. Deputy Associate Director $35,000
McIntosh, Sara B. Writer $35,000
Merkley, Brendon A. Research Assistant $35,000
Meyers, David R. Executive Assistant $35,000
Ransbottom, Sarah E. Executive Assistant $35,000
Segura, Millicent Staff Assistant $35,000
White, Davis C. Deputy Associate Director $35,000
Wilmoth IV, Benton M. Deputy Associate Director $35,000
Yee, Emily Research assistant $35,000
Barrett, Allison Scheduler $33,100
Kane, Mary Lauren Executive Assistant $33,100
Maxwell, Kyle D. Deputy Associate Director $33,100
Candrian, Brittany S. Staff Assistant $33,000
Lindsay, Christopher A. Staff Assistant $32,800
Rhodes, Elizabeth F. Staff Assistant $32,800
Anderson, Ashley Scheduler $32,000
Coletti, Kendell E. Executive Assistant $32,000
Lew, Veronica J. Staff Assistant $32,000
Maescher, Rebecca B. Scheduler $32,000
Swinehart, Riley Staff Assistant $31,800
Aires, Daniel Research Assistant $31,000
Barker, Janae Staff Assistant $31,000
Beebe, Vanessa J. Executive Assistant $31,000
Byrne, Christopher J. Staff Assistant $31,000
Cabral, Catalina Agency Coordinator $31,000
Carleton, Nathan L. Press Assistant $31,000
Carroll, Carlton F. Press Assistant $31,000
Chesley, David A. Correspondence Analyst $31,000
Cook, William C. Staff Assistant $31,000
Culvahouse, Sarah A. Press Assistant $31,000
Daniel, Megan E. Staff Assistant $31,000
Dennard, Paris P. Staff Assistant $31,000
Fabina, Lauren C. Staff Assistant $31,000
Fields, Ferrell L. Staff Assistant $31,000
Ford, Frederick Writer $31,000
Grosso, Kathryn M. Staff assistant $31,000
Huddleston, Caroline B. Invitation Assistant $31,000
Keep, Katherine E. Editor $31,000
Lynch, Michele M. Trip Coordinator $31,000
Mims, Matthew D. Staff Assistant $31,000
Moore, April K. Correspondence Analyst $31,000
Morgan, Margaret Taylor Correspondence Analyst $31,000
Navarro, Joanna C. Staff Assistant $31,000
Parell, Cara M. Writer $31,000
Perkins, Paul R. Staff Assistant $31,000
Perry , Tiffany S. Staff Assistant $31,000
Roberts, John S. Press Assistant $31,000
Schwartz, Daniel W. Staff Assistant $31,000
Seat, Peter A. Research Assistant $31,000
Tanner, Christon R. Staff Assistant $31,000
Vaughan, Frederick W. Writer $31,000
Walker, James H. Staff Assistant $31,000
Watts, Casey L. Staff Assistant $31,000
White, Sean C. Staff Assistant $31,000
Williams, Elizabeth W. Staff Assistant $31,000
Williamson, Angela N. Correspondence Analyst $31,000
Wolf, Heather S. Correspondence Analyst $31,000
Zeidman, Jay S. Staff Assistant $31,000
Adkins, Matthew Correspondence Analyst $30,000
Arogeti, Scott Correspondence Analyst $30,000
Brady, Ryan D. Writer $30,000
Britton, Christy L. Editor $30,000
Cavanaugh, Jeffrey C. Staff assistant $30,000
Coghlan, John V. Staff Assistant $30,000
Conrad, Samuel K. Staff Assistant $30,000
Dredge, Samantha M. Agency Coordinator $30,000
Ehni, Meaghan G. Trip Coordinator $30,000
Gamble, Kelly L. Staff Assistant $30,000
Holden, Chelsea M. Staff Assistant $30,000
Lien, Leslie E. Volunteer Coordinator $30,000
Lloyd, James R. Correspondence Analyst $30,000
Maniscalco, John R. Staff Assistant $30,000
McCoy, Maggie E. Gift Analyst $30,000
Meyers, Whitney J. Correspondence Analyst $30,000
Naughton, Peter N. Gift Analyst $30,000
Prehmus, Courtney L. Writer $30,000
Rodgers Jr., James P. Correspondence Analyst $30,000
Terrell, Jonathan M. Correspondence analyst $30,000
Vollrath, Matthew D. Writer $30,000
Webster, Jocelyn S. Staff Assistant $30,000
Olson, Theodore Bevry Board Member $548
per diem
Raul, Alan C. Vice Chairman $582
per diem
Dinkins, Carol E. Chairman $582
per diem
Davis, Lanny J. Board Member $548
per diem
Taylor, Francis X. Board Member $548
per diem