Thursday, June 02, 2005

Serious UK nuclear leak 'went unnoticed for nine months'

news.scotsman.com
The Scotsman

Serious UK nuclear leak 'went unnoticed for nine months'

MICHAEL BLACKLEY

TENS of thousands of litres of highly radioactive liquid has been leaking unnoticed at the UK's nuclear reprocessing plant for nine months, it was revealed yesterday.

The leak is being described as the worst nuclear accident in Britain for 13 years and could threaten the future of the Thorp plant, at Sellafield in Cumbria, where the leak was discovered on 19 April.

The International Atomic Energy Authority has admitted that it would classify the accident as "serious".

It was only discovered that liquid was leaking last month, but by that time 83,000 litres of radioactive fuel, enough to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool, had already been accidentally discharged.


British Nuclear Group, which runs the plant, said workers had failed to respond to indicators that would have warned since last August that there was a leak. The company has ordered an urgent review to check that there are not any other potential leaks, and is also warning against staff complacency.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, the government quango responsible for the reprocessing plant, said that it will need time to assess the findings before discussing the implications with the government and the company.

But if the decision is taken to close the plant, it is predicted that it would cost taxpayers billions of pounds.

The accident will be a major setback for the government, which was preparing to seek public support for a new generation of power stations to help meet climate-change targets.

The company says the leak was contained and thus was not a threat to public safety, but it could yet face criminal prosecution.

A spokesman for the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate told a Sunday newspaper: "I can confirm we will be seeking to find out what monitors were in place, whether they were working and, if so, why they were not acted on."

Four inspectors have been on site at Sellafield in Cumbria since the accident occurred, tasked with discovering why engineers failed to modify pipes leading to moveable tanks.

The investigation is likely to last many weeks before it is decided whether to take action against the British Nuclear Group.

It is clear that the leak will become a major political issue. David Willetts, the shadow trade secretary, said he would call on ministers to answer urgent questions on the matter when the House of Commons meets next week.

He said the incident would have a major detrimental effect on public confidence in the nuclear industry, and the case would need to be rationally considered.

originally published 30 May 2005

Read More...

Loose Nukes

huffingtonpost.com
Erica Jong: Loose Nukes

As usual, Bill Maher is right. How can anyone keep a straight face in America today? Memorial Day comes and goes and we are hearing all about “brave fallen” while nobody seems to give a shit about the Downing Street memo that got us into the bloody Iraq mess in the first place. Then, Memorial Day is over and we are deep into 30 year old news. “Deep Throat was Mark Felt.” Nora Ephron is hilarious but it remains ancient news even if Woodward and Bernstein did protect their sources. They’ve gotten endless market share and moulah from that fact and good for them. I love it when writers make money, but the real news of the last two weeks has been mostly ignored. The nuclear nonproliferation treaty is dead for another five years. Do we have another five years? And not only are there those loose nukes all over the place (even Bush and Kerry agreed on this in the 2004 Presidential campaign) but there are also several suicidal terrorists ready to lob them at cities like New York, LA, Chicago, Miami, London, Madrid, Rome, Berlin, etc. Hello? I know that Condi Rice couldn’t bother to go to these talks but Duarte said himself they set the cause of nuclear nonproliferation back years and we would have been better off had the talks never occurred. And now we are off and running about a Vanity Fair story that recounts yet again the atrocities of the Nixon administration.

I know, I know. Anonymous sources matter. And God knows it’s no fun to think about nuclear incineration. It’s really depressing. I look at my 16-month old grandson, Max, and I try to wrap my mind around a nuclear accident in New York and my mind just doesn’t want to go there. But let’s get real. Tim Russert did a “Meet The Press” program last Sunday in which a bunch of gray-haired, sober-sided guys -- Senator Sam Nunn, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Fred Thompson, Lee Hamilton, and Tom Kean of the 9/11 commission -- basically all agreed that we are in danger. The materials are there. The terrorists are there. Nine countries have nukers and counting. Bush wants bunker-busting nuke-cular bombs bigger than the ones we’ve already got -- and the world goes on about a 91 year-old guy confessing about a 30 year old event. I am baffled. Of course, I know you can’t predict the future. Nuclear Armageddon could come from an American, a Russian, a North Korean, an Israeli, an Iranian mistake, a deliberate strike, or (even) a suicidal terrorist with a loose nuke. Kim Jong IL (not a relative) won’t rule out preemptive strike and neither will Bush and Cheney. What we do know is the more materials out there the more the percentages against our survival go up. Think about New York in case of some kind of Chernobyl happening here. Multiply 9/11 times a million. People die, get radiation poisoning, children die or get cancer, the stock market tanks, the world stops dead, nobody worries about "Deep Throat" or Martha Stewart or whether the vote count in Ohio was fudged. Paris Hilton’s engagement is of interest to no one. GMA and the Today Show are still neck-in-neck, but nobody is watching.



Why is nobody focusing on this? What will it take to get us to focus? As we used to say in the 60’s, what do you do in the case of a terrorist with a loose nuke? “Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.”

It’s hard to think about the future and we almost always get the details wrong. It’s true that most great empires were surrounded by prognostications of decline and fall, and chose to do nothing about them. Rome didn’t fall in a day. Nor did Greece and Sumer. But Rome, Greece and Sumer didn’t have nuclear weapons and people ready to employ them. Even in the 50’s, that ancient age when I was in grade school, we were told to prepare for the nuclear holocaust by putting our oilcloth under our desk on the floor, kneeling below our desks like Muslims in prayer, covering our eyes, waiting for the boom and then…what?

Tim Russert’s “Meet The Press” the other day had a 1950’s general in charge of civil defense say with a straight face, that if the A-bomb fell in America we should all a) go down into our bomb shelters b) eat canned food and drink bottled water for a while and c) be sure to shower frequently to get rid of the radiation. He didn’t say when we should come out of those bomb shelters. The great French sage, La Rochefoucauld said, “Neither the sun nor death can be looked at steadily.”

The sun is blinding and it’s perfectly human to turn away from death. But even if Condi Rice doesn’t want to think about these things and President Bush’s attitude is “we’ll all be dead anyway,” don’t you think somebody should be paying attention? I sure hope we’re not counting on John Bolton to protect us.

Read More...

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Bill Clinton Takes Spot On Global Stage

washingtonpost.com
Bill Clinton Takes Spot On Global Stage

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer

In 2001, in the opening months of his ex-presidency, Bill Clinton confided to an aide that he had decided on his dream job for the next chapter of his life: secretary general of the United Nations.

The goal may not be realistic, he acknowledged, but he then went on to analyze all the factors in minute detail, as though he were preparing for a political campaign: whether a U.S. president would ever see fit to back him, for one, and what it would take to persuade other nations to bend the long-standing tradition that the top job does not go to someone from a country with permanent status on the U.N. Security Council.

His ambition, as the aide described it, was both breathtaking and entirely logical for a natural-born politician who had reached the top of the American political ladder: "president of the world."

Four years later, say several associates who have spoken with him in recent months, Clinton regards his dream of leading the United Nations as something more than a flight of fancy and something less than a serious prospect. Already, however, he has succeeded to a surprising degree in fashioning his ex-presidency to make himself a dominant player on the world stage.


His ambitions are no less obvious than when he was on the rise as a domestic politician. Clinton wants to present an alternative face of America to the rest of the world -- in implicit opposition to President Bush, and to create a legacy that builds on his eight years in office.

His recent appointment as the U.N. representative on tsunami relief is the highest-profile example of Clinton's travels and activities abroad. The extent to which the 42nd president has preserved influence even after leaving the White House will be far more obvious in September. That is when a large delegation of world leaders, U.S. politicians, business leaders and celebrities of various stripes will arrive in New York for the first Clinton Global Initiative.

The event, as Clinton recently described it, is modeled after the famous annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. But Clinton has said he wants his three-day event to be more focused on concrete results. "I'm telling people not to come unless they are prepared to make a commitment to do something when they leave" on the conference's themes of fighting poverty, religious conflict and environmental degradation.

Among those planning to attend are British Prime Minister Tony Blair, King Abdullah of Jordan, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). Even Rupert Murdoch, whose New York Post and Fox News network are favorite platforms for many of the harshest Clinton critics, plans to be there.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, also organized his post-presidency around international endeavors. But, as the upcoming meeting illustrates, Clinton's post-presidency is in many ways without precedent.

Carter, whom Clinton has described as the most impressive modern ex-president, eventually won a Nobel Peace Prize, but first he spent several lonely years recovering from his 1980 reelection defeat by toiling in relative obscurity. Much of his work has been in remote Third World villages, with no cameras. Clinton, by contrast, relishes the headlines that invariably follow from his overseas jet-setting. So far this year, he has visited 22 nations and met with more than 30 current or former heads of state.

Aides say Clinton's aim is to use his celebrity and networking talents with heads of state and various other famous and wealthy people on behalf of causes such as clean energy and AIDS relief. His Clinton Foundation, for instance, has negotiated steep discounts with pharmaceutical companies on antiretroviral drugs and is facilitating their delivery to about 110,000 people with AIDS in the developing world, with a goal of reaching 2 million by 2008.
Foreign Policy Confidence

Viewed from a long perspective, Clinton's post-presidential career contains an interesting historical twist. In the early years of his administration, the wide perception was that he was predominantly a domestic president.

The conventional wisdom was never quite accurate. Even in the opening months of his first term in 1993, Clinton routinely huddled late into the evening with his advisers on Russia, which he regarded then as the central foreign policy challenge.

It was true that the world abroad was a vexation to a young president who aides said regarded foreign policy as a kind of priesthood, and who had not learned to trust his instincts. The years 1993 and 1994 produced a parade of painful episodes abroad. There was the debacle of a peace mission gone awry in Somalia, two years of hand-wringing over ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, an averted gaze from a genocide that killed 800,000 in Rwanda. Clinton has called failing to act in Rwanda his greatest regret as president.

But, starting with the Dayton accords that ended the Bosnian war in 1995, Clinton began gaining confidence in foreign policy. His signal insight, as veterans of his administration describe it, was the realization that foreign policy was not in the end so different from the subject he knew best, domestic politics. As Clinton saw it, both involved public salesmanship and required leaders who could frame issues to make difficult decisions -- such as persuading people to accept a peace accord with historic enemies -- politically possible.

Beneath the surface, there is a deep vein of politics in Clinton's international activities as ex-president. While he has mostly supported Bush on the Iraq war -- and says that all Democrats should be supporting full victory even if they first opposed the war -- almost every speech he has given in recent months has contained the same refrain, delivered in nearly identical language.

"We can't relate to the rest of the world only through a negative prism, and only through telling them to do things," he told the Chamber of Commerce in Lancaster, Pa. "Why? Because if you live in a world where you can't kill, jail or occupy all your enemies, security will never be enough. You've got to make a world where you've got more friends and fewer enemies, where you make partners."

The veiled criticism of Bush is unmistakable. Clinton, associates say, thinks Bush has weakened U.S. standing in the world by being too dismissive of allies and projecting an image of American arrogance abroad. Bush says he welcomes allies but will not let dissenters abroad stop him from doing what he thinks is necessary to protect security.

For all the new rapport in the Bush-Clinton relationship -- Bush throwing regular rhetorical bouquets to his predecessor and assigning him to visit tsunami-stricken areas -- the two presidents represent twin poles in a pointed ideological debate. Since Sept. 11, 2001, has been at the center of national politics, this argument about the relative balance of force vs. persuasion in U.S. foreign policy has been at the middle of domestic politics.

The debate is reflected in the records of both Clinton and Bush. Many of Clinton's foreign policy achievements were rooted in the America-as-friend philosophy he espouses now. He expanded the NATO alliance and sought to use his rapport with the erratic Boris Yeltsin to establish a cooperative relationship with Russia -- efforts that paid dividends when Moscow helped the United States resolve ethnic conflicts in the Balkans by sending peacekeepers to Bosnia in 1995 and intervening to force a capitulation by Serbia in the 1999 Kosovo war.

One of the guiding principles of Bush's foreign policy was that his predecessor was possessed of a naive worldview. As Bush and his lieutenants see it, Clinton's attempts to coax the late Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat to a peace deal with Israel were folly, while he did not do enough to confront rising threats from Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network.

Clinton also was criticized for passivity in running his government -- including on issues of terrorism. He was not on speaking terms with then-FBI director Louis J. Freeh, whom he appointed. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks found that Clinton and his top aides thought they had ordered that Osama bin Laden could be killed if there was an opportunity to do so in a covert mission, but that the White House expressed its preference with so many cautionary notes that the CIA believed it did not have permission.

Richard A. Clarke, a former anti-terrorism official who served under Clinton and in both Bush administrations, recalled that "Clinton would make requests, and just assume that these were being done, or that the people around him knew best." He said Clinton should have fired Freeh rather than tolerate a dysfunctional relationship with an essential national security official.
Finding a Second Chance

While the debate continues about Clinton's record as president, his activities as ex-president suggest a man who sees redemptive possibilities on the world stage. Even while president, amid the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, he described Middle East talks as part of "my personal journey of atonement." One of the people helping Clinton raise money for tsunami relief is former White House chief of staff Erskine B. Bowles. He told associates that he was so appalled by Clinton's behavior during the scandal that their nearly fraternal relationship for a time became coolly correct, confined to business.

The role of Ira Magaziner also reflects the theme of second chances. He was famous as the policy architect of the 1993-1994 health care initiative, one of Clinton's most extravagant failures. These days, Magaziner is working nearly full time on the Clinton Foundation's policy programs. He said Clinton has a stature that allows him to draw attention to AIDS treatment and issues that most people never could.

"Some of the problems that have bedeviled him at home and made him controversial don't really exist abroad," Magaziner said. "My sense is he wants to make his ex-presidency one where he has really major accomplishments in the world."

In the United States, the debate over Bush's approach to the world and Clinton's -- between force and persuasion -- remains unsettled. But it seems apparent which approach is more winning abroad. While Bush has generated deep suspicion, especially in Western Europe, Clinton is highly popular, European commentators said.

Europeans who chafe at Bush respond to Clinton's "inclusive, soft-toned way of communicating with the world, and especially with Europeans," said Arnout Brouwers, a prominent Dutch editor who has studied American politics in Washington with the German Marshall Fund. "His personal history, his charms, even his personal failings, helped people identify with him as 'one of us.' "

Former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, a friend of Clinton's, agreed. "The reason Bill Clinton is popular in Europe is very simple: He just is. He is a man of great charisma," Kohl said in a brief interview after a meeting with Bush in Washington.

Asked about Clinton's dream of heading the United Nations, Kohl said: "I do not know if Bill wishes to go to the United Nations. If he wants, I would support him."

Read More...

Conflicted And Mum For Decades

washingtonpost.com
Conflicted And Mum For Decades

By Dan Balz and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers

W. Mark Felt always denied he was Deep Throat. "It was not I and it is not I," he told Washingtonian magazine in 1974, around the time that Richard M. Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace after a lengthy investigation and threat of impeachment, aided in no small part by the guidance Felt had provided to The Washington Post.

It was a denial he maintained publicly for three decades, until yesterday. Throughout that period, he lived with one of the greatest secrets in journalism history and with his own sense of conflict and tension over the role he had played in bringing down a president in the Watergate scandal: Was he a hero for helping the truth come out, or a turncoat who betrayed his government, his president and the FBI he revered by leaking to the press?

There were plenty of reasons that he felt such conflict. He was an FBI loyalist in the image J. Edgar Hoover had created for the bureau in its glory days -- a career official who lived by the bureau's codes, one of which was the sanctity of an investigation and the protection of secrets. He chased down lawbreakers of all kinds, using whatever means were available to the bureau, and was convicted in 1980 of authorizing illegal break-ins -- black-bag jobs, as they were known -- of friends of members of the Weather Underground. He was later pardoned by President Ronald Reagan.

But if there were reasons to resist playing the role of anonymous source, there were other motives that drove him to talk. Felt believed that the White House was trying to frustrate the FBI's Watergate investigation and that Nixon was determined to bring the FBI to heel after Hoover's death in May 1972, six weeks before the break-in at the Democratic National Committee's Watergate offices occurred.


"From the very beginning, it was obvious to the bureau that a cover-up was in progress," Felt wrote in his 1979 memoir, "The FBI Pyramid."

Felt may have had a personal motivation as well to begin talking to Post reporter Bob Woodward. At the time of Hoover's death, he was a likely successor to take over as FBI director. Instead the White House named a bureau outsider, L. Patrick Gray III, then an assistant attorney general, as acting director and then leaned on Gray to become a conduit to keep the White House informed of what the FBI was learning.

Felt's identity was revealed with the help of his family in a Vanity Fair article released yesterday. A statement from the family, read by Nick Jones, Felt's grandson, described how conflicted he was over whether his role was noble or dishonorable.

"Mark had expressed reservations in the past about revealing his identity and about whether his actions were appropriate for an FBI man," Jones said. "But as he recently told my mother, 'I guess people used to think Deep Throat was a criminal. But now they think he's a hero.' "

Felt operated during extraordinary times in U.S. history, and in the history of the bureau he had been trained to protect at all costs. Faced with a rogue White House, an explosive investigation and political pressure that must have been excruciating, he decided to spill secrets, anonymously helping to change the course of history through clandestine meetings with Woodward in the middle of the night in underground parking garages.

Nixon and his White House colleagues during this period were engaged in what the House Judiciary Committee would eventually call a series of criminal acts -- obstruction of justice, withholding of material evidence, coercion of witnesses, and misuse of the CIA and the Internal Revenue Service.

A secret investigative unit was run from the White House, supported by the CIA and financed by campaign funds to spy on enemies and to break into a psychiatrist's office in a search for confidential files. Twenty-one participants in what came to be known as the Watergate scandal, including the president's counsel, chief domestic adviser, attorney general and campaign finance director, pleaded guilty or were convicted of the crimes documented by the FBI and brought to light -- with Felt's help.

Throughout his career, Felt was seen as a model FBI official. Harry Brandon, who retired from the FBI as deputy assistant for counterintelligence and counterterrorism, recalled making a presentation to Felt as a young agent in the bureau. "He was a tough guy," Brandon said yesterday. "Straight. Very honest. Very straight."

Felt was born in Idaho in 1913. He graduated from the University of Idaho and George Washington University Law School, and joined the FBI in January 1942. He spent World War II in the bureau's espionage section -- experience that came into play 30 years later as he set up the series of signals and codes he and Woodward used when they needed to meet with one another.

He steadily rose through the bureau's ranks. By the early 1970s, as one of the bureau's top officials, he was beginning to demonstrate political independence. At a White House meeting in 1971, he resisted a directive to begin massive wiretaps or polygraph tests to find the source of leaks about the Nixon administration's national security strategy.

In March 1972, the administration was deeply embarrassed by the disclosure of a memo written by a lobbyist at telecommunications giant ITT. It stated that a $400,000 contribution to Nixon's reelection would cause the Justice Department to abandon an antitrust suit against ITT.

White House special counsel Charles W. Colson asked Nixon's personal counsel, John W. Dean III, to obtain an official FBI judgment that the memo was a forgery. Hoover assigned the task of overseeing its inspection to Felt. But Felt reported several days later that the agency's laboratory could not "make a definite finding," a conclusion that undermined the forgery claim, according to Dean's 1976 book, "Blind Ambition."

"Colson, outraged, called Felt to complain. . . . He insisted that I persuade Felt to change the [FBI's summary] letter, at least to make it innocuous. Felt would not budge, because the director would not budge," Dean wrote. Felt, in his memoir, confirmed that the bureau had been subjected to "partisan instructions and pressure" in the case.

Yesterday, Colson said he was stunned to learn that Felt was Deep Throat, saying he never suspected the FBI official because "he was a professional and that wasn't a professional way to behave."

Shortly after that incident, Hoover died and Felt was passed over to succeed him in favor of Nixon loyalist Gray. As the Watergate investigation began to unfold, Felt was infuriated by what he saw as Gray's capitulation to the White House. Gray was "sharing all the Bureau's knowledge with the White House staff," he wrote in his memoir, which "felt they had neutralized the FBI."

"For me, as well as for all the Agents who were involved, it had become a question of our integrity," Felt wrote. "We were under attack for dragging our feet, and as professional law enforcement officers, we were determined to go on."

Within a week, in fact, the FBI's investigation had begun to develop productive leads; its investigators figured out that funds to pay the burglars were laundered through a bank account in Mexico City linked to Nixon's reelection effort. As a result, Nixon's chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, met with the president on June 23 to urge that Vernon A. Walters, then the CIA's deputy director, tell Gray to "stay the hell out of it" on grounds that it would compromise CIA activities in Mexico, according to a transcript of their conversation.

Gray wanted to do so, Haldeman added, and he just needed an order: "He'll call Mark Felt in, and the two of them -- and Mark Felt wants to cooperate because he's ambitious." Nixon replied, "Yeah." Haldeman went on: "He'll call him in and say, 'We've got the signal from across the [Potomac] river to put the hold on this.' "

Later in the conversation, Haldeman sought reassurance that this was the right course of action: "You seem to think the thing to do is get them to stop?" Nixon replied, "Right, fine." Walters met with Gray that day, and according to a memo Walters wrote, Gray told him "this was a most awkward matter to come up during an election year and he would see what he could do."

None of this was known publicly at the time. But two junior reporters at The Post -- Woodward and Carl Bernstein -- repeatedly wrote articles that pointed toward White House involvement in the break-in and the subsequent coverup.

In doing so, they relied heavily on a man they described in their 1974 memoir, "All the President's Men," as "a source in the Executive Branch who had access to information at [the Nixon reelection effort] . . . as well as at the White House. He could be contacted only on very important occasions" and asked to confirm information learned elsewhere and provide "perspective." In print, the duo attributed their information only to "sources close to the Watergate investigation."

The leaks infuriated the White House, which pressured Gray into interrogating all the field agents -- an act that Felt said had sowed wide resentment. "Numerous times, when Gray was out of the city, John Dean called me, demanding that . . . steps be taken to silence the leakers," Felt wrote. "I refused to take such action and frequently I was able to point out to him that some of the leaks could not possibly have come from the bureau."

White House officials suspected Felt was leaking to The Post as early as October 1972. According to an account written five years ago by Chase Culeman-Beckman, who contended that Bernstein's son had told him Felt was Deep Throat, Nixon, Haldeman and Dean were speculating about Felt during one of the sessions tape-recorded in the White House.

"Is he Catholic?" Nixon asked. Told by Haldeman that Felt was Jewish, Nixon replied, "[Expletive], [the bureau] put a Jew in there?" To which Haldeman responded, "Well, that could explain it."

Contrary to their belief, Felt is not Jewish.

On Feb. 28, 1973, Nixon and Dean again tagged Felt as the potential leaker. He was, Dean told Nixon, "the only person that knows" such details. But Nixon was skeptical. No one would risk his career to become an informant.

According to a tape recording from that day, Nixon said, "You know, suppose that Felt comes out and unwraps the whole thing? What does that do to him? . . . He's in a very dangerous situation. . . . The informer is not wanted in our society. Either way, that's the one thing people do sort of line up against. They . . . say, 'Well, that [expletive] informed. I don't want him around.' "

Gray was never confirmed as FBI director, and in 1973 William D. Ruckelshaus was nominated to replace him. Felt clashed repeatedly with his new boss and left the bureau later that year, well before Nixon was to leave office.

In 1978 he was indicted, along with Edward G. Miller, for nine illegal break-ins in New York and New Jersey carried out in 1972 and 1973. When he was arraigned, several hundred FBI agents showed up at the courthouse in a sign of solidarity. The two maintained they had operated within the law but were convicted in 1980. In April 1981, Reagan pardoned both men, saying they had served the country with "great distinction."

In his memoir, Felt acknowledged speaking once to Woodward, but in that book and whenever else he was asked, he denied being Deep Throat. In 1999, Felt denied it again to the Hartford Courant after there was another suggestion that he was Deep Throat.

"I would have done better," he told the paper. "I would have been more effective." That summer, Felt told Slate's Tim Noah it would have been contrary to his responsibilities at the FBI to leak information.

On the day of his conviction in 1980, Felt spoke to reporters outside the courthouse to express his disappointment with the verdict. "I spent my entire adult life working for the government, and I always tried to do what I thought was right and what was in the best interest of this country and what would protect the safety of this country," he said.

Looking back after yesterday's revelation, that quotation may express one of the motivations that led this otherwise unlikely public servant to engage in the surreptitious actions that led to Nixon's political demise.

Researchers Meg Smith, Madonna Lebling and Magda Jean-Louis contributed to this report.

Read More...

Patriot Act Redux, and in the Dark

The New York Times
Patriot Act Redux, and in the Dark

The Patriot Act was passed in haste, in the angst-filled days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with some lawmakers candidly admitting they never read the details. That was one of the reasons key sections included expiration dates, so calmer heads of the future would have an opportunity to fix mistakes. Now that opportunity is here, and far from removing obvious threats to civil liberties in the law, the White House and eager Senate Republicans seem bent on making it worse.

Citizens who want to keep an eye on the process will have no easy task. The most crucial debates of the Senate Intelligence Committee are being kept closed to the public.


This is a terrible idea that gives credence to the worst fears of opponents of Patriot Act I. When the committee resumes its work next week, its leaders should rethink their policy and open their deliberations to the light of day. Accommodations can be made for legitimate security concerns without keeping such a bedrock issue under wraps.

One of the most common complaints about the Patriot Act is that rather than addressing the real but narrow problems with existing law, it was a wish list of powers law enforcement officials had yearned for over the years that Congress had rightly resisted conferring. Now the Bush administration and its Senate allies have come up with another: a proposal to let F.B.I. agents write their own "administrative subpoenas," without the need to consult prosecutors or judges, in demand of all manner of records, from business to medical and tax data. There is no serious evidence that agents have been hamstrung by the lack of such wide authority.

Freeing agents from getting a judge's sign-off is an invitation to overreaching and abuse, as is a proposal to let the F.B.I. ignore postal law restraints when antiterrorism agents choose to monitor someone's letter envelopes and package covers.

Parts of the existing Patriot Act are reasonable law enforcement measures, but other sections should be repealed. Chief among these is the so-called library provision that lets the government seize entire databases at libraries, hospitals and other institutions when just one person is under investigation. Another part of the law makes it a crime for record holders to let the public know when a government data sweep has occurred.

Legitimate complaints that the existing law is overbearing have been heard from hundreds of state and local officials and from civil liberty and libertarian groups. Rather than addressing these flaws, Senate Republicans seem to be planning to compound them, under cover of closed hearings.

Read More...

Cheney Offended

progressive.org
Cheney Offended
by Matthew Rothschild

Dick Cheney says he's "offended."

Not by torture at Guantanamo.

But by Amnesty International's criticism of it.

Said Cheney on Larry King: "For Amnesty International to suggest that
somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly
just don't take them seriously."

He doesn't have to.

He's one of the most powerful men in the world.

And when he says white is black and up is down, he doesn't expect to
be contradicted. On the rare occasions that he is, he takes offense.



Cheney insisted that detainees at Guantanamo "have been well treated,
treated humanely and decently."

But while he was saying that, more reports were coming out from U.S.
tribunals at Guantanamo that echoed the torture that Amnesty
International was describing.

"Americans hit me and beat me up so badly I believe I'm sexually
dysfunctional," one detainee told the tribunal, according to AP.
Another described how an American interrogator "threatened me with a
gun to my mouth, to try to make me say something," the AP story by
Paisley Dodds said.

And these aren't, by any means, the first such reports.

Mustafa Ait Idir had an especially gruesome experience, according to a
lawsuit filed on his behalf.

"The guards secured his hands behind his back, and while he was so
restrained the guards picked him up and slammed his body and his head
into the steel bunk in his cell. The guards picked him up again and
banged his head on the toilet in his cell . . . (and) stuffed Mr. Ait
Idir's face in the toilet and repeatedly pressed the flush button. Mr.
Ait Idir was starting to suffocate, and he feared he would drown. The
guards then carried Mr. Ait Idir outside the cell and threw him on the
ground. His hands still were manacled behind his back. They held him
down and pushed a garden hose into his mouth. They opened the spigot.
As the water rushed in, Mr. Ait Idir began to choke." After further
beating that day, he suffered a stroke, the lawsuit says. (This
account appears in Amnesty International USA's report, "Guantanamo and
Beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power.")

Such treatment does not sound "humane" and "decent" to me.

But neither am I surprised by it.

Shortly after 9/11, Cheney told Tim Russert that the US would have to
work "the dark side" and would have to use "any means at our
disposal."

It's certainly done that.

But Cheney is hard-pressed to say now, to Larry King, that the dark
side is humane and decent.

Read More...

American Credibility Flushed Down the Toilet

observer.com
American Credibility Flushed Down the Toilet
by Nicholas von Hoffman

The puzzle is the size and flush capacity of the toilets in what
Amnesty International calls "the gulag of our time," or what our media
refers to as the "facility" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. As everybody
knows, a gossip-column item in Newsweek magazine reported that a Koran
had somehow been disposed of down the crapper in front of horrified
Muslim eyes, inciting riots and demonstrations on the other side of
the world.

The Right Honorable Scott McClellan, the voice of the White House,
insisted that American concentration-camp loos are not used for book
disposal. Going into his "people of faith" routine, the man told
reporters that "our United States military personnel go out of their
way to make sure that the Holy Koran is treated with care." Since
Reverend McClellan and his confreres have, as they say, no street cred
left, it would've been more to the point if he'd skipped his carping
about the magazine and addressed the big question—namely, how do
military personnel get rid of big fat holy books via the dumper
without clogging it? If you drop a whole book in and flush, a rather
disgusting overflow will result. Do these Christian soldiers stand by
the toilets, rip out a few pages and flush, rip out some more and
flush, and then rip, flush, rip, flush, until they've gotten rid of
every last holy word?

One other possibility comes to mind: chemical toilets. They don't
flush. A Christian can drop the whole damn Koran down into the mess
and then kick back and listen to the Muslims who witnessed the act
howl.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, says that Al Qaeda members have
been ordered to lie about their treatment in American camps. Mr.
Whitman, whom I would take to be about as believable on Iraqi topics
as Vladimir Putin discussing Russian democracy, would serve his bosses
better not to bring up the subject of prevarication. In mitigation of
the Pentagon on the question of speaking other than the truth about Al
Qaeda, etc., one cannot distinguish when they are deliberately telling
untruths, when they are themselves misinformed, when they are
ignorant, or when they are being stupid and confused.


Were it not that I am against book burning, book flushing and book
shredding, I would urge that everybody's holy books, starting with the
New Testament, be dropped down the very self-same hole. But also
arguing against such acts of destruction are men and women of
intelligence and wisdom who teach us that these books are valuable if
not used for ecclesiastic aggrandizement. In the practical world,
given the millions of Korans probably in existence, the loss of one or
two makes no difference, except for the part they play in the
religious wars we've been dragged into. Anyhow, since the
Korans-in-the-plumbing story hit the headlines, we have learned that
American Christian soldiers have been mutilating Korans in front of
Arab Muslims for years, or so Muslim prisoners and the F.B.I. say.

Koranic waste management is the least of it. Where there is religion,
there is sex of the sickly variety. The Washington Post has it that
F.B.I. "records also include numerous allegations that guards or
interrogators at Guantanamo Bay used sexually suggestive techniques
designed to humiliate Muslim men." One said he was forced to stand
naked in front of a female interrogator. Another said he was "touched
sexually" by male guards.

There are people aplenty on the outside of government backing up the
White House and the Pentagon; they disbelieve the nasty stuff. David
Brooks, as loyal an administration fugleman as you will find, asks,
"Would it be illegal for more people on the left to actually be happy
that a story slurring Americans may turn out to be unproven? Could
there be a few more liberals willing to admit that prisoners routinely
lie about their treatment? … We're in the middle of an ideological war
against people who want to destroy us …. "

Sometimes prisoners lie and sometimes their jailers do, but Dr. Brooks
and his fellow warriors for the Lord haven't had much success in
discerning which is which. Back when this endless conflict was
starting, it was Saddam—not yet pictured in his undies—who had it
right about the W.M.D. and David Brooks' people who were the tellers
of tall tales. Though exposed countless times, they've continued to
deceive through what is becoming the weary years of this winless war.
Their most recent sojourn into the land of lies concerns the
accidental death by friendly gunfire of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the
patriotic football player who enlisted in the war Mr. Brooks urges
others to fight. For recruiting purposes, the Army concocted a story
about Tillman's heroic death at the hands of the enemy and awarded him
a posthumous medal for an action that never took place.

Nonetheless, would that the tormentors of prisoners had stopped at
fudging the truth and destroying a few books—which, however large
their symbolic value, don't have nervous systems and don't feel pain.
According to ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh, "The evidence that there was
systemic and widespread abuse of detainees in U.S. custody continues
to mount and the government continues to turn a blind eye to this
evidence." (Incidentally, I am an ACLU member and may soon join
Amnesty International.)

The stories of cruelty and sadism committed by members of the Armed
Services and other organs of the American government are now so
numerous that keeping track of them has become a specialty. Here's a
whiff of two that made it into the paper in the last few days.

The first is under Tim Golden's byline in The New York Times: "Even as
the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers
continued to torment him. The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi
driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the
detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer
questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived
in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his
legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands
were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell
for much of the previous four days." Dilawar died.

The day after the Times story, The Washington Post had one by Craig
Whitlock which carried a Stockholm dateline and began: "The CIA
Gulfstream V jet touched down at a small airport west of here just
before 9 p.m. on a subfreezing night in December 2001. A half-dozen
agents wearing hoods that covered their faces stepped down from the
aircraft and hurried across the tarmac to take custody of two
prisoners, suspected Islamic radicals from Egypt.

"Inside an airport police station, Swedish officers watched as the CIA
operatives pulled out scissors and rapidly sliced off the prisoners'
clothes, including their underwear, according to newly released
Swedish government documents and eyewitness statements."

That operation is called, in C.I.A.-speak, an "extraordinary
rendition," which, according to The Post, is "the forcible and highly
secret transfer of terrorism suspects to their home countries or other
nations where they can be interrogated with fewer legal protections."

Ideological or religious, warriors of the Brooksian stripe deny these
stories though buttressed by eyewitnesses, affidavits, photographs and
confessions. Religion deals in faith, not facts. Never happened. Case
closed.

Lefties, liberals and lib-labs—though not Democratic
politicians—insist that torture is Bush administration policy, that
the orders for the thumb screws come out of Don Rumsfeld's office. Mr.
Rumsfeld's people fall back on the rotten-apple-in-the-barrel defense.
It's a plausible argument when sadistic acts are sometime events, but
when they are brought to light week after week in bunches, the
rotten-fruit theory does not hold up.

At some point, somebody must ask: How come so many rotten apples? Who
is in charge of choosing the apples? Who picks them? Who puts the
apples in the barrel, and whose job is it to see the rotten ones don't
spoil the good ones?

Having gone to war with too few troopers, Messrs. Bush, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, etc., had to get soldiers some way, somehow. They got some
by straining the National Guard to the point of disintegration, and
still there weren't enough soldiers. More, the stories of troops ill
equipped, poorly trained and incompetently generaled have had their
effect on recruitment. Young people have been turning down fat
enlistment bonuses, rich promises of college tuition and medical care.
What's left but to pick the rotten apples? The last expedient open to
a manpower-hungry Pentagon has been to let down the standards, to wink
at recruiters breaking the rules to snag people into the service who
shouldn't be in uniform. Apparently some are unsmart, some are
unschooled, some are drug- or alcohol-dependent, and some may have a
taste for inflicting pain and humiliation. How many such people may
have been brought into the services is not known—or if it is, you may
be sure the Pentagon isn't going to say.

In times past, decent soldiers have been made of unpromising recruits.
You can lower the standards and still get good soldiers with the right
training and proper supervision. A man or a woman with sadistic
desires will not get to act them out if the unit is in good order and
under strong discipline. Thus, whether or not the torture, the
kidnapping and the throwing of civilians into the concentration camps
is policy or failure of command, the people at the top are still
responsible. The vaunted Pentagon command and control, like so many of
the doodads coming out of the five-star war house, is not living up to
its press releases.

The top people will not be held responsible. Mr. Brooks isn't the only
one who turns a blind eye at practices that make others gag; there are
a lot of shit kickers in America who approve of hanging Mohammedans up
by the testicles until they die. I suspect, though, there are more of
us who do not approve or would not approve if we noticed, but we are
busy speculating in real estate, watching the basketball playoffs,
bitching about the price of gasoline or planning summer vacations. We
do not pay attention to what is done in our name.

And it's quite a name we're getting, the world's No. 1 and only
superpower, the Johnny Appleseed of democracy. Quite a name.

Read More...

Jesus, Is This News?

inthesetimes.com
Jesus, Is This News?
By Susan J. Douglas

No matter how much columnists and media critics bemoan the sorry state
of American journalism, no matter how low the press sinks in the
estimation of the American people, the news media, particularly on
television, remains defiantly abysmal. Now, on top of the usual toxic
doses of runaway brides, irrelevant celebrity trials and President
Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah, we have the rise of
Jesus News.

Blinded by their own erroneous news frame that the last election was
all about "moral values," and pressured to give religion more coverage
by an evangelical right running on methamphetamines, the news media
are devoting more airtime to everything Jesus.

The ghoulish death watch of Pope Paul John II ("Is he dead yet?" "No,
Bob, not dead yet, back to you.") hogged nearly an hour of total news
time on the three networks from March 28-April 1, and his death and
funeral preparations garnered 129 minutes of network news attention
the following week, making it the year's third biggest story so far.
By contrast, that same week, Tom Delay's ethics problems received four
minutes of coverage on ABC and CBS combined, and none on NBC. By the
week of April 18-22, when the networks devoted 37 minutes to the
Conclave of Cardinals ("Is the smoke white or black, Bob?") and
another 32 minutes to the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the
new pope, one might have thought Catholicism had become our state
religion.


The week of May 2, ABC news inaugurated a series called "Under God,"
about how conservative Christians are "searching for new ways to make
their mark on popular culture." First up was a story about Christian
cheerleading camps, and the next day a story about how Christians like
to spank their kids. By the time Thursday's episode, "Faith and
Fashion Under God" aired, one sensed that some at ABC had been a bit
hoodwinked. Here we learned that "a growing number of people,
especially young people, are proudly wearing their beliefs." Cut to a
picture of the campy baseball cap that has a picture of Jesus on it
and reads, "Jesus is my Homeboy."

My daughter has that cap; so do quite a few of her friends. They have
it because they find it hilarious and irreverent. It is the ironic
juxtaposition of hip hop slang with evangelism that they love; the
last thing they are doing is "wearing their beliefs."

And then there's Fox News. It routinely traffics in interviews with
folks like the Reverend Franklin Graham, whose newsworthy
pronouncements include "Jesus ... came to this Earth to take sinners
and save us from our sins ... [we need to] receive Christ by faith."
Fox is the platform from which James Dobson of Focus on the Family can
accuse Democratic Senators of being, well, the infidel. Not be
outdone, NBC's "Dateline" with Stone Phillips had a story about an
exorcism to rid a man of demons.

What are we to make of the rise of Jesus news? Yes, it is indeed
important to know what the religious right is up to, especially as
they seek to pack the courts with Jesus freaks, outlaw the teaching of
evolution, reverse decades of environmental regulation because "the
rapture" is just around the corner, and suppress free speech and
academic freedom on college campuses by charging that evangelical
students are "silenced' and "harassed" and thus should be able to sue.

But that's not the detailed coverage we're getting, at least not on
TV. Instead, Jesus news embezzles time away from stories people really
need to hear, like much more detailed coverage of the Bush/Republican
energy bill, which got a total of six minutes of coverage from all
three networks when it passed the house the week of April 18.

Not to mention local news. Here in Michigan, we are contemplating, and
not without bitterness, the famous 1955 quotation from Charlie Wilson
who said of his company "What's good for General Motors is good for
the rest of America." In that year, GM sold over half of the cars
purchased in the United States. Today, GM has been downgraded to junk
bond status. The company's arrogant, willful myopia, which has kept it
producing gas-guzzling, poorly designed, undesirable cars, could very
well lead to a major fiscal disaster in Michigan and elsewhere. But
except for the business pages, (and the Detroit News and Free Press),
this has not gotten near the attention that the religious invocations
used at NASCAR rallies has.

The parade of evangelicals on TV exaggerates the numbers of these
folks and makes them seem much more influential than they are--or
certainly should be. Rather than clones of the Christian Broadcasting
Network, we need solid, investigative work about the money,
organizations and, indeed, the cynicism behind all of these crusading
efforts to turn our country into a giant Bible camp.

Read More...

Another worthless press conference: Bush bobs, weaves and misleads

The Nation
Another worthless press conference: Bush bobs, weaves and misleads
By David Corn

I posted this on my personal blog while traveling in a Red state:

George W. Bush doesn't disappoint. That is, if you expect him to dodge
tough questions and misrepresent facts.

At his press conference today, Bush hailed "Operation Lightning," the
current military offensive to secure Baghdad as a sign of progress,
noting that 40,000 Iraqi troops were patrolling the streets of the
capital. Bush should check in with his own military. For days,
military sources have been telling reporters that the actual number of
Iraqi troops deployed for this action is much less, probably about
one-third to one-half of the 40,000 figure cited by Bush. And the
performance of these security forces has come under question. (Do Bush
and Dick Cheney live in a fantasy land? Though US military commanders
have been saying the insurgency could last years, Cheney yesterday
claimed it is "in the last throes.")

At least twice during the press conference, Bush was asked a question
that challenged a basic policy and he ducked. Noting that Bush has
called for democracy and human rights for all citizens of the world, a
reporter asked why Bush had not spoken out against the May 13 massacre
of hundreds of unarmed protesters in Uzbekistan.


This slaughter was mounted by the repressive and corrupt regime of
Islam Karimov, an ally of Bush in the war on terrorism who allows the
United States to maintain a major airbase in his country. (For more
information on this, click here.) In response, Bush insisted that he
had called for the International Red Cross to investigate what
happened. He added, "We expect all our friends...to honor human
rights." This was a rather lukewarm statement. The basic facts have
been confirmed: government troops slaughtered about 700 to 1000 people
who were calling for political and religious freedom. The British
government has expressed outrage and called for democratic reforms in
Uzbekistan (where the government in recent years has locked up
thousands of political prisoners). Bush's call for more information is
a weasel-ish cop-out. He is unwilling to criticize this murderous
authoritarian regime because he has cut a deal with Karimov. So much
for his high-flying rhetoric about democracy and freedom. It does not
apply to the dead of Uzbekistan.

Bush also declined to confront a serious matter related to his
moralistic rhetoric about stem cells research. He has claimed that
stem cells research that uses leftover blastocysts (early embryos of
100 or so cells) found in fertility clinics is unethical because it
involves the destruction of these blastocysts. But there are 400,000
or so of these frozen blastocysts stored in fertility clinics across
the country. What should be done with them? a reporter asked Bush.
This question does get to the core of the issue. If you believe these
embryos cannot be destroyed for scientific research that might lead to
cures and treatments for terrible diseases, you certainly cannot be in
favor of tossing them into the garbage. And then what are your
choices? Keep them frozen forever? Give them names? It's a question
for which the foes of stem cell research generally have no answer. You
can ban in vitro fertilization, but you still would have the 400,000
leftovers now in stock.

How did Bush handle this tricky--and fundamental--issue? He took a
powder. "The stem cell issue is really one of federal funding," he
said. He did note that he had held an event at the White House with
"little babies" who had grown from adopted embryos. Indeed, a few
dozen leftover blastocysts have been adopted. But are there 400,000
people lining up for the rest of these Petri dishes? The question
remains: what should be done with these deep-frozen fertilized eggs?
Bush offered no guidance.

It's no surprise that Bush bobs, weaves and misleads. The real
disappointment is that the hound dogs of the press corps do not
challenge him when he does so. They sit there well-behaved, wait to be
called upon, and rarely think of tossing aside their prepared
questions and asking, "With all due respect, Mr. President, you didn't
answer the question on the leftover embryos. Can you please tell us
specifically what should be done with them. Or do you have no idea?"
Bush can tap-dance his way through a press conference because his
not-so-grand inquisitors do nothing to change the tune.

Read More...

America's DNA

The New York Times
June 1, 2005
America's DNA
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

New Delhi

A few years ago my youngest daughter participated in the National History Day program for eighth graders. The question that year was "turning points" in history, and schoolchildren across the land were invited to submit a research project that illuminated any turning point in history. My daughter's project was "How Sputnik Led to the Internet." It traced how we reacted to the Russian launch of Sputnik by better networking our scientific research centers and how those early, crude networks spread and eventually were woven into the Internet. The subtext was how our reaction to one turning point unintentionally triggered another decades later.

I worry that 20 years from now some eighth grader will be doing her National History Day project on how America's reaction to 9/11 unintentionally led to an erosion of core elements of American identity. What sparks such dark thoughts on a trip from London to New Delhi?


In part it is the awful barriers that now surround the U.S. Embassy in London on Grosvenor Square. "They have these cages all around the embassy now, and these huge concrete blocks, and the whole message is: 'Go away!' " said Kate Jones, a British literary agent who often walks by there. "That is how people think of America now, and it's a really sad thing because that is not your country."

In part it was a conversation with friends in London, one a professor at Oxford, another an investment banker, both of whom spoke about the hassles, fingerprinting, paperwork and costs that they, pro-American professionals, now must go through to get a visa to the U.S.

In part it was a recent chat with the folks at Intel about the obstacles they met trying to get visas for Muslim youths from Pakistan and South Africa who were finalists for this year's Intel science contest. And in part it was a conversation with M.I.T. scientists about the new restrictions on Pentagon research contracts - in terms of the nationalities of the researchers who could be involved and the secrecy required - that were constricting their ability to do cutting-edge work in some areas and forcing intellectual capital offshore. The advisory committee of the World Wide Web recently shifted its semiannual meeting from Boston to Montreal so as not to put members through the hassle of getting visas to the U.S.

The other day I went to see the play "Billy Elliot" in London. During intermission, a man approached me and asked, "Are you Mr. Friedman?" When I said yes, he introduced himself - Emad Tinawi, a Syrian-American working for Booz Allen. He told me that while he disagreed with some things I wrote, there was one column he still keeps. "It was the one called, 'Where Birds Don't Fly,' " he said.

I remembered writing that headline, but I couldn't remember the column. Then he reminded me: It was about the new post-9/11 U.S. Consulate in Istanbul, which looks exactly like a maximum-security prison, so much so that a captured Turkish terrorist said that while his pals considered bombing it, they concluded that the place was so secure that even birds couldn't fly there. Mr. Tinawi and I then swapped impressions about the corrosive impact such security restrictions were having on foreigners' perceptions of America.

In New Delhi, the Indian writer Gurcharan Das remarked to me that with each visit to the U.S. lately, he has been forced by border officials to explain why he is coming to America. They "make you feel so unwanted now," said Mr. Das. America was a country "that was always reinventing itself," he added, because it was a country that always welcomed "all kinds of oddballs" and had "this wonderful spirit of openness." American openness has always been an inspiration for the whole world, he concluded. "If you go dark, the world goes dark."

Bottom line: We urgently need a national commission to look at all the little changes we have made in response to 9/11 - from visa policies to research funding, to the way we've sealed off our federal buildings, to legal rulings around prisoners of war - and ask this question: While no single change is decisive, could it all add up in a way so that 20 years from now we will discover that some of America's cultural and legal essence - our DNA as a nation - has become badly deformed or mutated?

This would be a tragedy for us and for the world. Because, as I've argued, where birds don't fly, people don't mix, ideas don't get sparked, friendships don't get forged, stereotypes don't get broken, and freedom doesn't ring.

Read More...

Where is today's Deep Throat?

conyersblog.us
Rep. John Conyers

59,000 Web Page Hits For Downing Street, Deep Throat Revealed, other Developments

It was an incredible weekend at johnconyers.com, and I am hopeful that President Bush is starting to feel the ground move under his feet and the “Downing Street Smoking Gun Scandal” is beginning to snowball.

First, on Friday, we launched our nationwide effort to obtain 100,000 signatures to an open letter to President Bush asking him to respond to the very serious charges of a pre-war deal between Britain and the U.S. The response has been overwhelming. We received so many signatures that it has thrown our web administrator for a loop, and they have been forced to use a special means of counting the signatures to deal with the overload. I spoke with them today and they told me they expected to have an actual count in about 48 hours. However, I was able to ascertain the number of “hits” to the Downing Street Memo sign-on portion of my web page – from Friday through Monday we received 59,607 unique IP hits. That is not to say every single person signed the letter, but it is certainly an awful lot of folks checking it out – an unprecedented number for my or any other congressional representative’s web site. I will get you the precise number as soon as I can, but in the meantime, please keep those signatures coming. I am also in the process of upgrading my web site so we will be able to handle the traffic more efficiently and disseminate information on signatures more quickly in the future.

Second, as previously blogged, on Sunday, I learned of what I refer to as the “smoking bullet” to the “smoking gun memo.” The London Times reports that in 2002, allied bombing activities spiked in an effort to provoke war with Iraq. Today, I signed a letter to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld asking him to respond to these charges. Whether he responds or not, we have another brick in the wall of evidence of misuse and abuse of power. Bradblog has the story on today’s letter.

Third, today we learned “Deep Throats” true identity – W. Mark Felt, the then Deputy Director of the FBI. If you have not already read the excellent article in Vanity Fair. As one who was a first hand witness to Watergate, I can only state humbly that this man helped bring our country back from the constitutional brink of an out-of-control White House and the entire nation is in his gratitude.


The lessons of Watergate are so telling and important today that it is eery, not to mention depressing:

– Back than we had an aggressive press corps – at least parts of it – willing to take a story and run with it, notwithstanding blowback from the White House. Today we have a paid government propoganda machine and a largely compliant press, although we do have a blogosphere attempting to lead – or shame – the MSM into dong the right thing.

– Back than we had men of courage, such as Mark Felt, John Dean, Leon Jaworski and Archibald Cox, who were willing to challenge authority and abuses of power. Today, when individuals such as Richard Clarke or Secty of Treasury Snowe step forward, they are subject to shame and ridicule by the White House.

– Back than we had a Justice Department that was willing to take an investigation wherever it would lead. Even before the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre,” the FBI and DOJ were aggressively pursuing leads. Today we have a Justice Department that sees or hears no evil when it comes to the Administration, and has operated as a willing accomplice to torture and rendition.

– Back than we had a Congress that was willing to hold real hearings and conduct real oversight of official misconduct – see Sam Ervin and the recently deceased Peter Rodino. Today, we have one party rule, and all too many in Congress simply take their marching orders from the White House, rather than stand up for what’s right.

That’s my opinion at least.

Read More...

Broken Homes

thinkprogress.org
Broken Homes

The Washington Post yesterday reported on the dark underbelly lurking below the seemingly bright promise of home owntership in America. Home ownership in America may be up today, but in a nasty flip side to that coin, foreclosures are also on the rise, forcing Americans into financial disaster.

Here are the facts: Foreclosure rates this past March rose in all but 3 states. In places like Florida, Colorado and Texas, foreclosure rates are double the national average. Hurt most are black and Latino families.

What’s the problem?


First, skyrocketing costs across the board - health care, education, retirement - combined with lower wages are leaving many Americans in financially precarious positions. A study done by Harvard University earlier this year, for example, found that half of all respondents facing bankruptcy “said that illness or medical bills drove them to bankruptcy.” To see the effect of this on home owners, just look at Philadelphia, where more than 1,000 foreclosed properties are auctioned off each month (up from 300 to 400 a month in 200). Forty percent said they lost their homes because crushing medical bills pushed them over the financial brink.

Second, blame predatory lenders. Just like credit card companies, which make their big bucks by aggressively marketing their products to high-risk consumers- such as college students, low wage workers and the newly bankrupt, mortgage brokers and banks have been marketing riskier ways for Americans to buy homes. These mortgage companies target buyers with bad credit, then jack up interest rates to 8 - 12 percent (instead of the market rate of 6 percent.) Thus, people with plenty of money are able to buy homes which become a valuable addition to their net assets. Working-class Americans are unable to keep up with outrageously high mortgages end up losing their homes and drowning in debt.

Read More...

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Supreme Court overturns Arthur Andersen's conviction in Enron case

news.findlaw.com
Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Supreme Court overturns Arthur Andersen's conviction in Enron case

By HOPE YEN Associated Press Writer

(AP) - WASHINGTON-The U.S.Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm for destroying Enron Corp.-related documents before the energy giant's collapse.

In a unanimous opinion, justices said the former accounting firm's June 2002 conviction was improper. It said the jury instructions at trial were too vague and broad for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.

"The jury instructions here were flawed in important respects," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.


The ruling is a setback for the Bush administration, which made prosecution of white-collar criminals a high priority following accounting scandals at major corporations. After Enron's 2001 collapse, the Justice Department went after Andersen first.

Enron crashed in December 2001, putting more than 5,000 employees out of work, just six weeks after the energy company revealed massive losses and writedowns.

Subsequently, as the Securities and Exchange Commission began looking into Enron's convoluted finances, Andersen put in practice a policy calling for destroying unneeded documentation.

Government attorneys argued that Andersen should be held responsible for instructing its employees to "undertake an unprecedented campaign of document destruction."

Read More...

Deep Throat Revealed

Deep Throat Revealed
Vanity Fair, July 2005

In the upcoming issue of Vanity Fair, the identity of Deep Throat is finally revealed.
The link to the article (PDF) follows:


http://www.vanityfair.com/pdf/pressroom/advance1.pdf

Read More...

The Bush Administration Was For Amnesty International Before It Was Against It

thinkprogress.org
The Bush Administration Was For Amnesty International Before It Was Against It

Tonight, Vice President Cheney will appear on CNN’s Larry King Live and reportedly condemn a recent Amnesty International report that faults the U.S. for its treatment of detainees in the war on terror. Cheney has said:

For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don’t take them seriously.

Other Administration officials have similarly been quick to lash out against the Amnesty report. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the allegations were “ridiculous and unsupported by the facts.” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Richard Myers called the Amnesty International report “absolutely irresponsible.”

But in the past, when it was convenient to the Administration, they did not hesitate to cite Amnesty to make its case. And nowhere did the Administration need more help than in selling the Iraq war.

Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly turned to Amnesty to highlight the repressive nature of Saddam’s regime. On March 27, 2003, Rumsfeld said:

We know that it’s a repressive regime…Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how the regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people…

The next day, Rumsfeld even cited his “careful reading” of Amnesty:

…[I]t seems to me a careful reading of Amnesty International or the record of Saddam Hussein, having used chemical weapons on his own people as well as his neighbors, and the viciousness of that regime, which is well known and documented by human rights organizations, ought not to be surprised.

And on April 1, 2003, Rumsfeld said once again:

[I]f you read the various human rights groups and Amnesty International’s description of what they know has gone on, it’s not a happy picture.

So the rule here appears to be: Amnesty is a legitimate source for human rights violations of other countries, but is an unreliable and irresponsible source for reporting on the U.S.

Read More...

Bush using Nazi methods?

You decide:

George W. Bush, May 24, 2005, Greece Athena Middle and High School, Athena Performing Arts Center, Greece, New York.

"[I]n my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

(Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html)

vs.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels (Nazi Minister of Propaganda)


"Propaganda is a means and must be evaluated as such, from the standpoint of the goal."

"It has always to speak only to the masses."

"The task of propaganda lies not in the scientific training of the individual, rather in drawing the attention of the masses to certain facts, events, necessities, etc...."

"It is wrong to want to give propaganda the multi-sidedness of scientific instruction."

"...Effective propaganda must limit its points of a few and these points must be repeated until even the last member of the audience understands what is meant by them."

"It must limit itself to a few themes and repeat them incessantly."

"Each change must never affect the content of propaganda, rather must always draw the same conclusions."

“...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious...The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

Read More...

Bush Breaks Nation's Promise to Veterans

progressreport.org

5/31/2005

VETERANS
Bush Breaks Nation's Promise to Veterans

Appearing yesterday at the Arlington National Cemetery to honor
generations of sacrifices by American servicemen and women, President Bush
said, "At our national cemetery, we take comfort from knowing that the men
and women who are serving freedom's cause understand their purpose and
its price." Yet the reality has been that the administration that most
recently has sent those men and women to fight for freedom's cause has
failed to live up to government's age-old promise
(http://www1.va.gov/opa/feature/celebrate/vamotto.htm) to "care for him
who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan."

BUSH'S 2006 VA BUDGET HITS VETERANS HARD: President Bush's 2006 budget
proposal included legislation that would raise veterans' premiums more
than 100 percent on prescription drugs and add an annual $250
enrollment fee for veterans who want care for conditions not directly caused by
military service and who generally earn more than $25,000 a year. The
administration has recommended these same proposals in each of the past
few years, only to have them beaten back by Congress each time. The
user fee would increase costs for nearly 2 million veterans nationwide.


WAR VETERANS EXCLUDED FROM COST OF WAR ON TERROR: Conservatives in
Congress rebuffed an effort to include $2 billion in emergency money for
veterans' health care in the recently passed $82 billion Iraq war
supplemental. The president's request increased the VA budget a mere 2.7
percent (including the increased co-pays and enrollment fees), hardly
sufficient to deal with an expected influx of Afghanistan and Iraq war
veterans in the coming years. Nearly 28,000 soldiers who served in Iraq and
were discharged have already sought care at a VA facility. Of the nearly
245,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan already discharged from
service, 12,422 have been in VA counseling centers for readjustment problems
and symptoms associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. VA
Secretary Jim Nicholson has said the budget circumstances are not "dire," yet
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Larry Craig (R-ID) was
forced to increase the 2006 budget request by $1 billion. Dave Autry, a
spokesman for the Disabled American Veterans, said
(http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?page=Article&ID=2794) ,
"Vets are owed a debt and the government has said they are eligible for
health care. The government needs to pay for it. It's a continuing cost
of our national defense."

BUSH WANTS TO SHUT DOWN VETERANS HOSPITAL IN HIS OWN BACKYARD: Veterans
in Bush's backyard, near his ranch in Crawford, Texas, are protesting
his administration's decision to close a VA hospital in their town. "It
would be, in my opinion, a tragic mistake to shut down our hospital,
especially during a time of war when tomorrow's veterans are in harm's
way today," said U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Waco). In May 2004, then-VA
Secretary Anthony Principi announced he would be closing three veterans
hospitals nationwide and partially closing eight others. For his work,
Principi was rewarded with an appointment to the chairmanship of the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission.

VETERANS GROUPS SLAM BUSH BUDGET: More than 300,000 veterans' claims
are pending before the VA, according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and
the number of claims pending for more than six months rose from 47,000
in 2003 to 75,000 at the end of March 2005. The deteriorating condition
of VA health care has elicited plenty of criticism. The American Legion
called Bush's budget "the wrong message at the wrong time to the wrong
constituency." The Vietnam Veterans of America said the budget did a
"disservice to those of us who donned the uniform to defend the rights,
principles, and freedoms that we hold dear." And the Veterans of Foreign
Wars decried Bush's decision as " especially shameful during a time of
war (http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=2362) ."

Read More...

Connecticut Submarine Base a 'Minefield' of Pollution

Yahoo! News
Conn. Sub Base a 'Minefield' of Pollution

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

For decades, the land around the Navy's oldest submarine base was a
dumping ground for whatever it needed to dispose of: sulfuric acid,
torpedo fuel, waste oil and incinerator ash. Now the Pentagon has
proposed closing the base, leaving a huge swath of land that contains
dozens of acres of polluted soil and groundwater, an Associated Press
review of more than 1,000 pages of government documents found.

The Submarine Base New London is among at least seven military bases
proposed for closure this year that are polluted, and the Pentagon has
estimated it will cost more than $700 million to clean them.

Even some areas that already have been cleaned could pose health risks
to construction workers and future residents if the Groton base were to
close, the military, state and federal environmental documents show.


Although elected officials have promised to fight the base closure,
which they estimate could cost Connecticut 31,500 jobs and $2 billion a
year in personal income, Groton officials have already starting
thinking about what might replace it.

"I know we'll hear proposals for a waterfront district: parks, hotel,
entertainment, condos, retail district and housing," said Paulann H.
Sheets, a Groton town councilor and environmental attorney.

But while the Navy pledges $23.9 million toward cleaning the base it
opened as a naval station in 1868, officials said Wednesday that
cleanup would only be to industrial standards. State officials fear the
money won't be nearly enough to make the land fit for residential or
recreational use.

"That's not a redevelopment opportunity, that's a minefield of
contamination," said Gina McCarthy, commissioner of the state
Department of Environmental Protection.

The military has a history of shutting down bases and leaving behind
contaminated land. Thirty-four bases closed since 1988 are on the
Superfund list of worst toxic waste sites, and none is completely
cleaned yet.

In its most recent Defense Environmental Programs report, an annual
submission to Congress that outlines the Pentagon's environmental
efforts, the Pentagon estimated it would cost more than $700 million to
clean the polluted bases proposed for closure.

Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts, where petroleum,
solvents and pesticides have contaminated the soil and water, is part
of a military compound that requires $538 million in cleanup, according
to the report. The Concord, Calif., Naval Weapons Station and the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, also are heavily polluted.

The Navy has already spent $57.6 million cleaning the Groton base.
Crews have sealed landfills, cleaned acres of wetlands and hauled away
tons of soil contaminated with arsenic, PCBs, and the pesticide DDT.

Some areas, such as a 14,000-gallon battery acid tank buried during
World War II, have been cleaned to residential standards, but others
have been treated with a combination of cleanup and land-use
restrictions that presume the land will never be used for residential
development.

A huge landfill containing battery acid and ash, for example, was
capped in 1997 after the Navy decided excavation was too expensive,
Navy environmental reports show. Today, the landfill is paved over,
digging is prohibited and access is restricted.

The base's waterfront, potentially its most valuable land, also is the
most polluted. Elevated levels of cancer-causing chemicals were
detected near a solvent-storage building and contractors warned that
pregnant women and small children were at risk for lead exposure in the
area, according to a 2001 environmental report.

Because the waterfront area is paved and heavily developed, the Navy
said there are no immediate health threats. But many Navy reports
presume the base will remain in operation, not be opened to
development.

Jim Woolford, head of the Environmental Protection Agency's Federal
Facilities Restoration & Reuse Office, said a base shutdown could even
speed up environmental cleanup.

"The initial reaction is, 'How can we do this?'" Woolford said. "But
there are tremendous success stories of DoD working with the community
and developers coming in and transforming these bases, even the ones
that were dirty."

Waterfront cleanup is scheduled to begin in 2008, but the Navy has told
the EPA that, because of national security concerns, it will try to
avoid full-scale excavation and consider spot-cleaning, containing
contamination and restricting access.

"That can be a very low-cost venture, but it doesn't mean you can ever
redevelop that property," McCarthy said.

originally published May 29, 2005

Read More...

Bush's Political Capital Spent, Voices in Both Parties Suggest

washingtonpost.com
Bush's Political Capital Spent, Voices in Both Parties Suggest
Poll Numbers Sag as Setbacks Mount at Home and Abroad

By Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 31, 2005; A02

Two days after winning reelection last fall, President Bush declared that he had earned plenty of "political capital, and now I intend to spend it." Six months later, according to Republicans and Democrats alike, his bank account has been significantly drained.

In the past week alone, the Republican-led House defied his veto threat and passed legislation promoting stem cell research; Senate Democrats blocked confirmation, at least temporarily, of his choice for U.N. ambassador; and a rump group of GOP senators abandoned the president in his battle to win floor votes for all of his judicial nominees.

With his approval ratings in public opinion polls at the lowest level of his presidency, Bush has been stymied so far in his campaign to restructure Social Security. On the international front, violence has surged again in Iraq in recent weeks, dispelling much of the optimism generated by the purple-stained-finger elections back in January, while allies such as Egypt and Uzbekistan have complicated his campaign to spread democracy.

The series of setbacks on the domestic front could signal that the president has weakened leverage over his party, a situation that could embolden the opposition, according to analysts and politicians from both sides. Bush faces the potential of a summer of discontent when his capacity to muscle political Washington into following his lead seems to have diminished and few easy victories appear on the horizon.

"He has really burned up whatever mandate he had from that last election," said Leon E. Panetta, who served as White House chief of staff during President Bill Clinton's second term. "You can't slam-dunk issues in Washington. You can't just say, 'This is what I want done' and by mandate get it done. It's a lesson everybody has to learn, and sometimes you learn it the hard way."


Through more than four years in the White House, the signature of Bush's leadership has been that he does not panic in the face of bad poll numbers. Yet many Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the lobbyist corridor of K Street worry about a season of drift and complain that the White House has not listened to their concerns. In recent meetings, House Republicans have discussed putting more pressure on the White House to move beyond Social Security and talk up different issues, such as health care and tax reform, according to Republican officials who asked not to be named to avoid angering Bush's team.

"There is a growing sense of frustration with the president and the White House, quite frankly," said an influential Republican member of Congress. "The term I hear most often is 'tin ear,' " especially when it comes to pushing Social Security so aggressively at a time when the public is worried more about jobs and gasoline prices. "We could not have a worse message at a worse time."

Many experienced Washington hands believe that Bush has the opportunity to reestablish his clout if he focuses his efforts. "Every president goes through patches like this," Newt Gingrich, the Republican former House speaker, said in an interview. "[President Ronald] Reagan had a difficult patch in August '81, but he came back and was strongly successful. Clinton, if you'll remember, in June or July of '95 looked like he couldn't get anything done and then won reelection. These things come and go."

To get back on track, Gingrich said, Bush should pare down his Social Security plan to its central element, personal investment accounts funded by payroll taxes. "I don't think he can get complex reform through," Gingrich said. "It's too hard with the AARP opposing you and all of the Democrats lined up against it."

Bush has had a hard time persuading Congress to go along with his agenda, in part because surveys show that much of the public has soured on him and his priorities. In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, taken last month, 47 percent of Americans approved of Bush's performance, tying the lowest marks he ever received in that survey, back in mid-2004, when Democrats were airing tens of millions of dollars' worth of campaign attack ads.

Similarly, just 31 percent approved of his handling of Social Security, an all-time low in the Post-ABC poll, while only 40 percent gave him good marks for his stewardship of the economy and 42 percent for his management of Iraq, both ratings close to the lowest ever recorded in those areas. Other surveys have recorded similar findings, with Bush's approval rating as low as 43 percent.

Such weakness has unleashed the first mutterings of those dreaded second-term words, "lame duck," however premature it might be with 3 1/2 years left in his tenure. "The Democrats are doing everything they can to make this president a lame duck," Republican consultant Ed Rollins complained on Fox News on Friday. William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, wrote recently about "the impression -- and the reality -- of disarray" in urging Bush to wage a strong fight for the nomination of John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador.

"He's not a lame duck yet, but there are rumblings," said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian. Dallek said Bush's recent travails remind him of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who overreached in his second term by trying to pack the Supreme Court, a move that backfired. "Second terms are treacherous, and presidents enter into a minefield where they really must shepherd their credibility and political capital," he said.

Bush started off his second term with a string of important victories, pushing through measures to make it harder to file class-action lawsuits against big corporations and to wipe out debts by filing for personal bankruptcy. Congress passed its first budget resolution in years, largely along the lines of Bush's proposals, and gave him nearly everything he asked for in an $82 billion supplemental appropriations bill to pay for war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House rejects talk of drift by pointing to such victories. Asked at a briefing last week about the possible "onset of lame-duck status around here," White House press secretary Scott McClellan ticked off a list of accomplishments.

"This Congress has been in place for just over four months now, and we have made significant progress," he said. Addressing the troubled Social Security plan, he added: "Sometimes the legislative process isn't going to move as fast as we would all like, particularly on an issue that was this difficult."

Another senior White House official, who asked to remain anonymous to offer a franker assessment, acknowledged the perception problem. "I will admit it's a challenge to shine the light on the progress," the official said. "The victories have been overshadowed by partisan drama."

Nowhere was there more drama than in the Senate last week, when 14 senators from both parties forged a deal without White House approval that would allow some, but not all, of Bush's stalled judicial nominees to receive floor votes. The deal on judges was followed quickly by a vote to shut down a filibuster on Bolton's nomination, a vote that Bush and the GOP lost.

The House also rejected Bush by passing a measure easing his restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, with 50 Republicans joining most Democrats despite the threat of a presidential veto. The Senate has also advanced a more expensive highway bill than Bush has deemed acceptable, while his efforts to win passage for a Central American trade pact and an immigration guest worker program are stalled.

Overseas, violence in Iraq has killed about 700 civilians and at least 63 U.S. troops this month, frustrating efforts to stabilize the situation after January's successful parliamentary elections. The governments of two U.S. allies resorted to crackdowns on opponents. In Uzbekistan, government forces opened fire on demonstrators, killing hundreds, while in Egypt, pro-government gangs beat up protesters after a visit by Laura Bush.

In some ways, allies said, Bush has run into resistance because he swings for the fences, taking on especially hard issues. By making Social Security the centerpiece of his domestic blueprint, he guaranteed a tough legislative campaign. But it has begun to take its toll on the rest of his agenda as well. The White House had hoped to be far enough along with Social Security by summer to launch his second top priority, overhaul of the tax code. That is likely to be delayed until next year.

Bush's chief strategist, Karl Rove, is said by colleagues to remain optimistic that Congress will deliver Social Security legislation that includes personal accounts. But other aides privately are beginning to talk about whether they could accept a deal that does not include the accounts.

John D. Podesta, a top Clinton aide who runs the Center for American Progress, a research institute that promotes ideas that counter conservative policies, said Bush made the mistake of trying to turn a successful election strategy of catering to his base into a governing philosophy that excludes Democrats.

"What surprises me is that they seem to be unable to adjust particularly to the circumstances," Podesta said. "They promoted their Social Security case. It bombed. I would have thought they would have tried to change the subject or tried a different strategy. 'You're with us or against us' works well when you're fighting al Qaeda, but it doesn't with Social Security, and they don't seem to have another play in the book."

Kenneth M. Duberstein, who was White House chief of staff during Reagan's second term, said after the congressional recess Bush needs "to seize the momentum" on energy legislation, the Central American free trade pact, spending bills and a Social Security solvency plan.

"After all, the president is always in the driver's seat, as all presidents are, and he cannot be distracted by speed bumps and detours along the way," Duberstein said. "The president needs to define victories in ways that he can achieve them."

Read More...

Homeland Security flunks cybersecurity prep test
By Declan McCullagh
URL: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5722227.html

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has failed to live up to its cybersecurity responsibilities and may be "unprepared" for emergencies, federal auditors said in a scathing report released Thursday.

More than two years after its creation, Homeland Security has never developed a contingency plan to restore Internet functions in an emergency and has yet to create a vulnerability assessment of what could happen in an worst-case scenario, the Government Accountability Office concluded.

"DHS cannot effectively function as the cybersecurity focal point intended by law and national policy" at the moment, the report
( http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d05434high.pdf ) said. "There is increased risk that large portions of our national infrastructure are either unaware of key areas of cybersecurity risks or unprepared to effectively address cyber emergencies."

The dismal grade for Homeland Security comes as the federal government is conducting a war game called "Silent Harbor" that's designed to model what might happen during an electronic attack on the United States. It was convened by the CIA's secretive Information Operations Center and was set to conclude Thursday.


Thursday's report represents the most critical take yet on the cybersecurity efforts of the still-young agency, which was intended to become a central point for online warnings and responses inside the federal government but instead has come under fire for being too sluggish. The November 2002 law creating the Department of Homeland Security melded together computer security centers from the FBI, the Defense Department, the Commerce Department and the Energy Department.

In a letter signed by Steven Pecinovsky, a Homeland Security inter-governmental liaison, the department took issue with the report's conclusions. Homeland Security does not "agree with the report's implication that the challenges experienced to date have prevented us from achieving significant results in improving the nation's cybersecurity posture," Pecinovsky wrote. Because Homeland Security is a new agency, it is using less formal, non-quantitative ways to measure progress, he added.

The GAO warned that bot networks, criminal gangs, foreign intelligence services, spammers, spyware authors and terrorists were all "emerging" threats that "have been identified by the U.S. intelligence community and others." Even though Homeland Security has 13 responsibilities in this area, it "has not fully addressed any," the GAO said.

Homeland Security has been suffering from an ongoing exodus of top-level staff. The director and deputy director of Homeland Security's National Cyber Security Division, a top Computer Emergency Response Team official, the undersecretary for infrastructure protection, and the assistant secretary responsible for information protection have all left in the past year. (The House of Representatives this month approved a reorganization of those departments.)

Democrats on Capitol Hill were quick to take up the report's findings to suggest that the Bush administration's cybersecurity efforts have been a flop.

The "report only confirms what we have known all along; the DHS has failed to meet the responsibility for critical infrastructure protection," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who represents the San Jose, Calif., area.

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on a congressional homeland security panel, charged that "our critical infrastructures remain largely unprepared or unaware of cybersecurity risks and how to respond to cyber emergencies. This is unacceptable."

This isn't the first time the Homeland Security has been rapped by auditors. Last year, one report said the agency was plagued by computer systems that were incompatible, and another found that Homeland Security was woefully behind in terms of sharing computer security information with private companies.

Read More...