Saturday, July 23, 2005

Anti-Abortion Advocacy of Wife of Court Nominee Draws Interest

The New York Times

Anti-Abortion Advocacy of Wife of Court Nominee Draws Interest
By LYNETTE CLEMETSON and ROBIN TONER

WASHINGTON, July 22 - Judge John G. Roberts has left little hard evidence of his views on abortion in recent years and is widely expected to try to avoid the issue in his coming confirmation hearings.

But there is little mystery about the views of his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, a Roman Catholic lawyer from the Bronx whose pro bono work for Feminists for Life is drawing intense interest in the ideologically charged environment of a Supreme Court confirmation debate.

Some abortion opponents view her activities as a clear signal that the Robertses are committed to their cause; supporters of abortion rights fear the same thing. Others say that drawing a direct line from her activities to how her husband might rule on the Supreme Court - assuming that he not only shares her views, but would also act on them to overturn 32 years of legal precedents - is both politically risky and in bad form.

No less a Democratic stalwart than Senator Edward M. Kennedy said, at a breakfast meeting with reporters on Friday, that Mrs. Roberts's work "ought to be out of bounds."

Advocates on both sides have long acknowledged that with this issue, the personal is often political. But Mrs. Roberts has led an independent and unapologetic life that defies any attempt at pigeonholing.

Mrs. Roberts, who declined to be interviewed for this article, was not recruited by Feminists for Life, but sought the group out about a decade ago and offered her services as a lawyer, said its president, Serrin Foster. The group was reorganizing at the time and beginning to focus its work on college campuses. Its mission statement, driven home in advertising in recent years, says: "Abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion."


Mrs. Roberts served on the board of the organization for four years, and later provided legal services. Ms. Foster said that as an adoptive parent, Mrs. Roberts made contributions that included urging the group to focus more on the needs of biological mothers, and adding a biological mother to the board of directors.

Ms. Foster said Feminists for Life was committed not only to ending abortion, but also to making it "unthinkable" by providing every woman with the assistance she needs. Reversing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, is a goal, she said, "but not enough."

In recent years, the group has supported efforts to ban the procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion, which is usually performed in the second and third trimesters, as well as legislation that prohibits transporting a minor across state lines to evade parental notification laws. In previous years, the group weighed in on litigation seeking further restrictions on abortion, but Ms. Foster said that was before Mrs. Roberts joined the board.

"We're not a litigious institution now," Ms. Foster said. "We decided we were not a legal group; we were going to go after parenting resources and pregnancy resources, and Jane was part of that redefinition. She came on at that time."

Sensing the highly charged atmosphere around the issue, longtime friends and colleagues of Mrs. Roberts declined to speak this week about her views on abortion. But they characterized her political and social views much as her husband's friends have portrayed his in recent days: expressly conservative, but not dogmatic.

"Jane has very strong personal convictions, politically and with regard to her faith," said Christine Kearns, a friend and colleague who has worked with Mrs. Roberts for 18 years at a law firm now called Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. "But as long as I've known her, I've never known her to impose them on others or to be unwilling to listen to other people's points of view."

One thing is certain; Mrs. Roberts's Catholic faith has long played a central role in her life. The daughter of a Postal Service technician and a medical secretary, Jane Sullivan grew up the oldest of four children in what was an Italian and Irish neighborhood in the Morris Park section of the Bronx, where she played dodgeball in the streets and took Irish step dancing lessons. With the family's parish church, Our Lady of Solace, down the block and her paternal grandparents living next door, it was a safe, close-knit existence.

The family held onto its ties to Ireland, keeping a family home in the small town of Knocklong in the County of Limerick, where they still gather at least every two years.

After graduating from St. Catherine's Academy, an all-girls' high school in the Bronx, Mrs. Roberts joined the first class of women to enter the College of the Holy Cross, in Worcester, Mass., where she attended Mass several times a week, tutored football players in mathematics, her major, and carved a path as a student leader. A budding feminist even with her traditionalist streak, she was one of four students who represented the student body in a heated dispute when the feminist scholar Marilyn French, who taught at the college from 1972 to 1976, was denied tenure.

"We were the pioneers," said Connie McCaffrey, a clinical social worker at Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire who has been a close friend of Mrs. Roberts since they met on the first day of freshman year. "There was a very strong sense of camaraderie among the women who came in that year. And Janey took her responsibilities as one among that group very seriously."

Determined to explore the world, she graduated from Holy Cross in 1976, traveled to Australia on a Rotary scholarship, trekked through Nepal and backpacked around Europe before earning a master's degree in applied mathematics from Brown in 1981 and a law degree from Georgetown in 1984.

She has maintained close ties with Holy Cross, serving on its board. The Rev. Charles Currie, president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, is also a member of the Holy Cross board and regularly travels to its meetings with Mrs. Roberts.

"It's unfortunate in this whole discussion," Father Currie said, "they're already putting it somewhat in terms of conservative/liberal. It's always a shame when issues are reduced to that simplicity. She may be conservative in some things, but not in others. She's much more complex."

In her professional life, Mrs. Roberts continued to look for the road less traveled, establishing a specialty in the male-dominated field of technology and communications law and earning a partnership in her firm's global technology practice. Still, friends and family members said, she asserted a quietly defiant individuality, negotiating multimillion-dollar satellite deals while still driving a bright orange Volkswagen Beetle long after she could have afforded a more expensive car.

Friends say she met John G. Roberts in Dewey Beach, Del. "I think she kind of just knew he was the one," said her sister Mary Torre. "He had a great sense of humor, which in an Irish family is very important."

The couple married in July 1996, when they were both 41, and friends say they immediately began discussing their desire to start a family, even talking about children at their wedding reception.

"Most of us had gotten married in the mid-80's," said Richard Lazarus, a friend and law school roommate of Mr. Roberts, "and I can't say that during those weddings we talked about children. We were more focused on ourselves."

"These were two, very accomplished, very successful lawyers," Mr. Lazarus said. "It wasn't an incidental statement. It was a shared, very important next step, and it was a very pronounced theme."

In 2000 the couple adopted a daughter, Josephine, and a son, John, through what Ms. Torre said was a private adoption.

"It is a testament to the power of prayer," said Ms. Kearns, Mrs. Roberts's friend. "Who knew whether they would get any children. They qualified to adopt. She waited, but she never, ever, was discouraged."

After years as a hard-charging lawyer, Mrs. Roberts went part-time in 2003, designing and running an in-house professional development center for her firm (though colleagues say her part-time hours would be considered full-time to most people).

The Robertses' relationship, some say, has deepened their faith. "As it often happens, when two people get together and share a faith, it can be magnified by their joining," Mr. Lazarus said. "I think that has been the case for them, even more so once they had the kids. But it is a very personal faith. It does not serve, for them, as a way of judging others."

With the Supreme Court confirmation battle under way, when everything from her views on abortion to her children's clothes will be under scrutiny, Mrs. Roberts is showing her customary aplomb, friends say. Among her only complaints is that the air-conditioning in her PT Cruiser, which she is driving to strategy sessions at the White House, stopped working during this, the hottest week so far in a very hot summer. So far, she has said, she has managed to weather the heat.

Read More...

Friday, July 22, 2005

White House threatens veto on detainee policies

Reuters

White House threatens veto on detainee policies

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.

The Bush administration, under fire for the indefinite detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and questions over whether its policies led to horrendous abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, put lawmakers on notice it did not want them legislating on the matter.

In a statement, the White House said such amendments would "interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war."

"If legislation is presented that would restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice," the bill could be vetoed, the statement said.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who endured torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said after meeting at the Capitol with Vice President Dick Cheney that he still intended to offer amendments next week "on the standard of treatment of prisoners."

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was working on legislation defining the legal status of enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo, also said he would offer an amendment.

They were working with Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia on amendments intended to prevent further abuses in the wake of the scandal over sexual abuse and mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and harsh, degrading interrogations at Guantanamo.

Possible measures included barring the holding of "ghost" detainees whose names are not disclosed, codifying a ban against cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and using the Army manual as a basis for all interrogations.

Democrats on Thursday said they would push an amendment to establish an independent national commission to investigate policies that led to abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Armed Services Committee's top Democrat, said the commission on detainee abuses was needed because "the most serious scandal in recent military history needs an objective investigation."

Levin said the commission should be modeled on the bipartisan commission that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said the Pentagon's own investigations into detainee abuses left "huge gaps. ... The military reviewing itself, that's not good enough."

Pentagon "talking points" against the special detainee commission circulating around the Capitol said the issue had been "thoroughly investigated" and "a new open-ended investigation" would add "nothing but political theater."

The talking points said reforms were under way, and the Pentagon "has the matter well in hand. The department and the services are doing everything possible to address this challenge."

Read More...

Poll: Roberts' Abortion Stance of Interest

Poll: Roberts' Abortion Stance of Interest

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Just over half of all Americans - and a solid majority of women - want to know John Roberts' position on abortion before the Senate votes on whether to elevate him to the Supreme Court.


Most people don't yet know enough about Roberts to form an opinion on him, but among those who do, most view him favorably, an AP-Ipsos poll also found.

Roberts, 50, an appeals court judge and former Justice Department official, was chosen by President Bush on Tuesday to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Abortion is sure to come up at his Senate confirmation hearings, and the survey found 52 percent believe he should give his position on the matter before lawmakers vote on him, while 42 percent said he should not. Women were more inclined to want to know his position - 60 percent - while only 43 percent of men felt similarly.

Read More...

Iraq War Vet Runs for Congress in Ohio

Iraq War Vet Runs for Congress in Ohio

By DAN SEWELL
Associated Press Writer

SEAMAN, Ohio (AP) -- A few months ago, Paul Hackett was flushing out insurgents and avoiding ambushes in Fallujah, Ramadi and other hotspots in the Iraq. Today, the Marine is trying to round up votes in small southern Ohio towns like this one.

Hackett, a Democrat, is running in a special election Aug. 2 in a bid to become the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress.

So at dawn on a recent day, he was having eggs and toast at the Cruiser Diner, recounting his war experiences to a young soldier facing Iraq duty later this year.

Later that day, he was campaigning among avid hunters in Adams County, telling them about the guns he keeps at home and joking: "I thought gun control was when you hit your target."

And in the town of Peebles, he found himself talking with two retired veterans about tattoos, like the Marine emblem he has over his heart.

The 43-year-old lawyer, former Milford city councilman and Marine Reserve major is hoping his battlefield experience will help him become the first Democrat to get elected in Ohio's conservative 2nd District in three decades.


He is facing a well-known, experienced Republican - former state Rep. Jean Schmidt - in the seven counties stretching eastward from the Cincinnati suburbs through largely rural areas.

Hackett said he was urged by friends to run when he returned from Iraq in March. He calls his candidacy "a natural extension" of his military service, and says going to Congress as the lone Iraq war veteran could give him a voice on the war and related issues.

Although Hackett initially opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a pre-emptive war that "set a bad precedent," he now says: "We're there now. My Marines are over there fighting. We can't cut and run .... I want to see what we're doing in Iraq work out."

He said training of Iraqi forces must be dramatically improved, and U.S. units should be paired with Iraqi units for "24-7" teamwork and training.

For her part, Schmidt has said that she supported the war from the beginning and that Iraqi troops need to be trained to defend their country before the U.S. pulls out.

Schmidt and Hackett both espouse fiscal conservatism and limited government, although she goes into more detail with proposals such as eliminating estate and capital gains taxes and instituting a flat tax. Another difference: He supports abortion rights, while she heads the Cincinnati area Right to Life.

A Hackett TV commercial that began airing this week opens with a clip of President Bush saying: "There is no higher calling than service in our armed forces." Hackett also recounts his decision to volunteer last year to serve seven months in Iraq.

That Hackett is on television at all is remarkable in deep-red southwestern Ohio, which helped tilt Ohio's crucial 20 electoral votes to Bush last year. Seven-term Republican Rob Portman regularly won with more than 70 percent of the vote before leaving Congress to becoming Bush's U.S. trade representative this year.

Army Lt. Paul Worley, 23, of Peebles, said he likes the idea of a congressman veteran as he prepares for Iraq duty later this year: "You can't substitute anything for leadership by example, somebody who's been there and seen it."

Others do not see Hackett's military background as reason to vote for him.

"He was in the military; there's been a lot of people in the military," said David Werring, a farmer who served in the Marines. "It's nice, but I want to get down to the real issues."

He cites Schmidt's push for a national energy policy that would include more emphasis on ethanol.

Schmidt, 53, has been in politics most of her life, as a GOP official, township trustee or state legislator, and has emphasized her experience.

Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan Washington political report, said a Hackett victory would be "a mega-surprise" in the heavily Republican district.

As the election nears, Hackett is getting more help from state and national Democrats, with a $1,000-a-head fund-raiser with strategist James Carville this week, and a campaign visit Thursday by Max Cleland, the disabled Vietnam veteran and former senator from Georgia.

Launching into a 15-hour day of campaigning, Hackett scoffed as he recalled someone telling him how hard the campaign life was: "I get to see my family at home every night; that's better than being in Iraq. The potshots I take .... are better than the potshots in Iraq."

---

On the Net:

http://www.hackettforcongress.com

http://www.jeanschmidt.com

Read More...

Thursday, July 21, 2005

NYPD Will Begin Checking Bags on Subways

1010 WINS - New York's All News Station | 1010wins.com

NYPD Will Begin Checking Bags on Subways

Police will begin conducting random searches of packages and backpacks carried by people entering city subways, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Thursday after a new series of bomb attacks in London.

Authorities said the system for the checks is still being developed, but the plan is for passengers carrying bags to be selected at random before they have passed through turnstiles.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly promised that officers would not engage in racial profiling, and that passengers will be free to ``turn around and leave'' rather than consent to a search.

Officials wouldn't immediately say how frequently the checks would occur. The checks are scheduled to be in place by rush hour on Friday morning.

``We just live in a world where, sadly, these kinds of security measures are necessary,'' Bloomberg said. ``Are they intrusive? Yes, a little bit. But we are trying to find that right balance.''


Authorities said there is also a possibility that checks will be conducted of some bus and train passengers.

Searching the bags of more than a token number of straphangers may be impossible.

New York's subways carry about 4.5 million passengers on the average weekday, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

There are 468 subway stations in the system, most of which have multiple entrances, and during rush hours, the flood of humanity in and out of key stations can be overwhelming.

Asked whether the searches might create a bottleneck at subway entrances, Kelly suggested the searches would be of a small enough sampling of passengers that only individuals, rather than whole crowds, would be delayed.

``We are going to do it in a reasonable common sense way,'' he said.

Similar types of random searches of subway passengers have prompted complaints from civil liberties groups in other cities, and in some cases have been challenged in court.

Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the searches in New York could be problematic, if not conducted properly.

``The department can and should be actively and aggressively investigating anyone they suspect of bringing explosives into the subway, but police searches of people without any individualized suspicion is contrary to our most basic constitutional values,'' he said.

It was not immediately clear what would happen if an officer looking for explosives found some other form of contraband. Passengers who are approached for a random search and refuse will be barred from entering the station, Kelly said.

Read More...

NYPD Gives Tips On How To Spot A Terrorist

1010 WINS - New York's All News Station | 1010wins.com
NYPD Gives Tips On How To Spot A Terrorist

Beware the mass transit rider with clenched fists. Or one nervously feeling under or patting down his or her clothes. Or one who reeks of too much cologne or perfume.

According to a new police memo, someone looking or smelling that way — though not particularly odd by New York standards — could be a terrorist about to strike.

Issued at the New York Police Department earlier this week, the memo suggests "talking points" for officers who board trains and buses to warn commuters to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior and packages in the wake of the suicide bombings in London.

Officials at the nation's largest police department prepared the memo after seeing television news footage of a New York sergeant, Luis Pineiro, reassuring bus passengers and giving them safety tips following the July 7 attacks.

"That was the inspiration," the department's chief spokesman, Paul Browne, said Wednesday. "We thought he delivered it well and it was received well by the public, so we decided to expand it."

Officers formally began the prevention effort on Monday while doing sweeps of Amtrak trains leaving Pennsylvania Station bound for Washington, D.C., at rush hour. Commuters on subway trains and buses also will be urged to be vigilant about reporting any signs of trouble in the transit system.

Some of those signs require explanation (read on).


Clenched fists? In past attacks, suicide bombers have used explosives that require them to maintain pressure on hand-held triggering devices until detonation, police said.

The warning about a rider patting down his or her clothing stems from reports about the behavior of one of the London suicide bombers before he struck, police said. And excessive use of cologne could be a sign of someone trying to mask the scent of explosives.

The memo also advises that a bomber could give himself or herself away by "perspiring profusely, avoiding eye contact, mumbling or chanting" or by "wearing clothes that are unsuitable for the time of year," such as a coat in summer.

Read More...

Pentagon: Iraqi Insurgents Remain Lethal

Star-Gazette.com
Pentagon: Iraqi Insurgents Remain Lethal

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon told Congress Thursday that Iraqi insurgents are failing to derail the move toward democracy but remain "capable, adaptable and intent" on carrying out lethal attacks aided by a continuing inflow of foreign terrorists.

Its 23-page report - the most comprehensive public assessment yet by the military establishment of progress in Iraq - was more than a week overdue. In it, the Pentagon cited progress on political, economic and security fronts. But it not say how soon a Iraqi security forces will be sufficiently trained to defend the wartorn country without the direct assistance of American troops.

U.S. officers have developed a method of calculating the combat readiness of the approximately 76,700 Iraqi Army troops, but the Pentagon said it "should not and must not" publicly disclose specific data.

"The enemy's knowledge of such details would put both Iraqi and coalition forces at increased risk," the report said.

That information, along with details on various possible changes in the level of U.S. forces in Iraq next year, were included in an annex, classified as secret, along with the unclassified report delivered to Congress.

There currently are about 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The Pentagon report offered no estimate of when they could be withdrawn.

Democratic critics of Bush administration Iraq policy lashed out at the Pentagon for refusing to publicly release a detailed assessment of the readiness of Iraqi security forces.


Sen. Carl Levin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he fears "the American people are going to be left out" of discussions about when the United States can bring troops home and turn the wartorn country over to Iraqi security forces.

Last week, Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided a written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee that said about half of Iraq's new police battalions are still being established and cannot yet conduct operations. He provided the statement in response to a question posed by Levin.

It was not clear how that squared with an assertion in Thursday's report to Congress that "more than half of provincial police headquarters currently are assessed to have control in their province."

Pace said the other half of the police units and two-thirds of the new army battalions are only "partially capable" of carrying out counterinsurgency missions and need U.S. help.

"Only a small number of Iraqi Security Forces are taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves," Pace wrote in the memo.

Thursday's report to Congress noted that when U.S. and Iraqi forces assaulted the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah last November several Iraqi battalions "collapsed." Absenteeism among regular Iraqi army units was "in double digits" and remained so for the rest of the year, it added.

"Although such problems have not been entirely solved, they have been addressed in large measure," the report said, due in part to efforts that have alleviated equipment shortages.

"Still, units that are conducting operations and units that relocate elsewhere in Iraqi experience a surge in absenteeism," it added.

Although the report said that Iraqi Sunnis make up the largest proportion of the insurgency, it also decried a continuing influx of foreign terrorists from across Iraq's borders. Iraq has 15,500 trained border police, but their effectiveness varies widely and is rated by U.S. officials as "generally moderate to low."

"Although violent extremist activity accounts for a fraction of the overall violence, the dramatic and symbolic nature and lethality of their attacks, combined with effective information operations, has a disproportionate psychological impact relative to their numbers," the report said.

Outlining the way forward on the political front, the report said that Washington expects the Iraqis to meet an Aug. 15 deadline for writing a constitution, followed by a national referendum on the constitution by Oct. 15 and a Dec. 15 election under that constitution for a permanent government that would take power shortly thereafter.

"One noteworthy strategic indicator of progress toward a stable security environment has been the inability of insurgents to derail the political process and timeline," the report said. "To do so is the strategic objective of the insurgents, and they are failing to achieve it."

Read More...

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret

washingtonpost.com

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; A01

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.

Wilson has said his wife's identity was revealed to retaliate against him for accusing the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence to justify the Iraq war. In a July 6 opinion piece in the New York Times and in an interview with The Washington Post, he cited a secret mission he conducted in February 2002 for the CIA, when he determined there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapons program in the African nation of Niger.

White House officials discussed Wilson's wife's CIA connection in telling at least two reporters that she helped arrange his trip, according to one of the reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and a lawyer familiar with the case.


Prosecutors have shown interest in the memo, especially when they were questioning White House officials during the early days of the investigation, people familiar with the probe said.

Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame's name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband's mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove's account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when "people in the special prosecutor's office" showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.

"He had not seen it or heard about it before that time," Luskin said.

Several other administration officials were on the trip to Africa, including senior adviser Dan Bartlett, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and others. Bartlett's attorney has refused to discuss the case, citing requests by the special counsel. Fleischer could not be reach for comment yesterday.

Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, have been identified as people who discussed Wilson's wife with Cooper. Prosecutors are trying to determine the origin of their knowledge of Plame, including whether it was from the INR memo or from conversations with reporters.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the memo made it clear that information about Wilson's wife was sensitive and should not be shared. Yesterday, sources provided greater detail on the memo to The Post.

The material in the memo about Wilson's wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.

The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.

It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.

On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.

Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office.

Read More...

President Calls on Congress To Extend Patriot Act Provisions

washingtonpost.com

President Calls on Congress To Extend Patriot Act Provisions
16 Items, Some Controversial, Set to Expire at End of Year

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer

BALTIMORE, July 20 -- President Bush visited this city's busy port Wednesday and renewed his call for Congress to extend the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which gives government wide latitude in investigating suspected terrorists.

Calling the law a potent weapon against terrorism, Bush said it gives law enforcement authorities the tools they need to stop terrorists before they strike. "This is no time to let our guard down, and no time to roll back good laws," he said. "The Patriot Act is expected to expire, but the terrorist threats will not expire."

Bush said the law, enacted in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, gives law enforcement and intelligence agencies new authority to share vital information.

He also credited the measure with helping authorities break up potential terrorist cells in several states.

"The Patriot Act hasn't diminished American liberties," Bush said. "It has helped to defend American liberties."

The Patriot Act includes 16 provisions that are set to expire at the end of the year unless renewed by Congress. Although most of the measures are not controversial, lawmakers are battling over the fate of several key surveillance and search provisions and whether to limit them or make them permanent. A vote on reauthorizing the Patriot Act is scheduled for today in the House, which is expected to approve it easily.

The situation is more complex in the Senate, where dueling bills from the judiciary and intelligence committees lay out starkly different approaches to the law.

The intelligence panel's version, sponsored by Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), would make the Patriot Act permanent and would also allow the FBI to issue administrative subpoenas and to more easily monitor mail as part of terrorism investigations, as advocated by the Bush administration. A separate bill proposed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) would add greater congressional oversight and would limit the government's powers in some areas.

Many civil liberties leaders and others have criticized the law as going too far in giving law enforcement authorities broad tools to investigate potential criminals. As a result, they say, it poses a threat to the privacy of law-abiding Americans by allowing authorities to employ measures such as roving wiretaps, and by giving them access to medical and library records in the course of investigations.


Bush said those techniques are governed by close oversight by the courts and others. He called them necessary in the war against would-be terrorists.

"This is a new kind of war," he said. "We are dealing with people who hide in the shadows of our cities. They kind of lay low, then they show up with deadly devices."

During his visit, Bush also showcased efforts to secure the nation's ports. He said new technology, the posting of U.S. customs inspectors at foreign ports and increases in federal grants have given the nation a better handle on the vast amount of cargo that continuously flows into the nation.

Before his speech, Bush toured the port and had an up-close look at a machine that is able to scan thick metal shipping containers for potential threats.

Still, critics in Congress, who have pushed unsuccessfully for more spending for port security, say the nation's ports remain unsafe. A report this year by the Government Accountability Office said U.S. ports remain vulnerable to terrorism, despite the increased spending and security efforts.

"Keeping our port and our people safe from terrorism is one of my top priorities, but it hasn't been a top priority for the president," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said in a statement. "We don't need port photo ops from the President; we need dollars for port security."

Maryland Democratic Party Chairman Terry Lierman echoed that view.

"There is a dramatic, dangerous gap between what the port gets and what the port needs," Lierman said.

Staff writer Dan Eggen in Washington contributed to this report.

Read More...

Bush administration opposes shield for journalists

Reuters

Bush administration opposes shield for journalists

By Patricia Wilson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Wednesday opposed federal legislation to protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources because it would create "serious impediments" to law enforcement and fighting terrorism.

With a New York Times reporter in jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury probe into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, bills in the Senate and House of Representatives allowing reporters to shield their sources in most cases have gained traction.

But in written testimony provided to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Comey called the legislation "bad public policy" and warned it would cover "criminal or terrorist organizations that also have media operations ... such as al Qaeda."

"The bill would create serious impediments to the department's ability to effectively enforce the law and fight terrorism," Comey wrote.

Comey did not appear in person, prompting Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California -- and others on the panel -- to call for another hearing to question him about his "rather serious indictment" of the legislation.

Journalists say using anonymous sources is crucial to their work, including exposing government wrongdoing in cases like the Watergate scandal that toppled Richard Nixon's presidency and the printing of the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War.

EXHAUST OTHER AVENUES

The proposed legislation would require federal prosecutors and courts to exhaust all other avenues to obtain information before compelling news outlets and journalists to testify or produce documents except in cases of potential harm to national security.

Thirty one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but Comey rejected any comparison.


"None of the states deals with classified information in the way that the federal government does and no state is tasked with defending the nation as a whole or conducting international diplomacy," he said.

The bipartisan bills would extend to journalists the same sort of privilege that protects the relationship between husband and wife, priest and penitent, lawyer and client, doctor and patient.

In the most recent high profile case, a federal judge jailed Judith Miller of the New York Times for refusing to disclose her source to prosecutors trying to find out who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity to the media.

A parade of media witnesses, lawyers and academics predicted the Plame case would have "a chilling effect" on freedom of the press and said the free flow of information to Americans was under threat.

William Safire, a New York Times columnist, compared Miller to a hostage and said he feared retaliation against her if he spoke out too openly.

"I must not anger or upset those who control her incarceration and who repeatedly threaten to pile on with longer punishment as a criminal unless she betrays her principles as a reporter," he said. "Journalists and reporters are not the fingers at the end of the long arm of the law."

Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, who along with Miller faced jail in the CIA leak case until his source gave him personal permission to testify, said the shield law was not about elevating journalists to "some priestly class."

"Without whistle-blowers who feel they can come forward with a degree of confidence, we might never have known the extent of the Watergate scandal or Enron's deceptions or events that needed to be exposed," Cooper told the committee.

Comey was not at the hearing because he was substituting for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at a meeting with House Republican leaders on the Patriot Act, a Justice Department spokeswoman said.

Read More...

Lugar Among Roberts' Donation Recipients

Yahoo! News
Lugar Among Roberts' Donation Recipients

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts has donated to the political campaigns of several Republican candidates, including one senator who will vote on Roberts' appointment to the high court.

In recent election years, Roberts has contributed more than $3,700 to Republican candidates, including $1,000 to George W. Bush's successful bid for the presidency in 2000.

Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, gave $500 to the 2000 re-election bid of Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., according to campaign contribution reports.


He also contributed $1,235 to the 1998 campaign of Republican Peter Fitzgerald, who defeated Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, a Democrat. Fitzgerald only served one term. Roberts gave $250 to Peter Rusthoven, a Republican who failed to gain the GOP nomination against Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., in 1998.

Much of Roberts' political giving was to his law firm's political action committee. He gave more than $5,600 to the Hogan & Hartson PAC, especially during the 1998 and 2000 election cycles.

In 1998, the Hogan & Hartson PAC made $111,800 in political donations, with more going to Republicans than Democrats. The same was true in 2000; Hogan & Hartson gave $67,000 to Republicans and $37,250 to Democrats.

Roberts' wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, also contributed $250 to Fitzgerald in 1998. The rest of her political contributions were to her law firm's political action committee. Mrs. Roberts is a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

She gave more than $4,000 to the firm's PAC. Unlike Hogan & Hartson, her firm favored Democrats over Republicans in campaign giving, contributing $126,750 to Democrats in 2000 and $78,550 to Republicans. In 1998, Shaw Pittman gave $76,350 to Democrats and $64,000 to Republicans.

Read More...

Roberts Upheld D.C. French-Fry Arrest

Yahoo! News
Roberts Upheld D.C. French-Fry Arrest

By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer

Judge John G. Roberts' views on abortion may be murky, but there's no question where he stands on the issue of girls eating fries in a subway station.

As a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts wrote a decision last year upholding the arrest of a 12-year-old girl who violated the ban on eating food on Washington's subway system, Metro.

But Roberts said that while the arrest was legal, he felt transit officers overreacted by handcuffing and jailing the girl.

"No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," he wrote. "Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry."

Still, Roberts agreed with a lower court ruling upholding the arrest


"The District court described the policies that led to her arrest as 'foolish,' and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," he wrote.

"The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the District court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm."

Two months after the arrest, and following a torrent of bad publicity, the transit agency revised its policy and said that children under 18 who committed minor offenses would instead be enrolled in a program run in cooperation with school authorities and other city officials.

Read More...

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

London mayor says West fueled Islamic radicalism

Yahoo! News
London mayor says West fueled Islamic radicalism

By Andrew Gray

Western foreign policy has fueled the Islamist radicalism behind the bomb attacks which killed more than 50 people in London, the British capital's mayor Ken Livingstone said on Wednesday.

Livingstone, who earned the nickname "Red Ken" for his left-wing views, won widespread praise for a defiant response which helped unite London after the bombings. But he has revived his reputation for courting controversy in recent days.

Asked on Wednesday what he thought had motivated the four suspected suicide bombers, Livingstone cited Western policy in the Middle East and early American backing for Osama bin Laden.

"A lot of young people see the double standards, they see what happens in (U.S. detention camp) Guantanamo Bay, and they just think that there isn't a just foreign policy," he said.

Police say they believe there is a clear link between bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the four British Muslims who blew up three underground trains and a double-decker bus on July 7.

"You've just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of a Western need for oil. We've propped up unsavory governments, we've overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic," Livingstone said.

"I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s ... the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians to drive them out of Afghanistan.

"They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that, he might turn on his creators," he told BBC radio.


ANGER OVER IRAQ

Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has insisted the bombings have no link to its foreign policy, particularly its decision to invade Iraq alongside the United States.

But an opinion poll this week showed two-thirds of Britons see a connection between the Iraq war and the bombings. A top think tank and a leaked intelligence memo have also suggested the war has made Britain more of a target for terrorists.

That did not stop the right-wing Daily Telegraph castigating Livingstone, a maverick member of Blair's Labour party who was celebrating London's selection as host of the 2012 Olympics just hours before the bombers struck.

Wednesday's edition of the paper featured a picture of the mayor between photographs of two radical Muslim clerics under the headline: "The men who blame Britain."

Livingstone has made clear he condemns all killing, including suicide bombing. But is also a long-standing critic of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.

"If you have been under foreign occupation, and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work, for three generations, I suspect if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves," he said on Wednesday.

Israel's ambassador to London Zvi Heifetz accused the mayor of expressing sympathy for Palestinian militants.

"It is outrageous that the same mayor who rightfully condemned the suicide bombing in London as perverted faith', defends those who, under the same extremist banner, kill Israelis," he said in a statement.

Read More...

Does Roberts represent mainstream law, values?

USA TODAY

Does Roberts represent mainstream law, values?

When President Bush was running for office, he said repeatedly he wanted to fill any Supreme Court vacancies with nominees in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — the justices most willing to overturn the court's established precedents.

Last Saturday, he said his choice would be a "fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values," a broader, if not entirely different, standard.

To cast instant judgment on which mold John Roberts fits more snugly would be wrong, if not impossible. Bush, in announcing his choice Tuesday, focused on Roberts' all-American credentials: athlete, scholar, respected Washington lawyer and family man. But Roberts' legal record, while certainly conservative, is largely opaque.

Roberts' limited experience as a federal appeals judge — scarcely two years and about 40 largely non-controversial opinions — gives few clues as to his legal philosophy. His work as a lawyer for previous Republican administrations and for private clients, though, offers some hints. He made arguments on abortion rights, free speech and church-state issues that are at odds with established law.

In one brief, for example, he suggested that Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion, had no basis in the Constitution and should be overturned. The question now is whether as a Supreme Court justice he would act to do so.

The Scalia-Thomas mantra was convenient political code for voters who oppose abortion, gay rights or affirmative action; reject government regulation of business, safety or the environment; or want official support for their brand of religion.

Whether such views are within the mainstream of American law and values is very much in doubt. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll 10 days ago, for instance, 29% of the public said Roe v. Wade should be overturned; 68% said it should be sustained.


The confirmation process, established by the Founders to make the Senate a co-equal with the president in appointing the judiciary, provides the opportunity to examine Roberts' constitutional philosophy. He should be asked in detail his views of how the Constitution should be interpreted. Is it rigid and unchanging, to be viewed only in its most literal, 18th century terms? Or should the apparent intent of the Founders be applied in the light of modern realities?

Should the modern interpretation of the right to regulate interstate commerce be sustained? Or would he, as some of his backers wish, revert to when there were few restraints on business, few rights for workers and little protection for consumers or the environment? And would he carve out exceptions to established law regarding freedom of speech or separation of church and state?

Mainstream law is the settled judgments of the Supreme Court. Roberts should be judged on whether or not he accepts the doctrines behind those judgments. To reject them would less conservative than radical.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-19-roberts-mainstream_x.htm

Read More...

Memo Gets Attention in Probe of CIA Leak

Yahoo! News
Memo Gets Attention in Probe of CIA Leak

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

A State Department memo that has caught the attention of prosecutors describes a CIA officer's role in sending her husband to Africa and disputes administration claims that Iraq was shopping for uranium, a retired department official said Tuesday.

The classified memo was sent to Air Force One just after former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson went public with his assertions that the Bush administration overstated the evidence that Iraq was interested in obtaining uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.

The memo has become a key piece of evidence in the CIA leak investigation because it could have been the way someone in the White House learned — and then leaked — the information that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and played a role in sending him on the mission.

The document was prepared in June 2003 at the direction of Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research, for Marc Grossman, the retired official said. Grossman was the Undersecretary of State who was in charge of the department while Secretary Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were traveling. Grossman needed the memo because he was dealing with other issues and was not familiar with the subject, the former official said.

"It wasn't a Wilson-Wilson wife memo," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way. "It was a memo on uranium in Niger and focused principally on our disagreement" with the White House.

Armitage called Ford after Wilson's op-ed piece in The New York Times and his TV appearance on July 6, 2003 in which he challenged the White House's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Armitage asked that Powell, who was traveling to Africa with Bush, be given an account of the Wilson trip, said the former official.

The original June 2003 memo was readdressed to Powell and included a short summary prepared by an analyst who was at a 2002 CIA meeting where Wilson's trip was arranged and was sent in one piece to Powell on Air Force One the next day.

The memo said Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and suggested her husband go to Niger because he had contacts there and had served as an American diplomat in Africa. However, the official said the memo did not say she worked undercover for the spy agency nor did it identify her as Valerie Plame, which was her maiden name and cover name at the CIA.

Her identity as Plame was disclosed first by columnist Robert Novak and then by Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. The leak investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is looking into who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity to reporters and whether any laws were broken.

A 1982 law prohibits the deliberate exposure of the identity of an undercover CIA officer.


Wilson believes the Bush administration leaked the name as retribution for his criticism.

President Bush said Monday he would fire any member of his staff who "committed a crime," a change from his previous vow to fire anyone involved in the leak.

The past two weeks have brought revelations that top presidential aide Karl Rove was involved in leaking the identity of Plame to Novak and to Cooper.

The former State Department official stressed the memo focused on Wilson's trip and the State Department intelligence bureau's disagreement with the White House's claim about Iraq trying to get nuclear material. He said the fact that the CIA officer and Wilson were husband and wife was largely an incidental reference.

The June 2003 memo had not gone higher than Grossman until Wilson's op-ed column for The New York Times headlined "What I Didn't Find In Africa" and his TV appearance to dispute the administration. Wilson's article asked the question: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion?"

___

On the Net:

State Department: http://www.state.gov

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Read More...

'25,000 civilians' killed in Iraq

BBC NEWS
'25,000 civilians' killed in Iraq

Nearly 25,000 civilians have died violently in Iraq since the US-led invasion in March 2003, a report says.

The dossier, based on media reports, says US-led forces were responsible for more than a third of the deaths.

The survey was carried out by the UK-based Iraq Body Count and Oxford Research Group - which includes academics and peace activists.

The Iraqi government criticised their conclusions, saying Iraqis were most at risk from terrorists who target them.

The Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005 says 37% of all non-combatant deaths were caused by the US-led coalition.


Most of these occurred during the invasion phase, which it counts as ending on 1 May 2003.

But killings by anti-occupation and criminal elements also increased steadily over the entire two-year period.

Insurgents are said to have caused 9% of the deaths, while post-invasion criminal violence was responsible for another 36%.

Targets

The number of civilians who have died has almost doubled in the second year from the first, according to the report.

Almost a fifth of the 24,865 deaths were women or children and nearly half of all the civilian deaths were reported in the capital Baghdad.

"On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003," said John Sloboda, one of the authors of the report.

"The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq," he added.

Mr Sloboda also said: "It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two-and-a-half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."

The Iraqi government welcomed the attention the report gave to Iraqi victims, but said it was a mistake to claim that the "plague of terrorism" had killed fewer Iraqis than the multinational forces.

"The international forces try to avoid civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists target civilians and try to kill as many of them as they can," it said in a statement.

"The root cause of Iraq's suffering is terrorism, inherited from Saddam's fascist regime and from mistaken fundamentalist ideology.

"Everybody knows that international forces are necessary in Iraq, on a temporary basis and they will leave Iraq at a time chosen by Iraqis, not in response to terrorist pressure."

'Failure'

The IBC wants to see an independent commission set up in Iraq to give the best estimate of civilian deaths and full details of how each person died.

Human rights groups say the occupying powers in Iraq have failed in their duty to catalogue the deaths of civilians.

But the US and Britain say the chaos of war-torn Iraq has made it impossible to get accurate information.

More than 1,700 US soldiers and dozens of other coalition troops are known to have died.

The Iraqi government says 1,300 Iraqi police and military have been killed since security forces were set up in late 2003. But US think-tank the Brookings Institute puts the figure at almost twice this number.

More than half of all civilian deaths were said to have been caused by explosive devices, which disproportionately affected children.

At least 42,500 civilians were reported to have been injured.

The UK-based Iraq Body Count - run by academics and peace activists - is one of the most widely-quoted sources of information on the civilian death toll in Iraq.

The Oxford Research Group describes itself as an independent organisation "which seeks to develop effective methods whereby people can bring about positive change on issues of national and international security by non-violent means".

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4692589.stm

Read More...

Iraq's dangerous new friend

latimes.com

Iraq's dangerous new friend
Robert Scheer

On sunday, George W. Bush's war against terror was turned upside down — and this time the president might even notice. That's because when "our guys" in Iraq start firmly allying with an "axis of evil" nation, its got to ring some warning bells, no?

I am referring to the joint declaration issued in Tehran by the leaders of Iraq and Iran: "Today, we need a double and common effort to confront terrorism that may spread in the region and the world," said Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, visiting Iran along with 10 of his ministers, following a similar visit from his defense minister. The statement he and his Iranian counterparts produced heralds mutual cooperation between the two neighbors, which will include a cross-border oil pipeline, joint security proposals and shared intelligence information.

Suddenly everyone's against terror!

I wish it were so. But it's not. Consider that while in Tehran, Jafari also paid tribute to the father of the Iranian theocracy, visiting the shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. That the fanaticism of Khomeini is very much alive in today's Iran was clear from the election last month of one of his original Revolutionary Guards to be the country's new president.

In making a pilgrimage to Shiite Iran, the Shiite Iraqi government was also paying homage to the longtime refuge and supporter of Iraqi Shiite revolutionaries, including Jafari himself, who spent 10 years in exile there. Jafari also reiterated an earlier statement in which his government apologized for Iraq's role in the long war with Iran. (How awkward for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. envoy who carried a message of support to Saddam Hussein 20 years ago, when that war was considered by President Reagan's government as a convenient, if terribly bloody, way to distract and weaken Iran.)

Now, thanks to the U.S. invasion, a new alliance is being formed between Iran and Iraq that threatens to further destabilize the politics of the Mideast. It wasn't supposed to work out this way.


Forced democratization of Iraq, according to its neocon architects, was supposed to secure oil for the U.S., protect Israel, open markets to Western corporations and, oh yeah, maybe even decrease terrorism. After the invasion, however, the U.S., faced with decidedly more hostility and fewer flowers than expected, was loath to allow elections, because their outcome would probably not produce a pliant government.

Then Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the Shiite religious leader, threatened to take his followers into the streets against the foreign occupation if one-person-one-vote elections were not allowed. And when it became clear the "wrong" guys might win the elections the U.S. was forced to hold, the Bush White House, according to an investigative article by Seymour Hersh in the current New Yorker, tried to buy the vote for former CIA asset Iyad Allawi.

When Allawi's slate was soundly defeated, what was Bush to do? With absolutely nothing having gone right in Iraq between the successful military invasion and the inspiring election nearly two years later, he had no choice but to embrace the winners — mostly Shiite, mostly fundamentalists — as the saviors of a free and democratic Iraq.

Sadly, they are nothing of the sort. In Basra, where they have been in power since the U.S. invasion, religious thugs are in de facto control, applying more oppressive theocratic rules over women's behavior and other basic human rights than neighboring Iran.

Even worse, their victory has fueled fierce Sunni resentment, and the accompanying insurgency has begun targeting Shiite civilians with the clear goal of fomenting ethnic war. Over the weekend, more than 100 people were killed by suicide bombers. Sistani himself denounced what he ominously said was now a "genocidal war."

Facing that hideous possibility, is it surprising to find the Iraqi government looking for help from powerful Iran? No, but it certainly poses a problem for the White House, which now finds itself putting American soldiers' lives on the line every day to prop up an active ally of the country that we claim, with some plausibility, funds anti-Israeli and other terror groups and is bent on making its own nuclear bomb.

Somewhere a guy named Osama bin Laden must be laughing.

Read More...

States Trying to Blunt Property Ruling

Yahoo! News
States Trying to Blunt Property Ruling

By MAURA KELLY LANNAN, Associated Press Writer

Alarmed by the prospect of local governments seizing homes and turning the property over to developers, lawmakers in at least half the states are rushing to blunt last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding the power of eminent domain.

In Texas and California, legislators have proposed constitutional amendments to bar government from taking private property for economic development. Politicians in Alabama, South Dakota and Virginia likewise hope to curtail government's ability to condemn land.

Even in states like Illinois — one of at least eight that already forbid eminent domain for economic development unless the purpose is to eliminate blight — lawmakers are proposing to make it even tougher to use the procedure.

"People I've never heard from before came out of the woodwork and were just so agitated," said Illinois state Sen. Susan Garrett, a Democrat. "People feel that it's a threat to their personal property, and that has hit a chord."

The Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Connecticut case that was decided by the Supreme Court, said at least 25 states are considering changes to eminent domain laws.

The Constitution says governments cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." Governments have traditionally used their eminent domain authority to build roads, reservoirs and other public projects. But for decades, the court has been expanding the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that New London, Conn., had the authority to take homes for a private development project. But in its ruling, the court noted that states are free to ban that practice — an invitation lawmakers are accepting in response to a flood of e-mails, phone calls and letters from anxious constituents.

"The Supreme Court's decision told homeowners and business owners everywhere that there's now a big `Up for Grabs' sign on their front lawn," said Dana Berliner, an attorney with the Institute for Justice. "Before this, people just didn't realize that they could lose their home or their family's business because some other person would pay more taxes on the same land. People are unbelievably upset."


Don Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities, which backed New London in its appeal to the high court, said government's eminent domain power is important for revitalizing neighborhoods. He said any changes to state law should be done after careful reflection.

"There's a rush to respond to the emotional impact. Our view is, step back, let's look at the issue in the broadest sense and if there are changes that are reflected upon, that's appropriate," he said.

In Alabama, Republican Gov. Bob Riley is drawing up a bill that would prohibit city and county governments from using eminent domain to take property for retail, office or residential development. It would still allow property to be taken for industrial development, such as new factories, and for roads and schools.

In Connecticut, politicians want to slap a moratorium on the use of eminent domain by municipalities until the Legislature can act.

One critic of the ruling has suggested local officials take over Supreme Court Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turn it into a hotel. Souter voted with the majority in the Connecticut case.

Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington already forbid the taking of private property for economic development except to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly on the question.

Illinois state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger, a Republican who is considering a run for governor, said the state's blight laws need to be more restrictive.

"The statutory definition of blight in Illinois is broader than the Mississippi River at its mouth," he said. "They have taken everything from underdeveloped lakefront property to open green-grass farmfields as being defined as blighted."

Action also is taking place at the federal level, where a proposal would ban the use of federal funds for any project moving forward because of the Supreme Court decision. And the Institute for Justice said it will ask the Supreme Court to rehear the New London case, but acknowledged that the prospects of that happening are dim.

"One of the things, I think, that is elemental to American freedom is the right to have and hold private property and not to interfere with that right," Rauschenberger said. "For Americans, it's like the boot on the door. You can't kick in the door and come in my house unless I invite you."

___

On the Net:

Kelo v. New London: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf

Read More...

What the leaked JTAC memo means

timesonline.co.uk
London Bombs
Q&A: What the leaked JTAC memo means

Michael Evans, Times Defence Editor, says the leaked memo raises serious questions about the UK's intelligence service

What is the group that drew up this memo?

The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre was set up in May 2003, at first mainly to foster closer co-operation between MI5 and the police. It was considered necessary to have some sort of central analysis centre in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

Now JTAC has broadened out and includes representatives from 11 Government departments including Transport, the Home Office, the Foreign Office and so on.

All of its officers are dedicated to gleaning information on international terrorism. They work around the clock, seven days a week. This is now the key analysis centre for all intelligence, covert and overt, foreign and domestic, that arrives in the UK. They compile their reports and that information is passed on to ministers.

Would lowering the threat status have had any practical effect in making us less safe?

If you lower the security level, it means that the intelligence services believe that there is no-one around posing a particular threat. There had been no evidence of any al-Qaeda chatter to indicate that there was a focus on Britain in any specific or even any general way.

Government officials are probably correct in saying that going down from "severe general" to "substantial" would not have any noticeable effect in terms of the number of police on the streets, but I think they are perhaps being a little disingenuous.


After all, if lowering the status makes no difference, why bother lowering it?

It's more likely to be a matter of the mindset of the intelligence officers: if you are poring over material and you believe that the general threat is not that great, maybe that would affect how seriously you treat the intelligence that you come across.

This looks embarrassing, but who is to blame?

If the leak is accurate it is highly embarrassing. This decision was made a month before the attacks took place and the most senior intelligence officers in Britain did not have any evidence.

Nevertheless, the fact is that they didn't know there was a terror attack imminent. There was nothing at all in the intelligence which showed there was a group of people from Leeds plotting to mount two bomb attacks in London.

The failure was not so much that they downgraded the response, but that they didn't have any intelligence at all. Whether that means that they are not doing their job properly is another matter.

Intelligence is not something which is going to land on your plate. It's quite clearly possible for a sophisticated terrorist group to plan something like this without letting on. In a democratic society you have to rely on information - electronic and human intelligence - before you can take any decisions.

So yes, it is a failure, but unless it can be proved that Agent A actually saw this intelligence and failed to act upon it, it's very difficult to say that anyone is to blame.

It's always easier to piece these things together in retrospect. JTAC and the police are now doing everything in hindsight. They are looking at every single intelligence report they received since 2001 to see if there was anything which indicated that July 7 was the day of the attack. The phrase they used to me is that so far they have found "absolutely nothing".

Had Britain become complacent when the long-predicted attack failed to materialise?

I don't think we can accuse the police or the intelligence services of being comeplacent. We know, thanks to Sir John Stevens - the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner - that the police have stopped eight terrorist attacks on this country since 2001. That figure has been disputed by the present Met commissioner, but certainly half a dozen terrorist attacks have been foiled.

By anyone's reckoning, that's an amazing achievement. The fact they failed on this occasion is devastating, but I don't believe they let their guard slip.

So, what can be done to prevent future terrorists slipping beneath the radar?

Other than hugely increasingly the number of people engaged in surveillance - which is what they are trying to do - it's difficult to know. It takes something like eight months to train someone to be a surveillance watcher, and it takes months and months to vet them beforehand. The only other option is to pour a lot of money in and get more people out on the streets.

The Conservatives are already calling for an inquiry. Will heads roll?

The opposition are reducing their demands a lot, and to all intents and purposes an inquiry is already being held. I don't think anyone is looking for heads to roll unless there is evidence that someone was professionally incompetent and totally failed to do his or her job properly. In that case, as in any organisation, that person should get the chop.

But the fact is we probably wouldn't get to hear about it. If they do hold a formal inquiry, I suspect it will be very much an internal investigation. The Home Secretary would have to make a statement in the Commons and that would probably lead to calls from the opposition for resignations, but I don't think that would really help.

Read More...

Changing Stories

From John Kerry:

How many more times will Karl Rove make President Bush eat his words and shred his credibility before Karl Rove does the honorable thing and leaves the White House?

Yesterday the President furiously backpedaled from his promise to fire anyone involved in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press. Now that it's known that Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby were involved, the President has lowered the bar and now says he'll only fire someone who is convicted of a crime.

President Bush is setting a terrible standard of leadership in the White House by protecting insubordinate aides who refused to come forward when the President demanded to know who in his administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity -- and he's sending a disturbing message about our national security.

The President should not wait to find out whether Rove is convicted in the end for his leak. Either Rove lied to the President about this matter of national security, which means he should be fired immediately, or the President is not being straight with the American people about his own involvement in this case.

With all the dissembling coming out of the White House, it's clear that the only way the American people can get to the bottom of this is through full Congressional hearings. I will call for hearings this week -- and you can strengthen this call by adding your name to our petition today:

http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove


With both the House and Senate in Republican hands it will be difficult to force Congressional hearings on the Bush White House. Having as many statements as possible from people in every state will help my colleagues and me show that this is what America wants. According to a poll released yesterday by ABC News, 75% of Americans believe that Karl Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information.

More than 300,000 people have signed on so far -- help us double our numbers by forwarding this email to your friends asking them to sign:

http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove

Thank you,

John Kerry

Read More...

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Update: Bush nominates Roberts as next Supreme Court Justice

Update:
The press was wrong. What a surprise.
The president nominated Judge Roberts.

Here is a link to some of the decisions by Judge Roberts:
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/07/selected_opinio.html


Earlier post:

President Bush is scheduled to announce his nomination to replace Justice O'Connor tonight at 9:00pm. The press believes it is going to be Judge Clement.

Here is a link to some of the decisions by Judge Clement:
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/07/rolling_list_of.html

Read More...

Pro-war parents: How to get your kid into uniform

Pro-war parents: How to get your kid into uniform

By Beth Quinn
Times Herald-Record
bquinn@th-record.com

This one is for you parents who think our fight in Iraq is a really swell idea.
As you may know, the Army is having trouble getting kids to join up. Recruitment is down on account of all the soldiers dying in the desert. Go figure.
And you know whose fault it is? YOURS.
They need kids. They need YOUR kid!
But YOUR kid is still hanging around the house. Going to college, working, standing in front of the fridge. Unwilling to make the ULTIMATE SACRIFICE for … well, whatever it is we're fighting for.
Be honest. You're not doing your part as a parent, either. You're in favor of the war in Iraq but want to send someone else's kid instead of yours, right? What kind of American parent are you, anyway?
It's time to get that kid out of the house and into a uniform! And I'm here to tell you how. It's easy. The government has already done most of the work for you.
You might have noticed that recruiters have been calling your kid lately. That's because your school district gave them his name and number.
The school had to. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act says schools must give up every kid or they lose federal funding. Money talks, nobody walks.
Plus, the military is tracking your kid in a mega-database of its own. The Pentagon hired an outside marketing firm – really! – to create JAMR.
That stands for the Joint Advertising and Market Research Recruiting Database.
Cool name, Pentagon! But in the interest of truth in advertising, why not just call it Cannon Fodder?
So the recruiters are already out there, swarming around your kid like so many gnats. They're trying to smooth-talk him into signing up so he can go fight for … well, whatever it is we're fighting for.
But that's not enough. You need to get proactive. Instead of waiting for them to come to your kid, you should sit him down at the computer and go to the recruiters! Here are some sites you might want to hit.
www.usarec.army.mil/1stbde/1abn This is the site of the U.S. Army Recruiting Battalion Albany Eagles, which oversees local recruitment. Check out the Partnership in Education program, which is a little arrangement between the Army and school personnel to guide your kid into the military. It's an unholy alliance, but – hey! – we need warm bodies in those uniforms.

[NOTE: If you are located elsewhere, go to http://www.usarec.army.mil/bdemap.html to find the recruiting batallion near you.]


www.goarmy.com This site has nice graphics and warlike drum music – plus a whole section on the Army's Nascar and motorcycle racing teams. (Join the Army and get a Harley!) It also urges your kid to visit the nearest recruitment office. (In Middletown, it's at 453 Route 211 East, Suite 208. Directions provided.)
These folks know you've been to the site – even if you just looked – so it'll be hard to shake them. They send a lot of pop-up surveys. Just to be friendly. Really.
www.marines.com And who wouldn't want to be a Marine? The best part of this site is, when you contact a recruiter, you get a free official Marine Corps carabiner key chain – with no obligation! Semper fi.
www.navy.com Excellent music and shipboard sound effects. You can visit with your "virtual recruiter," who says it's his job to "help you." He's kind of like a protective big brother. Who could resist?
www.airforce.com Videos, downloads, wallpaper – all about flying the friendly skies and jumping out of airplanes. How much fun is that!
So there you have it, pro-war parents. All you need to know so your kid can be all that he can be – at least until he's dead.

P.S. For you anti-war parents who are against sending your kid to fight for … well, whatever it is we're fighting for, I have a couple of sites for you, too:
www.themmob.com This is Mainstreet Moms Operation Blue, which has launched the Leave My Child Alone Campaign.
www.militaryfreeschools.org This site includes the Student Opt-Out Form. If you fill it out and give it to the school, it prevents the district from giving your kid's name to the military. (No one can opt out of the Pentagon's Cannon Fodder database, though.)
http://mothersagainstthedraft.org Opt-out info and details about what the Pentagon knows about your kid.

Beth Quinn's column appears on Monday. Talk to her at 845-346-3147 or at bquinn@th-record.com.

Read More...

The Nixon White House Would Blush

Huffingtonpost.com
Rep. John Conyers
The Nixon White House Would Blush

Can there be any doubt after today that a president who rode into town promising “honesty and integrity” has brought our ethical standards to a new low?

We now have a White House operation in place that is a pure, unadulterated political machine, with no discernible ethical scruples. They think nothing of baselessly attacking any and all political opponents – just ask Senator Max Cleland and John McCain. And they will circle the wagons around their key loyalists, no matter how culpable – see Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

We learned from Downing Street, that the White House was willing to “fix the facts around the policy,” no matter the cost in lives or our nation’s reputation. Rovegate involves the same modus operandi: When faced with a growing scandal before the election, Bush righteously promised to throw out any and all leakers. McClellan went so far as to tell us it would be “ludicrous” to accuse Rove or Libby of leaks. Now that there is no doubt that those statements are false and, presto, the standard has changed to “if someone committed a crime.”

The powers that be at the White House really can’t be so naive as to believe that the American public will fall for this charade, so the only possible conclusion is that they have entered into a “save Rove at all costs strategy,” even if it means making earlier statements “inoperative” and eliminating any and all White House ethical standards short of criminal misconduct. Apparently, “Bush’s brain” is so central to the White House operation, that Bush is willing to bet his presidency on the outcome of Fitzgerald’s investigation. To me that is truly scary.


Two articles [below] out today to bring to your attention. First, the AP has a story on Bush’s changing the ethical rules in the middle of the game, including a quote by the undersigned.

Second, the LA Times has an excellent overview of where we are and how we got here.

There is really no doubt at this point that two key political operatives in the White House, namely Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby, set about to smear Joe Wilson. They used the media to out a CIA operative, vehemently denied they had done so, and now that they cannot deny it any more, Bush backtracked to change the standard for dismissal from leaking to criminal misconduct. Now they are simply hoping and praying that both the necessary level of legal willfulness cannot be shown and that the press and Democrats can be bullied or intimidated into thinking that ethics -- as well as internal security requirements -- don't matter.

Look for the White House to try to change the subject very soon.

Read More...

Rove and Cheney chief of staff were intent on discrediting Wilson

latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak18jul18,0,4779848.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Top Aides Reportedly Set Sights on Wilson
Rove and Cheney chief of staff were intent on discrediting CIA agent's husband, prosecutors have been told.
By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Top aides to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were intensely focused on discrediting former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV in the days after he wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times suggesting the administration manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq, federal investigators have been told.

Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Although lower-level White House staffers typically handle most contacts with the media, Rove and Libby began personally communicating with reporters about Wilson, prosecutors were told.

A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove reportedly responded: "He's a Democrat." Rove then cited Wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward Democrats, the person familiar with the case said.

The disclosures about the officials' roles illustrate White House concern about Wilson's July 6, 2003, article, which challenged the administration's assertion that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear materials. Wilson's article appeared as Rove and other Bush aides were preparing the 2004 reelection campaign strategy, which was built largely around the president's response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

It is not surprising that White House officials would be upset by an attack like Wilson's or seek to respond aggressively. But special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is examining whether they or others crossed the legal line by improperly disclosing classified information, or whether they perjured themselves in testifying later about their actions. Both Rove and Libby have testified.

News of the high-level interest in discrediting Wilson comes as White House defenders, most notably officials at the Republican National Committee, argue that Rove has been vindicated of suspicion that he was a primary source of the leak. Knowingly revealing the identity of a covert operative is a federal crime.

Regardless of Rove's legal liability, the description of his role runs contrary to earlier White House statements that Rove and Libby were not involved in the unmasking of Wilson's wife, and it suggests they were part of a campaign to discredit Wilson.


Wilson, a career Foreign Service officer who served in Iraq and several African nations, was sent by the CIA in 2002 to investigate whether Iraq had attempted to purchase nuclear materials from Niger. His New York Times article declaring that he had found no credible evidence of such an attempt despite the administration's continued claims that there had been one unleashed charges from White House officials that he was a partisan.

White House officials contended that he had wrongly indicated that he was sent on his mission by Cheney. In fact, Wilson had said in the article that the trip was inspired by questions raised by Cheney's office.

Eight days after Wilson's article was published, a syndicated column by Robert Novak questioned the credibility of Wilson's trip, suggesting that it had been arranged with the help of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, at the CIA.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has cited recent news reports that Rove heard about Wilson's wife from reporters and that he was not an original source. Those reports said that Rove in fact sought to dissuade Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper — one of the journalists with whom he discussed Wilson's wife — from writing a piece about Wilson's charge.

"Based on the information that has come out over the last several days, the one thing that's absolutely clear is that Karl was not the source for the leak and there's no basis for any additional speculation," Luskin said.

A White House spokesman, David Almacy, declined to comment Sunday. "This is an ongoing investigation, and we will be happy to talk about this once it is completed, but not until then," he said.

Prosecutors' intense questioning of witnesses about Rove and Libby casts doubt on assertions that the president's longtime political guru was not — at least at some point — in Fitzgerald's sights.

Fitzgerald is expected to conclude his investigation this year with a detailed report.

Bush said he would fire anyone responsible for any illegal leaks. Democrats have called on Bush to fire Rove, now a deputy White House chief of staff, or at least to revoke Rove's security clearance.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Rove and the White House deserved credit for cooperating with Fitzgerald. "Cooperate, cooperate, cooperate" was the policy, said Mehlman, who once was Rove's deputy at the White House.

Cooper, who testified last week before Fitzgerald's grand jury concerning his conversations with White House officials about Wilson, confirmed Sunday that prosecutors showed intense interest in the roles played by Rove and Libby in discussing Wilson's wife.

In an article in the latest issue of Time magazine titled "What I Told the Grand Jury," Cooper writes that the grand jurors investigated his interactions with Rove in "microscopic, excruciating detail."

He says he called Rove after Wilson's article appeared and asked about it. "I recall saying something like, 'I'm writing about Wilson,' before he interjected," Cooper writes. " 'Don't get too far out on Wilson,' he told me."

Cooper writes that his first knowledge of Wilson's wife came when Rove disclosed on "deep background" that she worked for the CIA, but that he did not learn her name until he read it in Novak's column several days later.

Novak was the first journalist to identify Plame by name, along with her role as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He wrote that two senior administration officials told him Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger.

"As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which," Cooper writes. "Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the 'agency' — by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on 'WMD' (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction)issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."

In his article, Cooper also recalls that Rove ended their conversation with a cryptic caution: "I've already said too much."

"This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else," Cooper writes.

As for Libby, Cooper writes that he told investigators in 2004 about a conversation in which the Cheney advisor seemed to confirm the identity of Wilson's wife. But the conversation was "on background." It is not clear from Cooper's account whether Libby's response was based on original information or gossip he picked up from other journalists.

"On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger," Cooper writes. "Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that too,' or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame's name."

Based on what he was asked in the grand jury, Cooper speculates in his personal account that Fitzgerald might be pursuing Rove — or, perhaps just as likely, the person or document that provided the information to Rove and other administration officials.

Fitzgerald, Cooper writes, "asked me several different ways if Rove indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. (He did not, I told the grand jury.)"

The intensity of Fitzgerald's inquiry has picked up in recent weeks, particularly since Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller lost a court battle over shielding confidential sources. Cooper agreed to testify, but Miller refused to reveal her source and has been jailed for contempt of court.

Activities aboard Air Force One are also of interest to prosecutors — including the possible distribution of a State Department memo that mentioned Wilson's wife. Prosecutors are seeking to find out whether anyone who saw the memo learned Plame's identity and passed the information to journalists. Telephone logs from the presidential aircraft have been subpoenaed. Among those aboard was former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who has testified.

One of the sources familiar with the investigation said Saturday that prosecutors had obtained a White House call sheet showing that Novak left a message for Fleischer the day after Wilson's op-ed article appeared and the day Fleischer left with the president for Africa. Fleischer declined to comment for this article but has flatly denied being the source of the leak.

Wilson said in an interview Saturday he had known that Novak was interested in him a week or so before the column appeared. He said a friend who saw Novak on the street reported that Novak told him, "Wilson is an asshole and his wife works for the CIA."

As for the intensity of White House interest in him after the column, Wilson said: "I am sorry that 6,900 American soldiers have been injured and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and injured all because these guys sent us to war under false pretenses."

Wilson speculated in a book he wrote last year that it was Libby who was "responsible for exposing my wife's identity." Libby has indicated to investigators that he learned the identity of Plame from journalists.

Rove has told investigators the same, although a person familiar with his testimony said that the possibility that Rove learned the information from the journalists indirectly — possibly even through Libby — could not be ruled out. The person said Rove simply had no firm recollection.

There have been other indications of a concerted White House action against Wilson. Two days before Novak's column, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus was told by an "administration official" that the White House was not putting much stock in the Wilson trip to Africa because it was "set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction," according to an account of the conversation Pincus wrote for this summer's Nieman Reports, published by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University.

Pincus discussed the substance of the conversation with prosecutor Fitzgerald last fall under an arrangement where Pincus did not have to tell Fitzgerald who the administration source was.

And Fleischer also seemed attuned to a strategy of discrediting Wilson. Two days before Novak revealed Plame's identity, Fleischer questioned the former envoy's findings in remarks to reporters during a trip with Bush in Africa.

The transcript of that press gaggle (the term for an informal question-and-answer between reporters and the White House spokesman), which took place in the National Hospital in Abuja, Nigeria, has been requested by the prosecutors.

Times staff writer Richard B. Schmitt contributed to this report.

Read More...