Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Payola Redux

First, some history for those of you who may not remember or may not be old enough to remember.

From
http://www.history-of-rock.com/payola.htm

Payola - The paying of cash or gifts in exchange for airplay.

"Payola" is a contraction of the words "pay" and"Victrola" (LP record player), and entered the English language via the record business. The first court case involving payola was in 1960. On May 9, Alan Freed was indicted for accepting $2,500 which he claimed was a token of gratitude and did not affect airplay. He paid a small fine and was released. His career faltered and in 1965 he drank himself to death.

Before Alan Freed's indictment, payola was not illegal, however, but commercial bribery was. After the trial, the anti-payola statute was passed under which payola became a misdemeanor, penalty by up to $10,000 in fines and one year in prison.


===

latimes.com
Paying a Price
Sony BMG reaches a $10-million settlement of allegations it bribed stations to get its songs on the air

By Charles Duhigg and Walter Hamilton
Times Staff Writers

When executives at Sony BMG needed to drum up support in 2002 for Jennifer Lopez's album "This Is Me … Then," they called the program director of a San Diego radio station and offered her a 32-inch plasma TV in exchange for adding the artist's songs to her play list.

Sony BMG Music Entertainment knew such payola, or "pay-for-play," was improper. Nonetheless, the company asked the programmer to provide a fictitious contest winner's name and Social Security number to cover up her involvement.

The station executive got her TV, and J-Lo got her spins.

The alleged exchange was disclosed in a treasure trove of e-mails, BlackBerry messages and other documents made public Monday by New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer. That electronic paper trail led the second-largest music company to a $10-million settlement.

Spitzer said Sony BMG executives offered "outright bribes" to radio programmers to make sure the company's artists got heard. Among the goodies Sony BMG gave employees of stations owned by Infinity Broadcasting Corp., Clear Channel Communications Inc. and others: airplane tickets, cash, vacation packages, PlayStation video game systems, DVD players and laptop computers.

In one e-mail that Spitzer released, a station manager who allegedly accepted gifts joked to Sony BMG executives: "I'm a whore this week. What can I say?"

Sony BMG, home to such artists as Tony Bennett and the Dixie Chicks, promised Monday not to pay radio stations in exchange for airplay. The company issued a formal statement acknowledging that "various employees pursued some radio promotion practices on behalf of the company that were wrong and improper." The company also fired an executive vice president of promotions at one of its labels.

Radio airplay is considered the most powerful promotional tool for record companies. Payola has plagued the music industry since the 1930s, with disc jockeys at times accepting cash, drugs or prostitutes in exchange for airplay.

At the news conference in his Lower Manhattan office, Spitzer said payola today was as widespread and "corrosive" as it was in the 1950s.


"It is omnipresent," Spitzer said. "It is driving the industry. And it is wrong. It reaches to the very top of the industry on the radio side and on the label side."

In 1960, Congress passed an anti-payola law banning broadcasters from taking cash or anything of value in exchange for playing specific songs unless they disclosed the transaction to listeners. Spitzer launched his investigation based on a similar law passed by the New York Legislature.

Spitzer's investigation continues at the other three major record companies — Universal Music Group, EMI Group and Warner Music Group — as well as at the country's largest radio corporations. Many industry insiders say the Sony BMG settlement could provide a template for agreements with other companies. Each company said it was cooperating with Spitzer but declined to comment further.

Documents released as part of the Sony BMG settlement depicted the seamier side of the music business, in which under-the-table payments and nudge-and-wink deals were so common that no one even tried to hide them.

"What do I have to do to get Audioslave on WKSS this week?!!?" a Sony BMG employee promoting the Audioslave song "Like a Stone" wrote to a Clear Channel programmer in 2003. "Whatever you can dream up, I can make it happen!!!"

Documents show that through its labels, which include Epic Records, Columbia Records and Sony Urban, Sony BMG routinely financed on-air contests in which stations gave away vacation packages, concert tickets and other items. In exchange, the company — whose involvement was not revealed to listeners — demanded not just spins of particular songs but airplay during the hours when the most people were listening. If they didn't get it, executives didn't mince words.

"OK, here it is in black and white," one frustrated Epic promotion executive wrote to a colleague after giving Las Vegas "flyaways" — or airplane travel packages — to radio station employees in exchange for playing Celine Dion's "I Drove All Night." If the stations played the song only late at night, the employee wrote, "they are not getting the flyaway." The e-mail also warned that programmers risked forfeiting the opportunity to play blackjack with Dion, who is based in Las Vegas.

According to Spitzer's office, Sony BMG also expended "significant resources" to manipulate call-in request lines, paying interns and others to repeatedly phone stations posing as listeners. To make sure the callers sounded authentic, Sony BMG employees issued specific guidelines.

"You need to rotate your people," an Epic promotion employee wrote last year in an e-mail to a call-in campaign leader. "My guys on the inside say that it's the same couple of girls calling in every week and that they are not inspired enough to be put on the air. They've got to be excited. They need to be going out, or getting drunk, or going in the hot [tub], or going clubbing…. You get the idea."

Spitzer took his sharpest aim at radio stations, saying they "are the ones most fundamentally who are violating the public trust."

According to e-mails released by Spitzer's office, senior staff members at Sony BMG's Columbia Records worried in 2001 that radio giant Clear Channel would boycott Columbia's releases unless the label paid more for airplay.

The e-mails suggest that employees of both Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting, the second-largest radio company, may have taken payments from Sony BMG in return for airplay. Spitzer has subpoenaed documents from both radio companies.

An Infinity spokesman declined to comment on the investigation. A Clear Channel representative said the nation's largest radio group was cooperating fully and that "allegations made today will be fully investigated and any wrongdoing will be met by swift and appropriate disciplinary action."

Spitzer's inquiry may also prompt an investigation by the Federal Communications Commission, which is responsible for enforcing payola laws. In an interview, Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein said he was calling for his agency to launch an inquiry, which could lead to revocation of radio licenses if illegal payments were substantiated.

"If it turns out there is massive and widespread violation of the rules, I don't see how we can't take extreme actions against the guilty licensees," Adelstein said.

The agency has extended limited oversight into payola issues and has imposed only one fine, for $8,000, in a payola case in the last decade.

Under the settlement, Sony BMG will work only with third-party promoters who promise to not offer inducements to radio employees. The company also agreed not to manipulate radio airplay charts by purchasing advertisements that include snippets of songs. That practice can drive up the "spin counts" used to measure a song's popularity.

The settlement won't ban all gifts. Sony BMG may pay for listener giveaways and give station employees concert tickets, modest personal gifts and meals costing as much as $150 per person.

The settlement also permits the company's artists to perform at radio-sponsored events, a practice some critics describe as "play-ola," because radio stations can sponsor huge concerts without having to pay the performing bands.

It was unclear how much the settlement would affect the culture of Sony BMG, a partnership between Japanese electronics giant Sony Corp. and German media company Bertelsmann.

On Monday, the company fired Joel Klaiman, executive vice president of promotion at Epic Records, for activities related to Spitzer's investigation. Company insiders said other employees were disciplined but expected no further firings as a result of the probe.

"Paying for songs has been almost standard operating procedure for years and years," said a Sony BMG executive who requested anonymity because he feared antagonizing Spitzer's office. "From this day forward, heads will roll. But, in terms of corporate scandals, we're talking about TV sets and trips to Florida. It's not Wall Street scandals."

Donnie Michaels of Miami's WHYI, one of the programmers identified in the e-mails, said he did nothing wrong.

According to the e-mails, Sony BMG employees knew Michaels so well that when making a hotel reservation one specified: "Make sure Donnie is not staying in a room too high, he has a fear of heights."

Said Michaels: "I was just doing what everyone else was doing."

*

To see e-mail files Spitzer's office released, see the article at latimes.com.

Read More...

AG: High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade

Yahoo! News
AG: High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

The legal right to abortion is settled for lower courts, but the Supreme Court "is not obliged to follow" the Roe v. Wade precedent, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday as the Senate prepared to consider John Roberts' appointment that would put a new vote on the high court.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Gonzales said a justice does not have to follow a previous ruling "if you believe it's wrong," a comment suggesting Roberts would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 decision settled the issue.

On other subjects in a wide-ranging interview with AP editors and reporters, Gonzales:

• Declined to answer questions about his decision while White House counsel to delay notifying most White House staff about a Justice Department investigation into the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.

• Defended indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as "absolutely the right decision" in the war against terrorism.

• Said the administration opposes federal legislation to shield reporters from having to reveal confidential sources, but also said the government has been "very very careful," issuing only a dozen subpoenas since 1991 seeking reporters' confidential sources.


Roberts was nominated by President Bush to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who favors abortion rights. Though Roberts has not expressed his personal views on the issue, groups on both sides are attempting to discern his leanings from his statements and writings.

Gonzales said circumstances had changed since Roberts commented on Roe v. Wade during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the seat he now holds on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're bound by the precedent," Gonzales said.

"If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong," Gonzales said.

While abortion foes fret about Roberts' statement two years ago, abortion rights groups are concerned by a legal brief Roberts helped write for a Supreme Court case while serving as deputy solicitor general in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

The brief argued that the landmark abortion decision "was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Bush officials have said the brief reflected administration policy and Roberts was one of nine lawyers who signed it.

Gonzales said deciding when to overturn an earlier ruling "is one of the most difficult questions any Supreme Court justice has to answer." Among the factors to consider is how old is the precedent, he said.

Gonzales said he has a "preliminary judgment" about whether the Constitution affords the right to an abortion, but he declined to reveal it.

Gonzales has been thought to be a candidate for the Supreme Court because of his close relationship with Bush and his Hispanic heritage. Conservative groups mounted a strong campaign against his selection, based mainly on questions about his abortion stance.

Asked about that opposition, Gonzales sighed before responding, "This is the big decision. People have waited for over 11 years. There was a lot of pent-up anticipation and a lot vested in this decision."

He would not say whether Bush interviewed him for the job.

The attorney general also would not discuss the 12-hour delay between telling White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that prosecutors were investigating who revealed CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the media and informing the rest of the White House staff.

The White House did not respond to questions Sunday about whether Card passed that information to Bush aide Karl Rove or anyone else, giving them advance notice to prepare for the investigation. Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper recently said he first learned of Plame's position during a discussion with Rove in July 2003.

Attorney General John Ashcroft eventually recused himself from the case under pressure from Democrats who complained about his ties to Rove. Gonzales, who succeeded Ashcroft in February, also stepped aside from the investigation because of his involvement as White House counsel.

In other areas Tuesday, Gonzales said:

• The Guantanamo facility keeps terrorist suspects from resuming their fight and affords them humane treatment. "I take issue with folks who say people are being mistreated in Guantanamo," he said, adding, "I don't know what I say to Mom and Dad if their son or daughter is killed by someone we once held at Guantanamo."

• He would reconsider Ashcroft's guidance that has restricted public access to government information since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

___

On the Net:

Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov

Read More...

Senate Changes Line of Succession

crescent-news.com
Senate Changes Line of Succession

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate approved a bill Tuesday to raise the homeland security secretary from last to eighth place in the presidential line of succession, just after the attorney general.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, passed without objection just before the chamber adjourned. The companion House bill, sponsored by Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., is pending before the Judiciary and Government Reform committees.

If the bill also passes the House, the order of those in line to assume the presidency if President Bush is unable to serve would be:


-Vice President Dick Cheney

-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff

-Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton

-Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns

-Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez

-Labor Secretary Elaine Chao

-Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt

-Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson

-Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta

-Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman

-Education Secretary Margaret Spellings

-Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson

The Constitution, however, requires that the president be a natural-born citizen, so Gutierrez, born in Cuba, and Chao, born in Taiwan, would be ineligible.

---

The bills are S. 442 and H.R. 1455.

---

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Read More...

Panel OKs Karen Hughes for State Dept.

rrstar.com
Panel OKs Karen Hughes for State Dept.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday unanimously approved the nomination of Karen Hughes, a former political adviser to President Bush, as the State Department's top public relations official.

The Senate is expected to complete the confirmation process this week before leaving for its August recess.

Hughes' main assignment as Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs is to reverse anti-American sentiment around the world.

She said at a committee hearing last week that the challenge was "the urgent need to foster greater understanding, more respect and a sense of common ideals among Americans and people of different countries, cultures and faiths around the world."

Also approved by the committee on Tuesday were five new ambassadors as well as:


-Henry A. Crompton as coordinator for counterterrorism

-Henrietta Holsman Fore as undersecretary of state for management

-Josette S. Shiner as undersecretary of state for economics

-Kristen Silverberg as assistant secretary of state for international organizations

-Jendayi E. Frazer as assistant secretary of state for Africa.

---

On the Net:

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

Senate Foreign Relations Committee: http://foreign.senate.gov/

Read More...

White House says won't hand over some Roberts papers

Reuters

W.House says won't hand over some Roberts papers

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday it will refuse to hand over to the Senate some documents related to Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' government legal work, a sign of a possible battle ahead with Senate Democrats.

Senate Democrats, who have demanded access to relevant information as the confirmation process gets under way, expressed disappointment and said the documents being held back could contain information necessary to evaluate Roberts.

"A blanket statement that entire groups of documents are off limits is both premature and ill advised," said a letter to Bush from eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.


White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration would make public 62,000 to 65,000 pages of documents concerning Roberts' work during the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan.

But he said the Justice Department would withhold internal memos generated from 1989 to 1993, during Roberts' work as deputy solicitor general during the presidency of George Bush, father of the current president and a fellow Republican.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he has "serious concerns" about the release of these kinds of documents.

"We're talking about the lawyers for the United States of America and it's very, very important that the lawyers be comfortable being very candid and open about their views on very sensitive issues affecting the United States," Gonzales said on the PBS program "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer."

As a debate over documents raged on, Roberts spent a fifth day visiting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, after a meeting with Roberts, said: "I'd like to be able to vote for him. My test is he an ideologue. He said to me, 'I am not an ideologue."'

Schumer said he is not yet ready to pronounce judgment on Roberts, who he vows to question closely on a host of issues during his confirmation hearing to help determine if he is within the mainstream of legal thinking.

As deputy solicitor general, Roberts wrote a legal brief on the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing a woman's right to abortion, in which he said "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the White House had decided to hold back some documents and that Ed Gillespie, President Bush's point man on the nomination, informed him of it on Monday.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which will hold confirmation hearings, said he hoped the White House move was not intended to hinder the Senate's consideration of Roberts' nomination.

"There will be additional documents we ask for," he said.

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said in his 42 years on the Judiciary committee, "we have received many internal Justice Department documents as least at sensitive as these, even for confirmation proceedings that don't come close to the importance of a Supreme Court appointment."

Specter said it was premature to talk about documents but noted, "I'd have to be an ostrich not to be concerned."

LINE OF ATTACK?

McClellan accused Democrats of demanding documents as part of a line of attack prepared even before Roberts' nomination.

The White House cited an agreement in 2002 by seven former solicitor generals in declaring the internal memos protected by attorney-client privilege. The solicitor general argues cases on behalf of the U.S. government before the Supreme Court.

Releasing the documents, McClellan said, "would have a chilling effect on the ability of the solicitor generals to receive candid, honest, and thorough advice from their attorneys during the decision-making process."

He said he did not know how many documents might be in question.

Partisan bickering also broke out over the timing of the confirmation hearings.

Specter said he and Leahy, despite numerous talks, have yet to agree on when to start. Some Democrats favor mid-September; some Republicans are pushing to have committee members end their summer recess early and start in late August.

Specter, who has scheduling power as chairman, said he wants the full Senate to vote on Roberts no later than Sept. 29, so he could be seated before the Supreme Court begins its new term on Oct. 3.

McClellan said all documents from Roberts' 1981-1982 tenure as special assistant to the attorney general during the Reagan administration would be sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

They were also being made available to the media in a special reading room outside Washington later on Tuesday.

The administration also agreed to work with the Reagan presidential library in California to release documents relating to Roberts' work in the White House counsel's office from 1982 to 1986.

Roberts, a federal appeals court judge for the past two years, has received a generally upbeat reception on Capitol Hill since being nominated last Tuesday to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

(Additional reporting by Tom Ferraro)

Read More...

Monday, July 25, 2005

The Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame Game

factcheck.org

The Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame Game

Both sides twist and hype the case of a CIA agent’s leaked identity. We document what’s known so far.

Summary

The disclosure of CIA agent Valerie Wilson’s identity has triggered a partisan blame game complete with distortions and misstatements by both sides. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said the agent’s husband Joe Wilson falsely claimed Vice President Cheney authorized his trip to Africa – a claim Wilson never actually made. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on the floor of the Senate that the leak “put this agent’s life in jeopardy,” a claim for which no evidence has surfaced.

Here we won’t attempt to debunk every false or misleading claim. We thought our readers would be better served by a timeline documenting what is publicly known so far. Complete citations for each fact and links to original sources are available in the full article (see link at the end of this article).

We have no idea whether Karl Rove or anybody else has broken the law, something that can only be decided by a judge and jury should any charges ever be brought. Some information remains classified, and we can't know what facts the special prosecutor may have turned up, as they are protected by grand-jury secrecy. New bits and pieces seem to surface almost daily. Here is what we know so far:

Analysis

The Timeline

1988-1991 – Joseph Wilson serves as Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, Iraq. In July 1990, he takes over as acting ambassador to Iraq. (Joseph Wilson, The Politics of Truth 451, 2004).

1992-1995 – Nominated by President George H.W. Bush, Wilson serves as Ambassador to the African nations of Gabon, as well as the smaller island country of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. (Wilson, Politics 451).

1995-1997 – Joseph Wilson serves as political adviser to the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in Europe, stationed in Germany. On a trip to Washington DC, Wilson meets Valerie Plame who at the time says she is an “energy executive living in Brussels.” (Wilson, Politics 239-242).

June 1997 – Joseph Wilson returns to Washington DC as Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. At about the same time, Plame also moves back to the United States (Wilson, Politics 240), in part because the CIA suspects her name was leaked to the Russians in 1994. (Vanity Fair, Jan. ‘04).

April 3, 1998 – Wilson and Plame marry. (Wilson, Politics 276).


July 1998 – Joseph Wilson leaves government service to open a consulting firm specializing in assisting international investment in Africa. (Wilson, Politics 275).

1999 – Joseph Wilson takes a trip to Niger at the behest of the CIA to investigate “uranium-related matters” separate from Iraq (Wilson, Politics lv-lvi). According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on pre-war intelligence, Wilson “was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.” (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Assessment of Iraq Intelligence, 39, July 2004).

April 22, 1999 – Valerie Wilson lists “Brewster-Jennings & Assoc." - later revealed to be a CIA front company—as her employer when making a donation to the Gore campaign. (Gore FEC filing).

June 1999 – Niger’s former prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki meets with an Iraqi delegation wanting to discuss “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki interprets this as an interest in uranium, Niger’s main export, and later tells Wilson that he did not discuss it because Iraq remained under UN trade sanctions. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July 2004).

October 15, 2001 – US intelligence agencies become aware of reports from the Italian intelligence service of a supposed agreement between Iraq and Niger for the sale of uranium yellowcake. The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research considers the report “highly suspect” because the French control Niger’s uranium industry. The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Energy consider a uranium deal “possible.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 36, July 2004).

October 18, 2001 – The CIA writes a report titled, Iraq: Nuclear-Related Procurement Efforts. It quotes many of the Italian report’s claims, but adds that the report of a completed deal is not corroborated by any other sources. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 36- 37, July 2004).

February 5, 2002 – The CIA’s Directorate of Operations – the clandestine branch that employed Valerie Wilson – issues a second report including “verbatim text” of an agreement, supposedly signed July 5-6, 2000 for the sale of 500 tons of uranium yellowcake per year. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 37, July ‘04).

February 12, 2002 – The Defense Intelligence Agency writes a report concluding “Iraq is probably searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program.” Vice President Cheney reads this report and asks for the CIA’s analysis. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 38-39, July ‘04).

Responding to inquiries from Cheney’s office, the State Department, and the Defense Department, the CIA’s Directorate of Operations’ Counterproliferation Division (CPD) look for more information. They consider having Wilson return to Niger to investigate. In the process, Valerie Wilson writes a memo to a superior saying, “My husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” One of Valerie Wilson’s colleagues later tells Senate investigators she “offered up his name” for the trip. Wilson says that her agency made the decision and she only later approached her husband on the CIA’s behalf. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 39, July 2004).

February 19, 2002 – Joseph Wilson meets with officials from CIA and the State Department. According to a State Department intelligence analyst’s notes, the meeting was convened by Valerie Wilson. She later testifies that she left the meeting after introducing her husband. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 40, July ‘04).

February 26, 2002 – Wilson arrives in Niger. He concludes, after a few days of interviews, that “it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 42, July 2004).

March 5, 2002 – Wilson reports back to two CIA officers at his home. Valerie Wilson is present but does not participate. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43, July 2004).

March 8-9, 2002 – An intelligence report of Wilson’s trip is sent through routine channels, identifying Wilson only as “a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July ‘04). The CIA grades Wilson’s information as “good,” the middle of five possible grades. Cheney is not directly briefed about the report. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 46).

September 24, 2002 – The British government issues a public dossier saying, “[T]here is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” (British Govt. Report 25, Sept. ‘02). The Washington Post reports later that the CIA tried unsuccessfully to get the British to omit these claims. (“Bush, Rice blame CIA,” July 2003).

October 1, 2002 – The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) – a summary of intelligence assessments for policymakers – says “a foreign government service” reported that Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" to Iraq, possibly up to 500 tons a year. “We do not know the status of this arrangement,” the NIE says, according to a later declassified version released by the White House. In the NIE, State Department intelligence officials caution that African uranium claims are “highly dubious.” (Background WMD Briefing by Senior Administration Official).

January 28, 2003 – Bush’s State of the Union Address includes this 16-word sentence: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” (Transcript of “State of the Union”).

March 7, 2003 – The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the international body that monitors nuclear proliferation – tells the UN Security Council that, after a “thorough analysis” with “concurrence of outside experts,” that the Italian documents— “which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic.” (Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq, March 2003).

March 19, 2003 – President Bush announces the start of the Iraq war in a televised address, saying it is “to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” (Bush, “Addresses the Nation”).

Spring 2003 –Valerie Wilson is in the process of moving from non-official to official, State Department cover, according to a later Vanity Fair article based on interviews with the Wilsons. (Vanity Fair, Jan. 2004).

May 2003 – Joseph Wilson begins advising the Kerry campaign on foreign policy issues. (“White House expects calls,” USA Today, Oct. 2003).

May 6, 2003 – A New York Times columnist writes the first account of Wilson’s trip, but not naming him: “I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong.” (“Missing In Action: Truth,” New York Times, Op-ed, May 2003).

June 2003 – State Department intelligence officials reportedly prepare a memo on the Niger affair mentioning Wilson’s trip to Niger and Valerie Wilson’s role in selecting her husband for the mission. The exact date is uncertain. The memo doesn’t identify Valerie Wilson or her status as a covert agent. According to one account, the memo was classified and the paragraph containing information about Valerie Wilson was marked with “(S)” to indicate that the information was classified at the “secret” level. The CIA applies this level of classification to the identities of covert officers, according to the Washington Post. (“State Dept. memo gets scrutiny,” New York Times, July 16, 2005; “Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls,” Bloomberg.com, July 18, 2005; “Plame’s Identity Marked as Secret,” Washington Post, July 21, 2005).

June 12, 2003 – A Washington Post article quotes an “envoy” (Wilson) as saying that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” on the Italian document determined to be forged by the IAEA. (“CIA Did Not Share Doubt,” Washington Post, June 2003). Wilson later tells the Senate Intelligence Committee that he may have “misspoken” to reporters, thinking he had seen the documents himself, rather than reading about them secondhand. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 44).

July 6, 2003 – Wilson publishes “What I didn’t find in Africa” in The New York Times, identifying himself for the first time as the unnamed “envoy.” He writes, “I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” Wilson does not mention that he learned there was a possibility Iraq had sought uranium during a 1999 trade meeting with Niger’s former Prime Minister.

Contrary to later statements by White House officials, Wilson does not claim that Cheney sent him on the Niger trip, only that he was sent to answer questions from Cheney’s “office.” He also doesn’t claim that Cheney was told of his findings, only that it would be “standard operating procedure” for the CIA to brief Cheney’s office on the results of his mission (Wilson, “What I didn’t find," New York Times July 6, 2003).

July 7, 2003 –Secretary of State Colin Powell, aboard Air Force One, reportedly receives a copy of the State Department memo prepared in June about the purported Niger-Iraq uranium deal, which mentions Valerie Wilson’s role in her husband’s trip, according to later media reports. (“State Dept. memo gets scrutiny" New York Times, July 2005; “Shielding Plame’s Identity,” Wall Street Journal, July 2005; “Memo Eyed in CIA Leak Probe,” AP, July 2005).

July 7, 2003 – White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer retracts the 16-word yellowcake claim from the State of the Union address, calling the President's statement “incorrect.” (White House Press Gaggle, July 7 2003).

July 8, 2003 – Columnist Robert Novak calls senior White House adviser Karl Rove, according to subsequent media accounts. Novak tells Rove he had heard that Joseph Wilson’s wife, who worked for the CIA, played a role in Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger. Rove confirms the story to Novak without mentioning Valerie Wilson’s name or covert status, saying “I heard that, too.” ("Rove Talk on C.I.A. Officer," NY Times, July 2003). Novak will later write that he originally acquired the information from an official who is “no partisan gunslinger.” Novak says, “When I called another official for confirmation, he said: ‘Oh, you know about it.’” (Novak, “CIA Leak” Chicago Sun- Times, Oct 2003).

July 11, 2003 –Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper calls Rove, who cautions him to be careful of Wilson’s story, “‘Don't get too far out on Wilson,’ he told me,” Cooper later writes. Rove tells Cooper that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA on “WMD” (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and that it was she, not Cheney or the CIA’s director, who was “responsible” for sending Wilson to Africa. “Rove never used her name and...indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week,” Cooper later recalls adding, “Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status." Cooper says Rove ends the call saying “I've already said too much.”

Cooper also says he talked to Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, about the story. “I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, ‘Yeah, I've heard that too,’ or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame's name or indicated that her status was covert.” (Matthew Cooper, “What I told the Grand Jury,” Time, July 2005).

July 11, 2003 – Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet concedes in a statement that the State of the Union claims about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa were a mistake and that the “16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.” (Tenet Statement, July 2003).

July 12, 2003 – Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus is told by an administration official that that White House had ignored Joseph Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger because it was a “boondoggle” set up by his wife. (“Anonymous Sources,” Nieman Reports 27, Summer 2004). Pincus did not report his conversation because, as he would later describe, “Plame's name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson's report.” (“Probe Focuses on Month Before Leak,” Washington Post, October 2003).

July 14, 2003 – Robert Novak’s “Mission to Niger” column is published. This is the first published mention of Joseph Wilson’s wife’s name, her employment at the CIA, and her role in his trip to Niger. In the sixth of ten paragraphs, Novak writes, “Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.” The column does not describe her as a covert agent, then, but it does name her as “Valerie Plame” - her maiden and cover name. Novak gives conflicting accounts of whether Mrs. Wilson instigated her husband’s trip or was asked by others to do so. (Novak, “The Mission to Niger,” Chicago Sun-Times, July 2003).

July 14-17, 2003 – Newsday’s Washington bureau chief, Timothy Phelps, tells Joseph Wilson “that he had heard from the CIA that what Novak reported vis- à-vis Valerie’s employment was not incorrect,” according to Wilson’s memoir. “I declined to be drawn into a confirmation even then,” Wilson would later recall. (Wilson, Politics 348).

July 16, 2003 – Wilson speaks about Novak's column with David Corn, Washington bureau chief for the liberal magazine The Nation. According to what Corn writes on his blog at thenation.com, Wilson says, “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career.” Corn says Wilson is still “known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm.” (“A White House Smear,” The Nation, July 2003; Wilson, Politics 349). Corn's entry is the first instance where someone alleges publicly that the release of Valerie Plame’s name disclosed the identity of a covert agent.

July 17, 2003 – Time publishes online “A War on Wilson?” by Cooper and others, the first time Time names Mrs. Wilson. Cooper quotes, “government officials” as saying “that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched Niger [sic] to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore.” (Matt Cooper, “A War on Wilson?,” Time, July 2003).

July 22, 2003 – In an article headlined “Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover,” Newsday publishes a story as saying, based in part on Wilson’s assertions, that senior administration officials “violated the law and may have endangered her (Mrs. Wilson’s) career and possibly the lives of her contacts in foreign countries.” The newspaper says Wilson wouldn’t confirm that his wife was a covert agent. (“Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover,” Newsday, July 2003).

July 30, 2003 – The CIA sends a letter to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department noting “a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information,” according to a letter from the CIA’s Director of Congressional Affairs. (CIA, Letter to Rep. John Conyers).

August 21, 2003 – Wilson, speaking at a public panel discussion, said he was interested in seeing Karl Rove “frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs” after hearing from reporters that Rove had called his wife “fair game.” (Wilson, Politics 372- 4; 351).

September 16, 2003 – The CIA sends another letter to Justice requesting that the FBI undertake a criminal investigation. (Wilson, Politics 359).

September 16, 2003 – White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan dismisses the idea that Karl Rove was Novak’s anonymous source as “totally ridiculous.” (White House Press Briefing, Sept. 16, 2003).

September 29, 2003 – McClellan says he has spoken to Rove, denies that Rove was involved in the leak, and says, “If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration.” (White House Press Briefing, Sept. 29, 2003). In a letter sent to Representative John Conyers on January 30, 2004, the CIA will confirm that its Counterespionage Section has asked the FBI to initiate an investigation. (Letter to Rep. John Conyers from the CIA).

September 30, 2003 – The Justice department publicly announces an official criminal investigation. Commenting, Bush says, “And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of” (“President discusses job creation,” U. of Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003).

September 30, 2003 – Wilson endorses Senator John Kerry for president. (“Man With an Independent Streak,” Washington Post, October 1, 2003).

December 30, 2003 – Facing allegations of bias, Attorney General Ashcroft recuses himself from the investigation and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald takes over the investigation as a special prosecutor. (“Ashcroft Recuses Self" Washington Post, 31 December 2003).

May 21, 2004 – Time's Cooper is subpoenaed for the grand jury investigation. Time says it will fight the subpoenas. (“Reporters Subpoenaed" Wash. Post, May 2004).

June 10, 2004 – Bush is asked by a reporter, “[D] o you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have [who leaked the agent's name]?” Bush replies, “Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.” (President Bush Press Conference Following G-8 Summit, Savannah, GA, June 10, 2004).

June 24, 2004 – Prosecutors question President Bush, who is not under oath, in the Oval Office for over an hour. (“Bush Interviewed" Washington Post, June 25, 2004).

August 12, 2004 – New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who did not write a story identifying Valerie Wilson, is subpoenaed by the grand jury. (“NY Times reporter subpoenaed” AP, Aug. 2004).

October 15, 2004 – Rove testifies before a federal grand jury for two hours. Fitzgerald assures Rove that he is not a target of the probe. (“Rove Testifies” Washington Post, Oct. 2004).

November 2, 2004 - Bush wins re-election.

June 27, 2005 – The Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal of Judith Miller of The New York Times and Cooper of Time, leaving standing a lower court’s ruling that they must testify to a federal grand jury. (“Reporters Lose” Washington Post, June 28, 2005).

July 1, 2005 – Over Cooper’s objections, Time Inc. turns over subpoenaed material. Time managing editor Norm Pearlstine tells CNN that journalists “regularly point a finger at people who think they're above the law,” and “I'm not comfortable being one of them myself.” (“Time Magazine” CNN.com, June 30, 2005).

July 6, 2005 – Miller, still refusing to testify before the grand jury, is jailed for contempt of court. (“’Time’ Reporter to Testify" USAToday.com, July 6, 2005). Cooper says he receives last-minute permission from his confidential source, Karl Rove, to testify. (Matthew Cooper, “What I told the Grand Jury,” Time, July 2005).

July 18, 2005 – Bush – easing off his earlier promise to fire anyone who leaked – says “if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” (Bush Press Conference with Prime Minister of India, July 18, 2005). His press secretary Scott McClellan declines to say whether a firing would be triggered by an indictment or would require a conviction. (White House Press Briefing, July 18, 2005).

--by Kevin Collins with Jordan Grossman, Jennifer L. Ernst, Matthew Barge, Brooks Jackson

(Note: To view this article with any associated graphics, sidebars, supporting documents, video or audio files, see
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=dp4eqnbab.0.98uydnbab.l89skabab.2338&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.factcheck.org%2Fdefault336.html )

Read More...

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Not Likely




Not Likely

Read More...

I'll fire anyone "If"




I'll fire anyone "If"

Read More...

Patriot Act




Patriot Act

Read More...

Protecting Sources




Protecting Sources

Read More...

Bin Laden Must Be Around Here Somewhere




Bin Laden Must Be Around Here Somewhere

Read More...

Democrats spotlight CIA leak in radio address

Reuters

Democrats spotlight CIA leak in radio address

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats attacked President Bush's response to a top aide's role in outing a CIA operative on Saturday, turning their radio address over to an ex-agent critical of his actions.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA agent and registered Republican, accused Bush of flip-flopping on his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in the leak and said Americans deserved better.

"We deserve people who work in the White House who are committed to protecting classified information, telling the truth to the American people, and living by example to the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists cannot focus its efforts on attacking other American citizens who simply tried to tell the truth," Johnson said.

Democrats have urged Bush to fire top adviser Karl Rove or revoke his access to classified information after he was identified by a reporter as being a source in the leak of Valerie Plame's name two years ago. The leak came after her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, accused the White House of twisting intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is leading the probe into the unmasking of Plame, whose identity and role at the CIA were made public in a column by Robert Novak. Novak cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources.

It is against the law in certain circumstances to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA officer.

According to articles on Saturday in the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, Fitzgerald is also looking into potential discrepancies between the accounts given to investigators by Rove and vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and the accounts given by journalists who have testified.

For example, the Post, citing an anonymous source, said that Libby has testified that he learned about Plame from NBC correspondent Tim Russert. But Russert has said he gave no such information to Libby, who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Rove testified that he and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper discussed welfare reform in their conversation and only spoke about Plame near the end of the call, the Post said, citing lawyers involved in the case. However, Cooper has said he does not recall talking to Rove about welfare reform.


Bush said this week he would fire anyone who was found by a federal probe to have acted illegally in the case, but critics accused the president of lowering the "ethics bar." Bush and his aides have at times in the past been broader in asserting that those involved in the leak would face consequences.

Cooper told a federal grand jury that Rove told him Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but did not disclose her name. Cooper has also said he discussed the Wilsons with Libby.

Johnson was one of a handful of former intelligence agents who testified at a Democratic-sponsored hearing on the leak on Friday. He said he knew Plame from a training program, but only as "Val P" because participants were told that would help protect their identities.

Some of the White House's defenders have sought to minimize Plame's role at the CIA to argue the leak was not a national security issue. "We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover," Johnson said. "For starters, if she had not been undercover then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department."

The Los Angeles Times reported that in the prosecutors' search to learn how knowledge of Plame's identity spread through the administration and the news media, several State Department officials were questioned about a classified memo that mentions her name.

Read More...

Library leader questions Patriot Act

Reuters

Library leader questions Patriot Act

By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The president of the American Library Association has one word for the USA Patriot Act's so-called library clause -- "Kafkaesque."

"It's very reminiscent of the '50s and the 'red scare' where people showed up at libraries trying to find which political books professors had read, because they were going to be put on a communist list or something," said Michael Gorman, a British-born librarian who heads the U.S. library group.

"Where it doesn't seem sinister, it seems comic."

Alluding to writers George Orwell and Franz Kafka, Gorman said of the Patriot Act, "I'm much too fond of Orwell to call it Orwellian, but it's Kafkaesque."

Where Orwell's novel "1984" foresaw a future where the government spied on everyone and Kafka's "The Trial" told of one man's futile battle against unnamed government charges, Gorman said the Patriot Act intrudes on privacy but has little chance of accomplishing its aim of protecting against terrorism.


Enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Patriot Act lets U.S. authorities get approval from a special court to search personal records of terror suspects from bookstores, businesses, hospitals and libraries, in a provision known as the library clause.

'JUST IN CASE'

Gorman seemed almost amused as he detailed what he saw as the government's rationale for this, noting the irony in a Justice Department statement that it has never used the provision, but still needs it "just in case."

"It's so important that we have to do these things under cloak of darkness and the populace can't know about it, and by the way, we've never done it," Gorman said in an interview with Reuters last week as the Patriot Act was discussed on Capitol Hill.

The U.S. House of Representatives, ignoring protests from civil liberties groups, voted on Thursday to reauthorize 16 provisions of the act that expire at the end of the year, including the library clause.

In a move to add civil liberty safeguards, it also passed an amendment requiring the director of the FBI to personally approve all requests for library or bookstore records.

Republicans said there had been no documented instances of civil liberty abuses since the act was originally passed in 2001. But Democrats said the government had requested individuals' library records more than 200 times.

The Senate is expected to take up the matter after lawmakers return from an August recess.

ERODING PRESUMED TRUST

For librarians, this is a particularly onerous law, since it forbids them from telling library users that such a search is underway, eroding the presumed trust between librarians and readers. Any librarian who violated this provision would be guilty of a felony, Gorman said.

It is particularly difficult to understand, he said, because librarians typically cooperate with regular subpoenas for library records, obtained in regular U.S. courts, and make public that the order has been issued.

Despite the Justice Department's contention that the Patriot Act has not been used to seek personal data about library users, librarians said in a survey that law enforcement had sought that information at least 268 times since 2001.

So far, no librarian has openly flouted the Patriot Act, Gorman said.

"There's been no public case," he said. "There was some speculation in the beginning that maybe a test case will be found. ... Either it hasn't happened or they haven't found a suitable test case, or they haven't found a librarian with the intestinal fortitude to do it."

Gorman said he would be reluctant to go to jail to defend the implicit trusted relationship between librarians and readers.

"To be perfectly honest, I'm a 64-year-old academic librarian," he said. "I'm not going to go to prison over that kind of stuff."

Read More...

Ex-intelligence officer says Bush must act on CIA leak

USA TODAY

Ex-intelligence officer says Bush must act on CIA leak

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush is jeopardizing national security by not disciplining Karl Rove for his role in leaking the name of a CIA officer, and has hampered efforts to recruit informants in the war on terror, former U.S. intelligence officers say.

Photo by By Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images
Larry Johnson testified that national security has been weakened by the revelation of Valerie Wilson as a CIA operative.

Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson used the Democratic Party's weekly radio address Saturday to reiterate comments he made Friday to a panel of House and Senate Democrats.

At that event, Johnson and others expressed great frustration that CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was made public. Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy.

"Instead of a president concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a president who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson," Johnson said in the radio address.

Johnson, who said he was a registered Republican, said Bush has gone back on his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak.


Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in a 2003 phone call that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, according to an account by Cooper in the magazine.

Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency, but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.

In July 2003, Robert Novak, citing unnamed administration officials, identified Plame by name in his syndicated column and wrote that she worked for the CIA. The column has led to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. New York Times reporter Judith Miller — who never wrote a story about Plame — has been jailed for refusing to testify.

Bush said last week, "I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well."

Dana Perino, a White House spokesman, said Friday that the administration would have no comment on the investigation while it was continuing.

Johnson said he wished a Republican lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and "call the ugly dog the ugly dog."

"Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this?" he asked. "I expect better behavior out of Republicans."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-23-dems-response_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

For Bush, Effect of Investigation of C.I.A. Leak Case Is Uncertain

The New York Times

For Bush, Effect of Investigation of C.I.A. Leak Case Is Uncertain
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, July 23 - His former secretary of state, most of his closest aides and a parade of other senior officials have testified to a grand jury. His political strategist has emerged as a central figure in the case, as has his vice president's chief of staff. His spokesman has taken a pounding for making public statements about the matter that now appear not to be accurate.

For all that, it is still not clear what the investigation into the leak of a C.I.A. operative's identity will mean for President Bush. So far the disclosures about the involvement of Karl Rove, among others, have not exacted any substantial political price from the administration. And nobody has suggested that the investigation directly implicates the president.

Yet Mr. Bush has yet to address some uncomfortable questions that he may not be able to evade indefinitely.

For starters, did Mr. Bush know in the fall of 2003, when he was telling the public that no one wanted to get to the bottom of the case more than he did, that Mr. Rove, his longtime strategist and senior adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, had touched on the C.I.A. officer's identity in conversations with journalists before the officer's name became public? If not, when did they tell him, and what would the delay say in particular about his relationship with Mr. Rove, whose career and Mr. Bush's have been intertwined for decades?

Then there is the broader issue of whether Mr. Bush was aware of any effort by his aides to use the C.I.A. officer's identity to undermine the standing of her husband, a former diplomat who had publicly accused the administration of twisting its prewar intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program.

For the last several weeks, Mr. Bush and his spokesman, Scott McClellan, have declined to address the leak in any substantive way, citing the continuing federal criminal investigation.

But Democrats increasingly see an opportunity to raise questions about Mr. Bush's credibility, and to reopen a debate about whether the White House leveled with the nation about the urgency of going to war with Iraq. And even some Republicans say Mr. Bush cannot assume that he will escape from the investigation politically unscathed.


"Until all the facts come out, no one is really going to know who the fickle finger of fate points at," said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster.

The case centers on how the name of a C.I.A. operative came to be appear two years ago in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame. The operative, who is more usually known as Valerie Wilson, is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who had publicly accused the administration eight days before Mr. Novak's column of twisting some of the intelligence used to justify going to war with Iraq. Under some conditions, the disclosure of a covert intelligence agent's name can be a federal crime.

The special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has kept a tight curtain of secrecy around his investigation. But he spent more than an hour in the Oval Office on June 24, 2004, interviewing Mr. Bush about the case. Mr. Bush was not under oath, but he had his personal lawyer for the case, James E. Sharp, with him.

Neither the White House nor the Justice Department has said what Mr. Bush was asked about, but prosecutors do not lightly seek to put questions directly to any president, suggesting that there was some information that Mr. Fitzgerald felt he could get only from Mr. Bush.

Allan J. Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University in Washington, said the lesson of recent history, for example in the Iran-contra case under President Ronald Reagan, is that presidents tend to know more than it might first appear about what is going on within the White House.

"My presumption in presidential politics is that the president always knows," Mr. Lichtman said. "But there are degrees of knowing. Reagan said, keep the contras together body and soul. Did he know exactly what Oliver North was doing? No, it doesn't mean he knew what every subordinate is doing."

Although it is possible that other officials will turn out to have played leading roles in the leak case, the subordinates whose actions would appear to be of most interest to Mr. Bush right now are Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby, who as Mr. Cheney's chief of staff had particular reason to protect the vice president.

According to accounts by various people involved in the case, Mr. Rove spoke in the days after Mr. Wilson went public with his criticism in July 2003 to both of the first two reporters to disclose that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A., Mr. Novak and Matthew Cooper of Time. Mr. Cooper has said he also spoke about the case with Mr. Libby.

By September 2003, as a criminal investigation was getting under way, Mr. McClellan was telling reporters that Mr. Rove had nothing to do with the leak, saying he had checked with Mr. Rove about the topic.

Around the same time, the president was saying he had no idea who might have been responsible. Asked by a reporter on Oct. 6, 2003, whether the leak was retaliation for Mr. Wilson's criticism, Mr. Bush replied: "I don't know who leaked the information, for starters. So it's hard for me to answer that question until I find out the truth."

Asked the next day if he was confident that the leakers would be found, Mr. Bush, alluding to the "two senior administration officials" cited by Mr. Novak as his sources, replied: "I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth."

Republicans said the relationship between Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove was so deep and complex that it was hard to imagine the president cutting ties with him barring an indictment.

"Can you survive being involved in something you probably shouldn't have been involved in where you didn't break any laws?" Mr. Fabrizio said. "Well, you probably can, especially if you are Karl."

Mr. Fabrizio said that even if Mr. Rove left the White House, he would continue to consult with Mr. Bush "unless they put him in a tunnel."

Mr. McClellan and other White House officials have repeatedly declined to answer when asked if Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby had told the president by October 2003 that they had alluded to Ms. Wilson's identity months earlier in their conversations with the journalists.

But Mr. Bush's political opponents say the president is in a box. In their view, either Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby kept the president in the dark about their actions, making them appear evasive at a time when Mr. Bush was demanding that his staff cooperate fully with the investigation, or Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby had told the president and he was not forthcoming in his public statements about his knowledge of their roles.

"We know that Karl Rove, through Scott McClellan, did not tell Americans the truth," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and a former top aide in the Clinton White House. "What's important now is what Karl Rove told the president. Was it the truth, or was it what he told Scott McClellan?"

There is a third option, that neither Mr. Rove nor Mr. Libby considered their conversations with the journalists to have amounted to leaking or confirming the information about Ms. Wilson. In that case, they may have felt no need to inform the president, or they did inform him and he shared their view that they had done nothing wrong.

Mr. Bush has also yet to answer any questions publicly about what if anything he learned from aides about Mr. Wilson and Ms. Wilson in the days after Mr. Wilson leveled his criticism of the administration in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003.

Read More...

Few Have Felt Beat of Roberts's Political Heart

washingtonpost.com
Few Have Felt Beat of Roberts's Political Heart

By Michael Grunwald and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers

E. Barrett Prettyman Jr. fondly recalls working with John G. Roberts Jr. at Hogan & Hartson, the blue-chip Washington law firm where Prettyman was a renowned Supreme Court advocate, and Roberts was quickly becoming one. The two lawyers ate lunch together almost every day, and Prettyman says they became close friends, even though he's a staunch liberal and Roberts is a staunch conservative.

At least he thinks Roberts is a staunch conservative.

He's always assumed Roberts is a staunch conservative.

Actually, now that he racks his brain, he's not so sure.

"You know, I must have had a thousand lunches with John, and I can't think of a single thing he's said that would specify his politics," says Prettyman, a World War II veteran who once served as an aide to Robert F. Kennedy. "We were all under the impression that he's a conservative, but he always talked generalities. He's not the type to lay it all out."

Now that President Bush has nominated Roberts to serve on the court, many Americans are under the impression he's a staunch conservative. He's got a conservative résumé and a conservative lifestyle; he was chosen by a conservative president. But his public record and personal history suggest that his conservatism may not resemble the conservatism of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, Bush's favorite justices.

Roberts is certainly conservative in some senses of the word. He's a strait-laced, buttoned-down midwesterner, a creature of the legal establishment, respectful of tradition and deferential to authority. He's a devout Roman Catholic and a loyal Republican who clerked for then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist, worked for then-Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr and served in the Reagan White House. He's a grammar snob; he once critiqued a Justice Department memo that sounded like "an awkward translation from Bulgarian."

But Roberts has always held his politics close to his vest. He said last week that his core values as a justice would be "modesty" and "stability." If his first 50 years on Earth were a prelude to an ideological crusade, he's done an excellent job of disguising it.


The Prodigy

John Glover Roberts Jr. was born in Buffalo, but as a boy he moved to Long Beach, Ind., an all-white, predominantly Catholic, largely Republican town on Lake Michigan. His father, John Sr., was an electrical engineer at Bethlehem Steel's new mill in the area, and later an assistant general manager at the plant; his mother, Rosemary, was a homemaker. John and his three sisters all attended Notre Dame Catholic School, where he wore a uniform of navy pants, a white shirt and a navy tie. Every Sunday, the tight-knit family went to Mass.

"They were very sincere about their beliefs, and they practiced them," said Joan Langley, Notre Dame's church secretary. "They were absolutely toe the line and obey the rules."

By the time John was a teenager, the Roberts family had moved into a four-bedroom Tudor-style home and joined the Long Beach Country Club, where John and his parents spent many happy hours on the golf course. John had also blossomed into an intellectual prodigy. "He did not boast of his brilliance," says his eighth-grade math teacher, Dorothea Liddell. "He was just brilliant, and everyone accepted that."

In December 1968, John applied to La Lumiere, a rigorous all-boys Catholic prep school in the area, and his earnest letter to the school suggests his early drive. "I've always wanted to stay ahead of the crowd, and I feel that the competition at La Lumiere will force me to work as hard as I can," he wrote in neat cursive. "I won't be content to get a good job by getting a good education, I want to get the best job by getting the best education."

In fact, Roberts dominated the competition at La Lumiere, earning the best grades in his class every semester. His calculus teacher announced after one test that a few students had received D's and the rest had failed -- except for one boy who had blown the curve by getting every answer right. "We all knew, if there was one 100 percent: Guess who?" one classmate recalls. Assigned to prepare a 15-minute oral report for theology class, Roberts plowed through seven books, then lectured his fellow students for three consecutive days of class.

"If the bell hadn't rung, he could still be speaking now, 32 years later," jokes his teacher, David Kirkby.

John may have seemed like the kind of youth who gets beaten up by the football players, but he was the co-captain of the team, playing running back and linebacker. He was short, slender and slow, but he made up for it in enthusiasm, and he had a gift for seeing the whole field. John was also a wrestler, a student politician, co-editor of the school newspaper, a member of the drama club, and a "sacristan" who helped the school's priest prepare for Mass.

La Lumiere was a $7,000-a-year haven of formality in the Indiana woods, far from the Vietnam War and student protests. Students wore blazers, gray flannel trousers and ties during the day, then changed into suits for dinner. John thrived in this structured environment; his hair, classmates recall, was always cropped a bit closer than theirs. As Kirkby put it, "he wasn't trying to test the limits."

"He is conservative now, and he was conservative then," said Larry Sullivan, his former math teacher.

But if he was conservative in the studious, religious, clean-cut sense, it was not clear he was politically conservative. There was not much ideological debate at La Lumiere; students spent more time arguing what would be on their next test. Teachers sometimes had them discuss issues such as abortion or the 1972 Nixon-McGovern election, but they were assigned one side of the argument, so Roberts learned to analyze issues from every angle.

It was a cloistered childhood, but John did get a brush with the outside world during the summer, cleaning up hazardous materials and emptying grease wells in his father's mill. When he introduced Roberts, Bush implied that the job reflected working-class roots, but it was really a perk for the sons of Bethlehem executives, paying an enviable $12 to $16 an hour. And there was never any real possibility that Roberts would follow his father into the factory for good. He was heading to Harvard.
Joining the Establishment

Roberts arrived in Cambridge in the fall of 1973, during the last throes of the Vietnam protests on campus. But Roberts was there to study, not to rally. He majored in history and graduated summa cum laude in only three years; his thesis on British liberalism in the early 20th century won the prize for the best in his class. He spent the next three years at Harvard Law School, becoming the managing editor of the Law Review, more than holding his own among high-powered classmates who included future luminaries such as Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), Pulitzer-Prize-winning historian Edward J. Larson and Broadway lyricist David Zippel.

Roberts was known as a brilliant, diligent, intellectually curious student without the stereotypical Harvardian need to remind everyone how smart he was. He was humble and self-deprecating, with a dry wit often masked by his midwestern reserve. He seemed genuinely nice. "The thing that strikes you most about him is the disconnect between how cocky he could be and what a phenomenally unassuming man he is," says Norman C. Ankers, now the head of litigation at a Detroit law firm.

Most of his classmates were liberal, and some sensed that he was more conservative. But most of those impressions were based more on his central-casting demeanor than anything he said. He attended church, played squash and dressed neatly; his college roommate told the Harvard Crimson he had ruled out Stanford Law School because his interviewer wore sandals. But he didn't flaunt any GOP loyalties. "I knew nothing of his politics," says another Law Review editor, Robert M. Pozin, now a partner in a Washington law firm. "I can remember political discussions we had at the Law Review . . . but I don't remember John being involved."

Larry Robbins spent hundreds of hours with Roberts at the Law Review, but he says that at the time, he didn't even know whether Roberts was a Republican. But he did get to see how Roberts revered the law. He says that Roberts thought the way the obsessive Professor Kingsfield wanted his students to think in "The Paper Chase," the film about the rigors of Harvard Law School. "John was extremely careful and deliberate," says Robbins, now the lead partner of a Washington firm. "He studied every word, because he believed that words had consequences. If he had a political agenda, it escaped my radar."

A few of his classmates started a Rehnquist Club, honoring the justice who was then considered the most conservative voice on the Supreme Court. Roberts did not join.
The Republican Elite

Roberts's first job after graduation was a clerkship for Judge Henry J. Friendly, an Eisenhower appointee who was one of the most respected appellate judges of his era. Friendly was an influential voice for judicial restraint, criticizing the Warren Court for pushing rights that were not included in the Constitution. Roberts admired his deliberate approach to the law, and his reluctance to second-guess the political process. The next year, Roberts won a clerkship with Rehnquist, whom he called "the Boss." But Richard J. Lazarus, his roommate in a Capitol Hill apartment, says Judge Friendly was a more important mentor to Roberts.

"Friendly was a conservative Republican, but that didn't determine his jurisprudence," says Lazarus, a liberal Democrat who is now a Georgetown University law professor. "John had deep respect for his intellect and approach to the law."

Lazarus says Roberts was never a fire-breathing, in-your-face, red-meat Republican. But by now, he was clearly a Republican; the night of the Carter-Reagan showdown in 1980, Lazarus put a donkey on their television, and Roberts countered with an elephant. After the election, he went to work in the new administration under Attorney General William French Smith, although his direct boss was a rising Republican lawyer named Kenneth Starr.

Starr liked to play devil's advocate, and he often asked Roberts to present alternatives to approaches favored by the Justice Department bureaucracy. It was Starr who first assigned Roberts to make the case that Congress should be allowed to stop federal courts from mandating busing.

Toward the end of 1982, Roberts joined the White House counsel's office, his most partisan job by far. He drafted precise and occasionally witty legal memos, warning of the potential political damage from a housing bill, arguing that the Small Business Administration should not be permitted to disagree publicly with the administration, and at one point attacking Office of Management and Budget director David A. Stockman as "disloyal" for trying to undermine a bill with press leaks. "OMB's position calls to mind what has been said of the Roman legions: They lost many battles but they never lost a war, because they never let a war end until they had won it," Roberts wrote.

Roberts was part of a young GOP vanguard in the Reagan administration, and he was a loyal team player. But he was more of a lawyer than a political operative, even if his client was the president. He pored over documents for minute errors; he once corrected a speech proclaiming discrimination illegal "from Maine to California," because it was illegal in Alaska and Hawaii, too. He advised the White House not to help a well-connected New York computer firm with a loan, and rejected a request by the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican to let an embattled archbishop see his FBI files. He was politically savvy, but Michael A. Carvin, a Washington litigator who was at the Justice Department at the time, says Roberts was much less outspoken about his politics than his peers. He was an aggressive advocate for the administration's policies, but it was never entirely clear which ones he personally supported.

"It's not a calculated pose that he keeps his cards close to his vest; that's just the way he is," Carvin says. "I'm an obnoxious New Yorker; I spout off. He's a reserved midwesterner."
Representing His Clients

Roberts entered private practice in 1986, as an associate and then a partner at Hogan & Hartson, but Starr lured him back to government in 1989 to be deputy solicitor general, arguing the George H.W. Bush administration's cases in federal court. It was a political job, but he did not approach it in an overly political way, analyzing cases from every angle. "We had a general sense of him being comfortable with the administration's priorities," says Michael Astrue, an administration lawyer who worked with Roberts on several cases. But he was not like "a lot of very political lawyers, who wear their politics on their sleeves."

John F. Manning, who worked in the solicitor general's office and is now a Harvard Law School professor, says that if Roberts had one consistent value, it was deference to political branches. He remembers Roberts quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, describing the review of congressional laws as "the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called upon to perform."

"He had that quotation at his fingertips," Manning says. "I think that's a strong value for him. He doesn't think the Supreme Court should promiscuously overrule political decisions."

But that could be true of liberal decisions, as well as conservative decisions. Under Starr, Roberts developed a reputation as a lawyer's lawyer, a process guy, an incrementalist who liked fact-based arguments better than grand theories. Mit Spears, a Roberts colleague in the Reagan administration, says Roberts believes judges should be "dispassionate arbiters of balls and strikes," as opposed to "bomb-throwers."

"People who think the Supreme Court should lead the way in society are in for a bitter disappointment," Spears said.

As an administration lawyer, Roberts's advocacy for his clients did not necessarily reflect his personal beliefs. For example, his friends argue that just because Roberts signed a brief describing Roe v. Wade as "wrongly decided" does not mean he agrees. But it doesn't mean he doesn't, either. Roberts did not become an administration lawyer by accident. He has never stated his views publicly, but his friends assume he's antiabortion. And while he has never said how he would rule on Roe as a Supreme Court justice, he once suggested while discussing a euthanasia case that he is sympathetic to letting states decide matters of "terminating life."

President George H.W. Bush nominated Roberts for a federal judgeship, but the Democratic Senate did not vote on his nomination before the Clinton administration took office. So Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson and became one of the nation's top appellate lawyers. In 1996, he married Jane Sullivan, a rainmaking corporate lawyer. They have adopted two children.

For the most part, Roberts has avoided politics. He has given $3,735 to Republican candidates -- including Bush, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and ex-senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) -- but that's not much on a salary that topped $1 million a year. He gave advice to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) during the Florida recount in 2000, but he did not sign briefs.

"I don't really feel like I know his politics," says H. Christopher Bartolomucci, a Hogan & Hartson partner who has worked closely with Roberts. "My sense is he's conservative, but he never talked about it. He's certainly conservative in the sense of respect for the text, caution, adherence to the precedent, deference to the government as opposed to social engineering."

Roberts has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, representing clients as diverse as Chrysler Corp., welfare recipients, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the National Mining Association. He once argued for Hawaii's right to maintain racial preferences for native islanders, a risky move for a Republican judicial hopeful. He rarely proposed innovative legal theories, and he never seemed to use his cases to try to advance a conservative agenda. He just argued the facts and the law. He won more often than not.

In 2003, after President Bush nominated Roberts for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he explained his overriding philosophy of the law: no overriding philosophy. He promised to take each case as it came, always putting the law ahead of his personal beliefs.

Some liberals worry that Roberts is a kind of Trojan horse -- a conservative activist who has diligently maintained a cover as an affable, conscientious, nonideological proponent of judicial restraint. But the liberals who know him best do not worry so much about that. "I guess I think of him as conservative, but I'm not even sure why," says Henrietta Wright, a former Carter administration lawyer who is close friends with the Roberts family. "He's just a genuine guy. You can't fake that for years and years."

On the other hand, it is not entirely clear why so many conservative activists believe Bush has nominated one of their own. His associations with Rehnquist, Reagan, Starr and Bush have certainly played a role. And a soft-spoken establishment conservative has a better chance of confirmation than a flame-thrower.

Roberts certainly looks the part of a conservative. He had a priest over to his home for Christmas Eve. He has made wry comments about the progressive legal theories that are rampant on law school campuses. He belongs to a country club. He plays squash.

"You know, he's an ambidextrous squash player," says Larry Robbins, his friend from the Law Review. "He favors his right, but he can use his left when the situation calls for it."

"But don't make too much of that, okay?"

Staff writers Jo Becker, Jonathan Finer, R. Jeffrey Smith and David Von Drehle contributed to this report.

Read More...

Roberts' White House papers show sly wit

Caller.com
Roberts' White House papers show sly wit

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Associated Press Writer

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP) -- John Roberts was not afraid to jab an elbow on policy or dispense opinion with a dash of sarcasm when he was a young lawyer in the Reagan White House.

President Bush's Supreme Court nominee was a stickler for legal nuance who used a finely tuned political radar to steer officials away from entanglements on Capitol Hill, where Democrats then ruled.

Roberts' writings stored at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library give a sense of a partisan eager to defend the president and keep lawmakers and bureaucrats in line.

For someone who has become known in both parties for a self-deprecating wit, Roberts could be blunt on paper, even dismissive.

Roberts, 50, served in the White House counsel's office from 1982 to 1986. The files show that his tasks included scrutinizing proposed legislation, assessing the impact of court rulings and reviewing speeches.

Roberts' political instincts took charge when he alerted White House counsel Fred Fielding that an administration position in a racially sensitive Supreme Court case could rankle a political ally, a Mississippi congressman named Trent Lott.

In a case involving alleged discrimination and a church-run school, Roberts wrote in a memo dated Aug. 2, 1984, "There should be little press interest ... since we are on the side of the black parents at this point."


Government officials had assured Lott they would not prevent the Mississippi church from having its day in court. "Just not the Supreme Court," Lott should be told if he objects, Roberts, then 29, wrote.

In a memo from March 1984, Roberts warned an official at the White House's Office of Management and Budget to avoid references to a touchy issue during upcoming immigration testimony.

The office should not cite the denial of visas to the widow of former Chilean President Salvador Allende and Nicaragua Interior Minister Tomas Borge, according to the memo. At the time, the Reagan administration was being criticized for denying entry to leftist foreign officials on ideological grounds.

"Those denials were, and continue to be, particularly controversial and there is no need to mention them," Roberts wrote.

The hundreds of pages of memos, reports and other records provide only a glimpse of Roberts' tenure at the White House.

Many files have yet to be processed by archivists and, as with papers of other administration officials, are unavailable to the public. On Friday, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., urged the White House to release Roberts' documents "in their entirety" from his time in the administrations of Reagan and the first President Bush. Roberts was principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-93 for the current president's father.

In his Reagan years, Roberts weighed in on matters such as busing, immigration rights, fair housing law and war powers.

In an August 1984 memo, he wrote with lawyerly precision and caution about proposed presidential remarks on fair housing.

"The first sentence refers to the right of fair housing as a 'fundamental' right. I would change this to 'basic' right, since 'fundamental right' is a legal term of art in constitutional analysis and the right to fair housing in not such a 'fundamental right,'" Roberts wrote.

Directed to analyze a bill that would have blocked lower federal courts from ordering busing to integrate public schools, Roberts bucked an administration legal heavyweight - Theodore B. Olson, an assistant attorney general.

Olson's was among the names speculated about recently as possible replacements for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor - until Bush settled on Roberts last week

Roberts challenged Olson's conclusion that Congress could not outlaw busing for the purpose of reaching a racial mix in schools.

"Olson read the early busing decisions as holding that busing may in some circumstances be constitutionally required, and accordingly concludes that Congress may not flatly prohibit busing," Roberts writes. "I do not agree."

For someone widely known as a likable Midwesterner, his writings sometimes display a snarky wit.

In August 1983, he reviewed what he called a "snide letter" to Reagan from a University of Georgia professor who alleged that a government agency was compiling a blacklist and then suggested the government might investigate him for complaining.

In a memo to Fielding, Roberts added parenthetically, "Once you let the word out there's a blacklist, everybody wants to get on."

When Rep. Elliott Levitas, D-Ga., wrote Reagan to suggest a "Conference on Power Sharing" after a broad 1983 Supreme Court ruling, Roberts was dismissive.

"There already has, of course, been a 'Conference on Power Sharing,'" Roberts wrote - then alluded to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Roberts' legal advice could be pointed.

In another August 1983 memo to Fielding, Roberts reviewed a recent speech by Stuart Statler, a member of the Consumer Products Safety Commission, on a Supreme Court ruling on the division of government powers.

In the speech, Roberts wrote, Statler had suggested Congress strip from the executive branch the Justice Department's authority to represent federal agencies in court.

"There is so much wrong with so much of what Statler suggests that it is probably best simply to acknowledge receipt of his speech," Roberts told Fielding, "and tell him you look forward to reading it."

----

Associated Press Writer Jeff Wilson contributed to this report.

Read More...

Poll: Many in U.S., Japan oppose Iraq war

caller.com

Poll: Many in U.S., Japan oppose Iraq war

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite many disagreements, people in the United States and Japan have the same general view of how their governments are handling Iraq: More than half in each country disapprove.

An Associated Press-Kyodo poll found that 55 percent in the U.S. disapprove of their government's handling of Iraq and 55 percent in Japan dislike their government's handling of Iraq.

In January 2004, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi sent the first installment of troops on a noncombat, humanitarian mission in Iraq, launching Japan's largest and most dangerous military mission since World War II.

Despite strong public opposition to the dispatch and fears that it could draw Tokyo into the war, Koizumi argued that Japan - as an oil-dependent nation - had to bear its share of the burden of rebuilding Iraq and combating terrorism, while supporting its top ally, the United States.

More than 500 Japanese soldiers are based in Samawah in southern Iraq, part of a total deployment of 1,000 military personnel in the region on a mission to purify water and repair public works.

Japanese officials, who have kept the troops mostly confined to their base because of security concerns, have been debating whether to extend the mission when its authorization expires at the end of the year.

"Japan should tell the U.S. that we have already contributed our part and leave Iraq now," said Hiroshi Nose, a 46-year-old Tokyo resident. "The Japanese people don't have any idea what they are doing over there or when they are going to come back. Everything seems so unclear and the war seems to be advancing without any clear plans."

U.S. troops have been in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion, and more than 1,770 U.S. troops have died in Iraq during that time.

"I don't think we should have gone in there in the first place," said David Turechek, a teacher from Stratford, Conn. "Iraq was unrelated to things unfolding in Afghanistan."

Turechek said the United States hasn't "done a lot that's right" since going into Iraq. "We've created a lot of problems for ourselves that weren't there when we went in," he said. "There's an awful lot of chaos and death over there."


Americans who are opposed feel more strongly about it than the Japanese, with 42 percent of Americans strongly disapproving, while 17 percent of Japanese strongly disapprove.

About four in 10 in both Japan and the U.S. say they approve of their own country's Iraq policies.

"In order to maintain a good relationship with the U.S., I think Japan should contribute, said Tsutomu Hirabayashi, a 54-year-old Tokyo resident. "We can't quit the dispatch just because other countries - such as Arab countries - say we should stop."

Lew Berry, 48, of Kittanning, Pa., said he tends to approve of the Iraq mission. "I would just as soon fight the terrorist over there than get bombed over here," he said.

The poll of 1,000 adults in the United States was conducted for the AP by Ipsos, an international polling company, from July 5-10 and the poll of 1,045 eligible voters in Japan was conducted for Kyodo by the Public Opinion Research Center from July 1-3. Each poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read More...

Obama a celebrity despite low-key approach

caller.com

Obama a celebrity despite low-key approach

By SHARON COHEN
AP National Writer

PEKIN, Ill. (AP) -- The line forms the moment Sen. Barack Obama is done speaking, a procession of admirers clutching copies of his book, magazines, scraps of paper, disposable cameras and one homemade American flag. It doesn't take long before someone pops the question.

An elderly woman, dressed in bubble-gum pink, looks up with wide eyes. The lanky senator leans in to hear her amid the din in the stuffy library meeting room.

"In 2008 or some other time," she says, "will we get a chance to work for you for president?"

Obama grins, but demurs. He is not running for president. Not in 2008, at least.

His Senate career is just six months old. And six months before that, few people in America had even heard of this man who was just introducing himself to voters in Illinois.

But one year has passed since Obama's star-making turn at the Democratic convention, and the senator is now a player in two worlds: He's a deliberately low-key newcomer to Capitol Hill, careful to avoid upstaging the powerful old bulls on their home turf. But he's also an A-list celebrity, courted by everyone from Oprah to Gorbachev.

On a scorching July day, Obama has come to this blue-collar community just south of Peoria, seat of a county he and President Bush carried by equally lopsided margins. He's recognized everywhere. As he wraps an arm around a woman celebrating her retirement at C.J.'s Cafe to pose for a photo, a half-dozen friends at her table lift their cell phone cameras and click.

"It's been sort of a whirlwind," Obama says, sipping an iced tea. "Deserved or undeserved, I've received a lot of attention and that can translate into political influence. ... I think my colleagues legitimately see me as somebody who has potential but has just arrived."

That's the Washington way. In the Senate, the seniority system is still a reality and powerful committee chairmen and party leaders jealously guard the perks and prerogatives that come only with time. Obama knows he has to wait.

So he's taken on the age-old role prescribed for Senate freshmen: He's the diligent, shirt-sleeves-rolled-up, state-oriented lawmaker, devoted to the unglamorous issues that often matter most to folks back home.


He has pushed to spend money to modernize locks and dams along the Mississippi and Illinois rivers, squeeze out more dollars for Illinois highways and create tax credits for ethanol fueling stations - a plan dear to the hearts of corn and soybean growers.

He also has focused on reported inequities in disability compensation for veterans in Illinois. And with South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, he successfully proposed providing free meals for soldiers and Marines in military hospitals for extended stays while recovering from injuries received in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Still, Obama has ventured out a bit - as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he recently visited the United Nations to press for an end to the slaughter in the Darfur region of Sudan. And he will travel to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan next month.

Obama - the only black member of the U.S. Senate - knows no matter what he does, the expectations in some circles are in the stratosphere.

"In some circumstances, there probably are people who expect me to have solved the world's problems already ... ," he says, "but I think most voters are satisfied if they know I'm thinking about them."

Obama has conducted 26 town meetings, including this one, and returns to Chicago every weekend to be with his family. He and his wife, Michelle, prefer to raise their two young daughters there rather than Washington because of "the lack of pretense."

The message is clear: There's no danger of Potomac fever.

His strategy - being a student, not a showboat - is wise, says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia who has followed Obama.

"I think people wondered if he would continue to be high profile or do what he said he would do - take a back seat as a new senator and as a freshman try to learn more," he says. "To his credit, he's done the latter. He could have been on a Sunday morning talk show every weekend. He was smart enough not to do that."

That may well be why Obama - who receives about 250 invitations a week - says yes to the American Legion in Springfield and no to Mikhail Gorbachev's request to attend the 5th World Summit of Nobel Peace laureates in Rome.

But Obama, who turns 44 next month, can't escape the cameras. Nor has he tried.

He graced the cover of Newsweek and posed for celebrity photographers Annie Leibovitz and Richard Avedon - before he even took office. He popped up in People magazine (in white tie) with Barbra Streisand when both were guests at Oprah Winfrey's lavish tribute to pioneering black women.

He has been mentioned on TV's "Will & Grace" and lampooned at the annual Gridiron Club dinner, where a Washington journalist playing him wore a halo and gold lame and sang a tune called "Be Bop Messiah."

Obama even made his way onto the 100 Greatest Americans nominees list compiled by the Discovery Channel - Benjamin Franklin and comic Ellen DeGeneres made the cut, too - and edged out a handful of colleagues to rank No. 1 among senators in popularity among their constituents in a recent poll.

Obama's life also has changed in one other big way this past year.

While many senators are millionaires when elected, Obama joined the club last winter, courtesy of a $1.9 million three-book contract (one will be for children.) He also continues to draw royalties from his 1995 autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," reissued after his convention speech. It has remained on The New York Times paperback best-seller list for more than 40 weeks.

It's no wonder Obama joked months ago that he made Paris Hilton look like a recluse.

Not everyone has been enamored. Former Reagan speechwriter and sometime Republican adviser Peggy Noonan replied caustically to an essay Obama wrote for Time about Abraham Lincoln.

Obama compared his humble roots to those of 16th president: His father was a Kenyan he barely knew, his mother was from Kansas. Their son, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

"There is nothing wrong with Barack Obama's resume, but it is a log-cabin-free-zone," Noonan recently wrote in an online column for The Wall Street Journal. "So far it is also a greatness-free zone. If he keeps talking about himself like this, it will always be."

Obama also angered some liberals for supporting Condoleezza Rice's nomination for secretary of state and refusing to join a group of Democrats who protested the certification of the Electoral College votes from Ohio, alleging numerous irregularities.

"There's a lot of freight placed on symbolic gestures," Obama says. "I don't think that plays well with the American people. ... Despite the fact that I come from what would be considered the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, I don't always agree with the strategy and tactics of some of my friends on the left."

Even so, the phone keeps ringing. He has helped raised money for U.S. senators in Florida, Michigan and New Jersey this year, collecting chits along the way.

Obama says his party needs to do a better job of getting its message out to voters.

"I do agree that the Democrats have been intellectually lazy in failing to take the core ideals of the Democratic Party and adapting them to circumstances," he says.

He says the Democrats should "take it big instead of making it small" as they speak about globalization, the need for a tough foreign policy and the importance of faith and family.

"It's not just a matter of sticking in a quote from the Bible into a stock speech," he says.

The town meeting in Pekin draws a standing-room-only crowd of about 200. They hear Obama soft-pedal his own power, repeating his standard line that he's 99th in seniority. The audience doesn't mind, posing a series of soft, friendly questions about the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, veterans' benefits and the environment.

Obama is confident in his answers, measured with his words. He offers no Howard Dean-like jabs, only gentle gibes. The president's tax cuts? Billionaire Warren Buffett, he says, is the real winner. Bush's education program? "You can't have No Child Left Behind if you leave the money behind," he says.

Slash-and-burn politics are not his style. "I'm just not big on demonizing people," he says.

But he can charm them in a snap: He teases a father and son about their scalp-baring haircuts, asks a college student about school, offers a hand on the shoulder and a solemn "thank you for your service" to an elderly veteran and waits patiently as a little girl spells her name M-a-r-i-s-s-a so he can autograph the paper flag she has made.

Obama says there's a disconnect between issues people raise at town meetings and those debated in Washington. "There has yet to be a serious conversation about health care on the floor of the United States Senate," he says.

In fact, he says, there hasn't been much conversation at all.

"Now that we're in the C-Span era, we really don't have debates," he says. "What we have are sequential speeches delivered to TV cameras. ... And I think that contributes to the political rancor."

Still, he says there have been great and memorable moments in his short Senate career. He recalls walking onto an empty floor, opening his desk and seeing where - following tradition - previous occupants such as Bobby Kennedy, Paul Wellstone and Paul Simon had carved their names.

"You're reminded," he says, "that a lot of important work - both for good and for ill - has been done in this job."

Obama says he is "absolutely positive" he will not run for president in 2008. Those watching him say it's premature to predict his future.

"He has great potential, but the thing about potential is it has to be followed through," says David Bositis, a senior political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a black think tank.

"Clearly he has impressed a lot of people ... and what happened during the election was remarkable," he adds. "Now, it's really time for him to start building a resume as a U.S. senator."

Read More...