Design for Confusion

The New York Times

Design for Confusion
By PAUL KRUGMAN

I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement - a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.

Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps boast, that he had a "cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit."

"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."

Corporations followed his lead, pouring a steady stream of money into think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of "scholars" whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers.

You might have thought that a strategy of creating doubt about inconvenient research results could work only in soft fields like economics. But it turns out that the strategy works equally well when deployed against the hard sciences.


The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't. And behind it all lies lavish financing from the energy industry, especially ExxonMobil.

There are several reasons why fake research is so effective. One is that nonscientists sometimes find it hard to tell the difference between research and advocacy - if it's got numbers and charts in it, doesn't that make it science?

Even when reporters do know the difference, the conventions of he-said-she-said journalism get in the way of conveying that knowledge to readers. I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth." The headlines on many articles about the intelligent design controversy come pretty close.

Finally, the self-policing nature of science - scientific truth is determined by peer review, not public opinion - can be exploited by skilled purveyors of cultural resentment. Do virtually all biologists agree that Darwin was right? Well, that just shows that they're elitists who think they're smarter than the rest of us.

Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings. But sheer political power hasn't been enough to get creationism into the school curriculum. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support, and the country isn't ready - yet - to teach religious doctrine in public schools.

But what if creationists do to evolutionary theory what corporate interests did to global warming: create a widespread impression that the scientific consensus has shaky foundations?

Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: "creation science" was too crude to fool anyone. But intelligent design, which spreads doubt about evolution without being too overtly religious, may succeed where creation science failed.

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Read More...

Summary only...

New York Police Sued Over Subway Searches

washingtonpost.com
New York Police Sued Over Subway Searches

By Michelle Garcia
Washington Post Staff Writer

NEW YORK, Aug 4 -- The New York Civil Liberties Union sued the city's police department Thursday, calling the random search of subway riders' bags unconstitutional and ineffective.

The lawsuit -- filed in a federal court on behalf of five subway passengers, including the son of a retired police captain and a naturalized citizen -- alleges that the program violates constitutional rights that protect against illegal searches and guarantee due process.

New York City's transit system is the first in the nation to institute regular, random checks of passenger bags. The searches began July 21, after terrorist suicide bombings two weeks earlier in London's transit system killed 52 bystanders. Critics not aligned with civil liberties activists also say the searches are ineffective but say they want police to begin racial profiling of passengers to emphasize searches of young men of Middle Eastern or Asian descent.

Civil liberties advocates said searches that are not based on suspicion do little to protect the public, particularly when mass-transit riders who refuse to submit to the searches are allowed to enter the subway system at another station.


"People are allowed to walk away, ensuring that only innocent people are searched," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU, who called the searches a "civil liberties surcharge on a Metrocard."

The searches are performed on a rough mathematical formula of one out of five to 10 people depending on foot traffic, according to police officials.

New York subways move 4.7 million passengers, nearly half of the nation's mass-transit riders. New Jersey riders boarding trains to New York recently became subjected to similar searches.

Gail Donoghue, special counsel in the city's legal department, called the NYCLU "shortsighted" and said in a written statement that the program "preserves the important balance between protecting our City and preserving individual rights."

City police officials said they have received no complaints about the policy.

The Supreme Court has approved the use of checkpoints in special circumstances, but in 2000 the court ruled that random searches could not be employed for the "ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes."

A plaintiff in the NYCLU lawsuit, Joseph Gehring Jr., the son of a retired police captain and a "lifelong Republican," said he began avoiding police checkpoints after his bags were searched. "I've been forced to act like a criminal in my own city when I have done nothing wrong," said Gehring, who lamented a lack of opposition by New Yorkers to the program. "We are becoming accustomed to having our liberties taken away."

New York state Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D) plans to introduce legislation in the state legislature within two months that will empower police officers to single out people based on national origin and ethnicity.

"Police officers need to keep specific attention to young people -- Middle Eastern, South Asian -- based on a profile that is so obvious," Hikind said.

New York City Council member James S. Oddo (R) said he will introduce a nonbinding resolution in support of the legislation.

On a Manhattan-bound subway, Princess Alexander, 38, offered her conditional support for the police searches, saying, "This is what we have to live with right now." But Alexander, an office manager, said she is opposed to racial profiling. "We have been singled out," said Alexander, who is black.

Read More...

Summary only...

In Private Practice, Roberts's Record Is Mixed

washingtonpost.com
In Private Practice, Roberts's Record Is Mixed
Some Cases Run Counter to Conservative Image, but Activists on the Right Say His Past Is Irrelevant

By Jo Becker and Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writers

As a private lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr. represented homeless Washingtonians who had lost their government benefits because of city budget cuts. He advocated environmental protections for Lake Tahoe, Glacier Bay and the Grand Canyon. He spent 25 hours assisting a convicted murderer with a death penalty appeal. He even helped gay rights activists win a landmark Supreme Court anti-discrimination case.

At first blush, these cases would seem to complicate any image of the Supreme Court nominee as a down-the-line conservative. But as details have emerged in recent days, conservative groups have been busy spreading the word to their members and the broader public about what they should think of Roberts's work in private practice: Pay it no mind.

At second blush, Roberts's role is hardly surprising, say people who have worked with him or studied his career. For more than a decade, he practiced appellate law at the Washington firm Hogan & Hartson in a distinctly non-ideological fashion. Now, as liberal and conservative activists pick over his career for evidence of his political and legal philosophy, neither side seems to attach much importance to his diverse practice. And some activists on both sides remain secure in their conviction that he is an emphatic conservative who will move the high court to the right -- never mind his client list.

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that in 1996, as part of his firm's pro bono program, Roberts offered limited aid to opponents of a Colorado referendum that allowed discrimination against gays. The case led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling that protects people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

But Nan Aron of the liberal Alliance for Justice said that Roberts's involvement "doesn't say anything about his judicial philosophy." And Sean Rushton of the conservative Committee for Justice called the Colorado case "a red herring meant to divide the right."


"I don't think this is serious," said Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. "Most conservatives are very pleased. . . . He has a long record, and has been very consistent."

The prevailing view of Roberts as a reliable conservative initially emerged from his résumé as a clerk to then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist, aide to President Ronald Reagan, deputy to then-Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr and nominee of President Bush. That view was solidified by the release of forceful memos he wrote while serving in the Reagan administration, during which he helped shape policies opposing affirmative-action quotas and busing of schoolchildren to achieve desegregation. During the administration of George H.W. Bush, he signed a brief that called Roe v. Wade "wrongly decided."

In recent days, the White House and its allies have grown concerned that the documents released so far have painted Roberts as a rigid ideologue, and they have sought to provide a more complete portrait. Yesterday, the Bush administration released two Reagan-era documents sought by The Washington Post and others under the Freedom of Information Act. The Post request included thousands of other documents, which were not released.

In one memo, Roberts argued that Reagan should not interfere in a Kentucky case involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the other, he wrote that the bomber of an abortion clinic should not receive any special consideration for a pardon. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals," Roberts wrote.

Advisers to the White House have been urging the Bush team to be more aggressive about providing its own narrative of Roberts.

"There needs to be a good branding effort," said one Republican strategist involved in pro-Roberts strategy. "We do need to get out and start defining who this guy is."

Neither side has focused much attention yet on his work from 1986 to 1989 and from 1993 to 2003 at Hogan & Hartson, where he sometimes took on cases that clashed with conservative orthodoxy. For example, he once defended racial preferences for Native Hawaiians -- a case he lost to Theodore B. Olson, a prominent Republican in the appellate bar. On the other hand, Roberts assisted Republican Gov. Jeb Bush at no charge during the Florida presidential election recount in 2000.

"It's good for lawyers to represent clients on all sides of the political spectrum," Olson said. "You can't read anything into his personal feelings about the case."

The Supreme Court hears only about 80 cases a year, so even elite appellate lawyers such as Roberts have to compete for cases, and they rarely turn them down. Olson said that Supreme Court specialists also regularly help less-experienced lawyers prepare as a professional courtesy. And Hogan & Hartson lawyers said the firm has a culture in which every partner and associate is expected to help out on pro bono cases when asked.

That is what happened in the Colorado gay rights case, Romer v. Evans , in which lawyers seeking to strike down the referendum sought the help of Hogan & Hartson. Walter Smith, then head of the firm's pro bono department, turned to Roberts for assistance. Smith said Roberts readily accepted, helping to grill the lawyers handling the case during a mock trial, in which he played the role of Justice Antonin Scalia. Roberts also helped devise a strategy for the case.

"He only put in a few hours, but a few hours with John Roberts is probably worth a few weeks with someone else," Smith said. "John was always willing to help on pro bono cases, regardless of the politics. Not all his conservative brethren felt that way."

On conservative Web sites yesterday, there was scattered negative reaction to the news that Bush's nominee had helped to advance the cause of gay rights. "Frankly, I find it hard to believe that a 'conservative' Roman Catholic would not have declined to participate on moral grounds," one person wrote at http://www.confirmthem.com/ .

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, said the pro bono case was unusual for a conservative Republican lawyer. "Usually, conservative lawyers take on the more conservative causes," Yoo said.

On balance, the conservative establishment remained firmly supportive of Roberts. "While this is certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values, it is by no means a given that John Roberts' personal views are reflected in his involvement in the case," the group Focus on the Family said in a statement.

David Leitch, a former Hogan & Hartson partner, said Roberts never brought politics into his practice.

"We were Republicans, no question about that," said Leitch, who is now the general counsel of the Ford Motor Co. "But I never knew John to turn down a case for ideological reasons. He was there to represent clients. And he did it very well."

Staff writer Peter Baker contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

Congress' spending draws fire

USA Today
Congress' spending draws fire
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A series of actions by the Republican-controlled Congress threatens to send the federal deficit soaring, reversing a downward trend caused by new tax revenues from a rebounding economy.

Legislation passed by Congress this year will add $35 billion to next year's budget deficit and $115 billion through 2010, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-partisan watchdog group.

Fueling the spending is the war in Iraq and emergency aid for victims of last December's tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Last week, lawmakers added billions more in energy, highway and veterans health care funding.

The threats to the deficit will escalate in the fall, when Congress traditionally faces political pressure to cut taxes more and federal benefits less than promised. Congress approved a budget earlier this year with about $106 billion in tax cuts and $35 billion in benefit reductions, but the actual cuts must be made this fall.



*Bill too new for precise estimate.
Source: Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

As difficult as the situation is now, it's forecast to get worse. Federal health care and retirement benefits are projected to skyrocket as the baby boom generation retires. The Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday that Medicare costs are growing faster than they have in a decade. That's before a new prescription-drug benefit takes effect in January.


"We have a very short window of opportunity to make real changes in advance of when the real fiscal storm hits, and we're continuing to make things worse instead of better," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

A coalition of fiscal watchdog groups wrote President Bush on Thursday urging him to veto the highway bill, which will cost $286.4 billion over the next four years. They cited nearly 6,500 "pork-barrel" projects worth a record $24 billion. They also criticized a provision that subtracts $8.6 billion on the last day the bill is in effect, Sept. 30, 2009 — a "rescission" they doubt will occur.

"Republicans are spending at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson's presidency," said Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union. Added Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense: "They're legislating as if deficits don't matter."

The White House said legislation passed by Congress last week was slimmer than earlier versions. Lawmakers reduced the highway bill by $88.5 billion and the energy bill by $18.5 billion. The White House also noted that the House has voted to eliminate 101 programs.

"The federal government's near-term fiscal improvements give us the chance and the responsibility to deal with the long-term budget challenges posed by demographic changes and ever-rising health care costs," said Scott Milburn, spokesman for the White House budget office.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-04-congress-spending_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Smoking Gun on Roberts

Smoking Gun on Roberts
Bob Moss

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has been presented as a solid, non-fringe conservative. In answer to a Senate questionnaire,

Roberts used one question on "judicial activism" to echo a theme voiced by President Bush. "It is not part of the judicial function to make the law" from the bench, Roberts said. A judge's job is "simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law," he said.

"High Court Nominee Sides With Restraint", Los Angeles Times, August 3.

Roberts, like everyone in Bush's coterie, is lying. Findlaw columnist Julie Hilden has identified the smoking gun. She shows that Roberts' dissent in a case involving toads and the Endangered Species Act "reveals him as an extreme proponent of 'states' rights' Federalism" (1).

The Washington Post has touched lightly on this topic, reporting that

A toad may offer insight into John Roberts' legal philosophy.

The Supreme Court nominee voted against the amphibian in a 2003 case testing the powers of the federal government, a decision that suggests he may be inclined to support state or local interests on issues from civil rights to pollution control if confirmed to the high court.

("Roberts' Vote in Toad Case Is Dissected", August 1.) The Post is grossly understating the problem, and even Ms. Hilden did not explore all the implications of Roberts' dissent, as she acknowledged in an email.

In Rancho Viejo v. Norton, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld U.S. Fish and Wildlife restrictions on a California developer's construction methods, designed to protect the endangered arroyo desert toad. The power to protect the toad (via the Endangered Species Act) derives from the Federal constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Under long-standing court precedent, it is assumed that the developer is using materials or labor brought in from another state, will not restrict its marketing to California, and will not turn away out-of-state purchasers. Thus the construction of the homes is, for purposes of the Constitution, interstate commerce.(2)

Judge Roberts, in his dissent, argued that the immediate activity which threatened the toads, digging dirt out of their habitat, should be considered in isolation. The act of digging occurred strictly within California, was therefore was not an interstate activity, and the toads were therefore not protected by the Endangered Species Act. He could cite no precedent for this extreme position.

Those of you who wouldn't give a rat's ass for a toad had better be concerned about Roberts' position anyway. Its implications of are breathtaking. If followed consistently, it would eviscerate virtually all Federal regulatory laws.

Under Roberts' logic, any highway, railroad, or airport construction activities that aren't literally on a state line are local affairs, exempt from the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Or take consumer product safety. The actual act of assembling a toy no more occurs across state lines than the actual act of building a house. Most toys come from China nowadays and are shipped across state lines, but the actual act of selling a toy no more occurs across state lines than does putting up a building. So, out with the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Or take lending. The actual legal act of lending, signing the papers, occurs in one state. (How many lending organizations provide desks that straddle state lines?) So, out with Federal truth-in-lending laws.

Roberts' answer might be that the taking of a toad is entirely different than ensuring safety. But such an answer would merely prove that his position is politically motivated. Constitutionally, there's no difference between toads and toy safety. The Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to regulate safety (or lending practices); it gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. If Roberts wants to pick and choose which activities are part of interstate commerce, based on what he thinks ought to be regulated, then he's making his own law. Or, if he applies his principle consistently, then he's consistently departing from settled law. In either case, he's lied to us, and does not deserve to sit on any court, let alone the Supreme Court.

(1) http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20050801.html

(2) The alternative of allowing builders to agree not to use out-of-state materials and labor, and only sell to California residents, would be expensive and impractical to enforce.

Read More...

Summary only...

Roberts Failed to Disclose Lobbyist Work

ABC News
Roberts Failed to Disclose Lobbyist Work
Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts Acknowledges Failure to Disclose Lobbyist Work to Senate Committee
The Associated Press

Aug. 4, 2005 - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has acknowledged he should have disclosed to a Senate committee that he worked as lobbyist for the cosmetics industry in 2001.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee late Wednesday, Roberts wrote that he neglected to reveal that work in response to the panel's questionnaire asking about his lobbying activities. Confirmation hearings begin Sept. 6.


The work, which was on behalf of the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrances Association, involved an effort to stave off a regulatory change involving sunscreen.

Roberts, a lawyer in private practice at the time, suggested that he did not think of disclosing the information because the nature of the work in which he met with lawyers at the federal Office of Management and Budget and the Food and Drug Administration did not seem political.

"My conversations with the government attorneys were focused on the prospect of litigation," Roberts said in a four-paragraph letter addressed to Vermont Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the panel's ranking Democrat. "Consequently, the question about lobbying on the questionnaire did not trigger a memory of these meetings."

Newsday first reported Wednesday that Roberts had done the lobbyist work, resulting in the suspension of stricter labeling rules for sunscreen.

Read More...

Summary only...

NYPD Reveals Details of London Attack

Yahoo! News
NYPD Reveals Details of London Attack

By TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writer

The London suicide bombers cooked up their explosives using mundane items like hydrogen peroxide, suggesting that "these terrorists went to a hardware store or some beauty supply store" for ingredients, according to New York City police.

Details from the July 7 London bombings emerged Wednesday at an unusually wide-ranging briefing given by the New York Police Department to city business leaders. A department spokesman later acknowledged that London officials had not authorized the briefing.

The briefing — based partly on information obtained by NYPD detectives who were dispatched to London to monitor the investigation — was part of a program designed to encourage more vigilance by private security at large hotels, Wall Street firms, storage facilities and other companies.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly warned the materials and methods used in the London attack were easily adaptable to New York.

"Initially it was thought that perhaps the materials were high-end military explosives that were smuggled, but it turns out not to be the case," Kelly said. "It's more like these terrorists went to a hardware store or some beauty supply store."


The NYPD officials said investigators believe the bombers used a peroxide-based explosive called HMDT, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. HMDT can be made using ordinary ingredients like hydrogen peroxide (hair bleach), citric acid (a common food preservative) and heat tablets (sometimes used by the military for cooking).

HMDT degrades at room temperature, so the bombers preserved it in way that offered an early warning sign, said Michael Sheehan, deputy commissioner of counterterrorism at the nation's largest police department.

"In the flophouse where this was built in Leeds, they had commercial grade refrigerators to keep the materials cool," Sheehan said, describing the setup as "an indicator of a problem."

Among the other details cited by NYPD officials:

• The bombers transported the explosives in beverage coolers tucked in the back of two cars to the outskirts of London.

• Investigators believe the three bombs that exploded in the subway were detonated by cell phones that had alarms set to 8:50 a.m.

• Similar "explosive compounds" were used in the attempted attack in London on July 21. However, the detonators were hand-activated, not timed.

Sheehan said the NYPD was troubled by information it had received about the bombers' links to "organizations," but he did not name any groups.

"We know those same types of organizations that they're affiliated with are very much present in New York City," he said. "That's something we're studying very, very carefully. ... This could happen here."

After the briefing, police spokesman Paul Browne claimed NYPD had clearance from British authorities to present the information about the July 7 attack, which killed 52 people. On Thursday, he said had been mistaken.

However, Browne insisted "all the information in the briefing was from open and unclassified sources."

The session at police headquarters in lower Manhattan was attended by officials from police departments and law enforcement agencies in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and other jurisdictions. The officials were in the city discussing plans to beef up security along Amtrak's New York-Washington route.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush unswayed by Sen. Frist on stem cell research

Reuters

Bush unswayed by Sen. Frist on stem cell research

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush in remarks published on Wednesday reiterated his threat to veto any legislation that would use federal funds to destroy human embryos for stem cell research after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist broke with Bush on the subject.

"I'm confident that I have achieved the right balance between science and ethics," he told eight newspapers in a roundtable interview on Tuesday.

Frist, a Tennessee Republican and surgeon, last Friday endorsed legislation that would expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research, seen as possible cures to diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and others.


Bush allowed federal funding for stem cell research in 2001 but imposed limits on it. He has vowed to veto the pending legislation because embryos are destroyed when the stem cells are extracted.

The bill, approved in the House and likely to come up in the Senate after the August recess, would allow federally funded research on stem cells derived from leftover embryos in fertility clinics. There are currently about 400,000 such frozen embryos, many of which will otherwise be destroyed.

"They have the prerogative to pass laws. I have the prerogative to set limits on what I think is right," Bush said of congressional efforts to lift the restrictions he imposed.

The White House would not provide a transcript of Bush's remarks, in keeping with its policy that interviews are exclusive to the news organization.

But White House spokesman Trent Duffy said that in the interview "reiterated that he would veto any legislation that would use taxpayer dollars to destroy human embryos. That is the line he has drawn."

In the interview, Bush also said he was "troubled" by a recent ruling by the Supreme Court on eminent domain that curbed property rights.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that a city can take a person's home or business with just compensation for a development project designed to revitalize a depressed local economy.

Bush said he would give serious review to congressional efforts to ease its impact through legislation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats celebrate narrow U.S. House loss in Ohio

Reuters
Democrats celebrate narrow U.S. House loss in Ohio

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats on Wednesday celebrated a closer-than-expected loss in a special House of Representatives race in Ohio and called it a warning sign for Republicans entering the 2006 congressional elections.

But Republicans cautioned against reading too much into Jean Schmidt's narrow win over Democrat and Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, saying low turnout and local issues made the race unique and kept it from being a bellwether on Republican leadership or President Bush.

Schmidt, a former state representative, beat Hackett by 3,500 votes out of more than 112,000 cast in the conservative and heavily Republican district, where no Democrat in decades had won or even managed 40 percent of the vote.

Hackett's criticism of the Iraq war and tough attacks on Bush energized the contest to replace Rob Portman, who resigned to become U.S. trade representative after regularly rolling up 70 percent of the vote in the district.

"Every Republican in Congress should consider himself put on notice," Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said of Tuesday's results.

Hackett tried to tie Schmidt to ethics allegations against unpopular Ohio Republican Gov. Bob Taft, and Democrats hope to make ethics scandals surrounding Texas Rep. Tom DeLay and other Republicans a centerpiece of their 2006 campaign.

Democrats said the close race was a sign that scandals and dissatisfaction with the country's direction were taking a toll on Republicans.

"Americans will no longer tolerate the Republicans' continued abuses of power and catering to corporate special interests," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said.


But Republicans said the low turnout, well below the nearly 300,000 votes cast in 2004, and the races run by the two candidates skewed the results.

"Special elections are unique, they don't always reflect the district's usual results," said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the House Republican campaign committee. He said Hackett's two television advertisements featured Bush and made no mention of the fact Hackett was a Democrat.

"Hackett ran as a Republican, he never called himself a Democrat," Forti said, adding Democrats had "a long way to go" to make ethics a national issue for 2006.

Amy Walter, a House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Report, said Hackett ran a much better campaign than Schmidt and was a stronger candidate. The result, however, should give Democrats hope and make some Republicans nervous, she said.

"Republicans in Ohio should definitely be very concerned about this," Walter said, noting several incumbent Ohio Republicans, most notably Rep. Bob Ney, face potentially tough re-election races next year.

Hackett said the result should encourage Democrats nationwide.

"We have the power to win back Congress. Yesterday proved it," he said in an e-mail fund-raising pitch for Democracy for America, the group started by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

"Yesterday, one of the reddest regions in America turned a whole lot bluer," Hackett said.

Read More...

Summary only...

None dare call it stolen - Ohio, the election, and America's servile press

freepress.org
None dare call it stolen - Ohio, the election, and America's servile press
by Mark Crispin Miller, summarized by Mary Anne Saucier, Columbus, Ohio


While commentators, prompted by Republicans, claimed Bush won the 2004 election through the votes of a silent majority concerned with “family values,” Mark Crispin Miller writes that when voters were asked to state, “in their own words the most important factor in their vote,”only 14 percent named “moral values.” He details how the press (except for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC) ignored “the strange details of the election—except, that is, to ridicule all efforts to discuss them…It was as if they were reporting from inside a forest fire without acknowledging the fire, except to keep insisting that there was no fire.”

Then he lists the copious evidence pointing to a stolen election, easily available on the web or in paperback, from Michigan Representative John Conyers’ report, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio. More than dirty tricks, it covers “the run-up to the election, the election itself, and the post-election cover-up,” listing “specific violations of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act.”

The Conyers report details the disenfranchisement of Democrats through “intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.”

# There was unequal placement of voting machines.
# County boards of elections were ordered to reject all Ohio voter-registration forms not printed on white, uncoated paper of not less than 80 lb. text weight.
# Access was limited to provisional ballots.
# “Caging”was used to challenge 35,000 individuals who did not sign for registered letters sent to new voters.
# There was restriction of media from covering the election and conducting exit polls.
# There was a prearranged FBI terrorist attack warning in Warren County which kept reporters from observing a post-election ballot-counting.
# There was restriction of foreign monitors from “watching the opening of the polling places, the counting of the ballots, and, in some cases, the election itself.
# Numerous statistical anomalies all deducted votes from Kerry.
# In Cuyahoga and Franklin Counties, “the arrows on the absentee ballots were not properly aligned with their respective punch holes, so that countless votes were miscast.”
# In Mercer County, 4000 votes were mysteriously not in the final count.
# In Lucas County a polling place never opened because no one had the key.
# In Hamilton County, many absentee voters could not vote for Kerry because his name was not on the ballot.
# In Mahoning County 25 electronic machines changed Kerry votes to Bush.
# Dirty tricks told voters to go to false polling places; that Democrats were to vote on November 3; volunteers offered to take absentee ballots to the election office; voters were challenged to prove eligibility to vote. The “Texas Strike Force” (25 people registered at a Franklin County Holiday Inn, paid by the Republican Party) threatened targeted people from a pay phone, if they voted.
# Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell created rules for the Ohio recount (requested by the Green and Libertarian Parties) which would prevent “countywide hand recounts by any means necessary.” The end result was “the Ohio vote was never properly recounted, as required by Ohio law.”
# On December 13, 2004, it was reported by Deputy Director of Hocking County Elections Sherole Eaton, that a Triad GSI employee had changed the computer that operated the tabulating machine, and had “advised election officials how to manipulate voting machinery to ensure that [the] preliminary hand recount matched the machine count.” This same Triad employee said he worked on machines in Lorain, Muskingum, Clark, Harrison, and Guernsey counties.

“Based on the above, including actual admissions and statements by Triad employees, it strongly appears that Triad and its employees engaged in a course of behavior to provide “cheat sheets” to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets told them how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law. If true, this would frustrate the entire purpose of the recount law—to randomly ascertain if the vote counting apparatus is operating fairly and effectively, and if not to conduct a full hand recount.”


# In Union County, Triad replaced the hard drive on one tabulator.
# In Monroe County, “after the 3 percent hand count had twice failed to match the machine count, a Triad employee brought in a new machine and took away the old one. (That machine’s count matched the hand count.)”
# Green and Libertarian volunteers reported that in Allen, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Morrow, Hocking, Vinton, Summit, and Medina counties, “the precincts for the 3 percent hand recount were preselected, not picked at random, as the law requires.”
# Even though the 3 percent hand recount in Fairfield County was different than the machine count, there was no hand count as required.
# “In Washington and Lucas counties, ballots were marked or altered, apparently to ensure that the hand recount would equal the machine count.”
# “In Ashland, Portage, and Coshocton counties, ballots were improperly unsealed or stored.”
# At great cost, Belmont County had an independent programmer change the counting machines so they would only count votes for President.
# “..Democratic and/or Green observers were denied access to absentee, and /or provisional ballots, or were not allowed to monitor the recount process, in Summit, Huron, Putnam, Allen, Holmes, Mahoning, Licking, Stark, Medina, Warren, and Morgan counties.

Miller writes about the January 6, 2005 Electoral challenge from Ohio Representative Stephonie Tubbs-Jones and California Senator Barbara Boxer. He decries its rejection by the Congress and the press, with the Republicans calling the Democrats “troublemakers and cynical manipulators”, etc., etc.

According to Miller, “all this commentary was simply wrong” and “went unnoticed and/or unreported;” and with Bush’s re-inauguration “all inquiries were apparently concluded, and the story was officially kaput.” Miller emphasizes that, even after the National Election Data Archive Project, on March 31, 2005, “released its study demonstrating that the exit polls had probably been right, it made news only in the Akron Beacon-Journal,” while “the thesis that the exit polls were flawed had been reported by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, USA Today, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Columbus Dispatch, CNN.com, MSNBC, and ABC..”

In conclusion, Mark Crispin Miller does not expect to reverse the 2004 election, but to make it possible for us to move on, and achieve real electoral reform.

…The point of our revisiting the last election.. is to see exactly what the damage was so that the people can demand appropriate reforms… for there has never been a great reform that was not driven by some major scandal.

...In this nation’s epic struggle on behalf of freedom, reason, and democracy, the press has unilaterally disarmed—and therefore many good Americans, both liberal and conservative, have lost faith in the promise of self-government. That vast surrender is demoralizing, certainly, but if we face it, and endeavor to reverse it, it will not prove fatal. This democracy can survive a plot to hijack an election. What it cannot survive is our indifference to, or unawareness of, the evidence that such a plot has succeeded.

The piece on which this summary is based was originally published in Harper's (http://harpers.org). Mark Crispin Miller is a professor at New York University, a political/media commentator, and author of his latest book, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the Election of 2004, and Why They Will Keep Doing It Unless We StopThem, which will be published by Basic Books this October.

Read More...

Summary only...

When They Knew

time.com

When They Knew
By MASSIMO CALABRESI

As the investigation tightens into the leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, sources tell TIME some White House officials may have learned she was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson weeks before his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed piece criticizing the Administration. That prospect increases the chances that White House official Karl Rove and others learned about Plame from within the Administration rather than from media contacts. Rove has told investigators he believes he learned of her directly or indirectly from reporters, according to his lawyer.

The previously undisclosed fact gathering began in the first week of June 2003 at the CIA, when its public-affairs office received an inquiry about Wilson's trip to Africa from veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. That office then contacted Plame's unit, which had sent Wilson to Niger, but stopped short of drafting an internal report. The same week, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman asked for and received a memo on the Wilson trip from Carl Ford, head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Sources familiar with the memo, which disclosed Plame's relationship to Wilson, say Secretary of State Colin Powell read it in mid-June. Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage may have received a copy then too.



When Pincus' article ran on June 12, the circle of senior officials who knew about the identity of Wilson's wife expanded. "After Pincus," a former intelligence officer says, "there was general discussion with the National Security Council and the White House and State Department and others" about Wilson's trip and its origins. A source familiar with the memo says neither Powell nor Armitage spoke to the White House about it until after July 6. John McLaughlin, then deputy head of the CIA, confirms that the White House asked about the Wilson trip, but can't remember exactly when. One thing he's sure of, says McLaughlin, who has been interviewed by prosecutors, is that "we looked into it and found the facts of it, and passed it on."

--By Massimo Calabresi. With reporting by Timothy J. Burger, Michael Duffy and Viveca Novak

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Surpasses 1,800

Yahoo! News
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Surpasses 1,800

By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer

Seven U.S. Marines were killed in two separate attacks west of Baghdad, where American forces are trying to seal a major border infiltration route for foreign fighters, the military said Tuesday. The deaths pushed the U.S. military death toll in Iraq past 1,800.

One of the Marines died Monday in a suicide car bombing in Hit, 85 miles northwest of Baghdad. The other six were killed Monday in Haditha, 50 miles from Hit — all of them attached to the same suburban Cleveland unit.

"Every single one of them is a hero," said Lt. Col. Kevin Rush of the Headquarters and Service Co. 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines based in Brook Park, Ohio.

At least 25 American service members have been killed in Iraq in the past 10 days — all but two in combat. The Iraqi Defense Ministry said that since the beginning of April, more than 2,700 Iraqis — about half of them civilians — had been killed in insurgency-related incidents.


Fighting has intensified in recent weeks in Haditha, Hit and other dusty towns along the Euphrates River northwest of Baghdad as American forces step up efforts to seal off the approaches to the Syrian border and prevent foreign fighters from entering the country.

The Marines launched a series of operations in the region in May and June in hopes of pacifying the area so that Iraqi military and civilian forces could assume effective control. But the insurgents have proven resilient.

The U.S. command said the six Marines were "engaged by terrorists and killed by small-arms fire" in Haditha, which U.S. and Iraqi officials have identified as a major route for insurgents entering Iraq.

After the attack, residents of Haditha said several masked gunmen identifying themselves as members of the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, a major Sunni Arab insurgent group, appeared in the market carrying helmets, flak jackets and automatic rifles they said belonged to U.S. troops.

They distributed fliers claiming they had killed 10 American service members.

"They were on a mountain near the town so we went up, surrounded them and asked them to surrender," the statement said. "They did not surrender so we killed them."

A similar claim in the name of Ansar al-Sunnah was posted on an Islamic Web site.

In Baghdad, a roadside bomb exploded at the entrance to a highway tunnel in central Baghdad as a U.S. military convoy was passing, damaging two Humvees. At least 29 Iraqis were wounded, officials said. But there was no report of any American casualties.

At least 1,801 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,382 died as a result of hostile action. The figures include five military civilians.

The toll among Iraqis, however, has been much higher.

On Tuesday, the Defense Ministry said that since April 1, a total of 2,709 Iraqis have died in violent attacks, including 1,413 civilians. The rest were soldiers, police and insurgents.

The death toll for July was 656, the ministry said. That was the second deadliest month since the Shiite-dominated government was installed — surpassed only by May's figure of 967 deaths.

However, records-keeping in Iraq is irregular, especially in areas where the insurgents are strong, and the real figure is probably higher.

Violence has accelerated as the Iraqis struggle to finish a new constitution — which the United States sees as crucial toward maintaining political momentum and undermining the insurgency.

An Iraqi committee is racing to finish the charter in time for an Aug. 15 deadline for parliamentary approval. After that, voters will decide whether to ratify the document in a referendum in mid-October, followed by a new election in December.

If all goes well, the United States and its partners hope to start bringing their troops home next year. On Tuesday, a joint commission formed to coordinate the handover of cities to Iraqi security forces held its first meeting.

Progress on the constitution has been slowed, however, due to broad differences on the role of Islam, federalism and the distribution of national wealth. Iraqi women activists fear designating Islam as the main source of legislation will curb their rights.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad urged the framers to protect women's rights as a "fundamental requirement for Iraq's progress."

"My focus is to help get a constitution that does this," Khalilzad told reporters. "Of course, the Iraqis will decide but we will help in any way that we can."

Khalilzad said his government would encourage Iraqi politicians to exclude any constitutional articles that discriminate or limit opportunities for any Iraqi citizens.

In other developments Tuesday:

_A suicide car bomber struck a police checkpoint in Mosul, killing four people, three of them police, Brig. Gen. Wathiq Mohammed said.

_An explosion damaged a pipeline used for shipping fuel to a Baghdad power station, raising fears of further power cutbacks in the capital.

• U.S. troops clashed with insurgents in Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad. There were no reports of U.S. casualties.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fired CIA agent seeks FBI probe of WMD intelligence

Reuters

Fired CIA agent seeks FBI probe of WMD intelligence

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A fired CIA agent, who a newspaper says told superiors in 2001 that Iraq had abandoned part of its nuclear program, is asking the FBI to investigate allegations that the spy agency dismissed him for refusing to falsify intelligence.

A July 11 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller from the former agent's attorney suggests CIA officials may be guilty of criminal violations involving intelligence he produced on weapons of mass destruction in 2000 that contradicted an official agency position.

The former agent's attorney, Roy Krieger, said his client initially asked the CIA's inspector general to investigate charges that CIA officials had pressured him to alter the intelligence and retaliated when he refused. But the inspector general rebuffed his request.

"If the CIA is telling him to falsify information, that's potentially a crime. This merits an investigation, and if the CIA's not going to do it, the only other place is the FBI," Krieger said.


An FBI spokesman declined to comment.

The letter to Mueller, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters on Monday, reiterates charges in a lawsuit which the former agent filed last December in Washington federal court.

Identified only by the alias "Doe," the former agent who worked as a Near Eastern specialist on counter-proliferation issues accuses the CIA of improper action on two separate pieces of intelligence.

One was the WMD intelligence the former agent says he was asked to change in 2000. The other was intelligence uncovered in 2001 that the New York Times described on Monday as dealing with Iraq's nuclear program.

The newspaper, citing people it said had knowledge of the case, said the second piece of intelligence came from a credible source and said that Baghdad had dropped a major segment of its nuclear program years before 2001.

But CIA officials refused to distribute the finding to other intelligence agencies, the Times said.

ADMINISTRATION THINKING

The case could shed new light on Bush administration thinking ahead of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which the White House largely justified by charging that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was actively pursuing nuclear arms.

No such weapons have been found in Iraq, and U.S. arms investigators have concluded that Baghdad abandoned its nuclear-development program soon after the 1991 Gulf War.

The former CIA agent was not available for comment. Krieger declined to discuss details of the case.

A CIA spokeswoman also declined to comment.

Krieger's letter to the FBI states that CIA officials accused the former agent of sexual and financial misconduct in an attempt to discredit him and retaliate for his refusal to falsify intelligence.

The former agent was fired for unspecified reasons in September 2004, the letter says.

The former CIA agent learned in 2001 that Iraq's uranium-enrichment program had ended years before and that centrifuge components were available for examination and even purchase, the New York Times reported.

The intelligence surfaced around the time when a presidential commission on WMD intelligence says the CIA came to believe Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program because Baghdad had sought high-strength aluminum tubes that the agency believed could be used to enrich uranium.

The Department of Energy and the International Atomic Energy Agency later concluded that the tubes were suited not for nuclear applications but for conventional rocketry.

Read More...

Summary only...

Stem cell sponsor sees veto-proof Senate backing

Reuters

Stem cell sponsor sees veto-proof Senate backing

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An expansion of federally funded embryonic stem cell research could pass the U.S. Senate with a veto-proof margin now that the chamber's leader backs the idea, a leading sponsor of the effort said on Sunday.

But it may be harder getting the super-majority needed to override a possible presidential veto in the House of Representatives, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter said.

Specter said the decision last week by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to defy President Bush and support legislation liberalizing the administration's policy on stem cell research had given the effort a "big boost" in Congress.

"I think we're on our way," Specter, co-sponsor of a bill to expand the research, told CBS's "Face the Nation."


Bush, a Republican, has said he will veto any bill that extends embryonic stem cell research beyond the limits he imposed in 2001. The president is opposed because embryos are destroyed when the stem cells are extracted.

Frist, a Tennessee Republican and heart surgeon who may seek his party's presidential nomination in 2008, broke with Bush on Friday by endorsing a bill already passed by the House -- though not with a veto-proof margin -- that would overturn the limits Bush imposed four years ago.

Specter said the change of heart on stem cells by the anti-abortion Frist gave political cover to lawmakers in both houses of Congress who were considering the issue.

"My analysis is that we have 62 votes at the present time, and we've got about 15 more people who are thinking it over. I believe that by the time the vote comes up we'll have 67," Specter said, referring to the two-thirds Senate majority needed to override a presidential veto.

"I think our problem ... is going to be to get it in the House," Specter added.

Separately, conservative Republican Sen. Rick Santorum said he was convinced Bush would still veto the legislation, despite the shifting politics on Capitol Hill.

"Without question the president will veto this," Santorum, the Senate's third-ranking Republican, told ABC's "This Week."

"Obviously the majority of the House and majority of the Senate disagree with him, but I'm hopeful the House will continue to have the votes necessary to sustain this veto," said Santorum, who like Specter is from Pennsylvania.

The stem cell bill, likely to be brought up in the Senate after the August recess, would allow federally funded research on cells derived from leftover embryos in fertility clinics. There are about 400,000 such frozen embryos, many of which will otherwise be destroyed.

Patients suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries and other life-threatening disorders have been clamoring for more federal dollars for cell research.

Santorum warned that Frist's decision could create problems for him with the Republicans' conservative base.

But Specter, a moderate Republican and cancer patient, disagreed, adding that he didn't think a presidential candidate opposed to expanding stem cell research could be elected.

"I believe it will be helpful to him (Frist). You have an enormous constituency out there -- 110 million Americans, directly or indirectly, are affected by Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, etc," Specter said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Gonzales balks at release of Roberts documents

Reuters

Gonzales balks at release of Roberts documents

By Deborah Charles

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Monday he would have "very serious concerns" about sharing internal documents requested by Senate Democrats in the debate over John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.

In an interview with Reuters, Gonzales also said the Justice Department does not routinely respond to such requests unless they come from the full Senate Judiciary Committee, which will begin confirmation hearings on Roberts on Sept. 6.

"There's been no formal request by the committee. We normally respond to a formal request by the committee and not by one senator or a group of senators," Gonzales said in the interview as he headed to New Orleans to give a speech.

The documents in question, requested Friday by eight Democrats on the panel in a letter to Gonzales, related to 16 cases Roberts was involved in while deputy solicitor general in the early 1990s in the first Bush administration.

They touch on a host of divisive issues including school desegregation, the death penalty, civil rights and a case in which Roberts echoed the administration position that the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

"The eight Democratic senators view it as an official request," a spokeswoman for Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's top Democrat, said in response to Gonzales' comments.


The spokeswoman said committee Democrats had invited Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, to sign on to the letter, but he declined.

President Bush nominated Roberts, a 50-year-old conservative, to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

In an interview with Texas newspapers, Bush said he did not ask Roberts about Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

Bush said he did not want to put Roberts in the position of predetermining a potential case or having to one day recuse himself, The Dallas Morning News reported.

"I said there's no litmus test, and I meant it," Bush said.

The White House has declared the documents the Democrats want off-limits, but Democratic lawmakers said the committee would need them to properly scrutinize Roberts, who has spent the past two years as a federal appeals court judge.

Gonzales also cited a 2002 letter signed by seven former solicitor generals who said "the sharing of this kind of information would be detrimental to the operation of the office of the solicitor general."

"I would have very serious concerns about the sharing of these kinds of documents because I do believe that they would hurt the operation of the solicitor general's office and would weaken the effectiveness of that office," Gonzales said.

Senate Democrats argue that there is plenty of precedent of sensitive materials from other Supreme Court nominees being turned over to the committee.

No Senate Democrat has announced plans to oppose Roberts, but virtually all say they will withhold final judgment until the confirmation hearings.

At the White House on Monday, spokesman Scott McClellan said Roberts would continue paying courtesy calls to senators and had already met with 43, including 23 Democrats and all 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

McClellan also said the White House was pleased with Friday's agreement with Democrats that set the start of the hearings and "will enable the committee and the Senate to move forward in a timely manner to have an up-or-down vote on Judge Roberts by the end of September." (Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro and Adam Entous)

Read More...

Summary only...

Controversy persists as Bolton heads for U.N.

Reuters

Controversy persists as Bolton heads for U.N.

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Once dubbed the State Department's "most dangerous man," U.S. ambassador John Bolton will bring an aggressive, sometimes-abrasive style to the United Nations that appears at odds with President Bush's new focus on cooperation and diplomacy.

Bush bypassed the Senate and appointed Bolton to the U.N. post on Monday, after the nomination was stalled by Democratic opposition. Under the so-called "recess appointment," Bolton will be able to serve until January 2007.

Bolton has a long history of criticizing the United Nations, has sometimes doubted that European and Asian allies could be counted on to back U.S. positions and has often spoken out so bluntly he was considered political dynamite.


But he is a favorite of conservatives who value his committed hard-line ideology, incisive legal mind and the single-minded passion with which he seeks to turn those views into U.S. policy, often with great effect.

While he revels in a fight, Bolton's controversial demeanor and record deprived him of endorsement by the U.S. Senate. Unable to win Bolton's confirmation by the normal Senate process, Bush bypassed lawmakers and made a recess appointment that only lasts 17 months.

Bolton clearly has Bush's support and is expected to make his time in office count, especially in pursuing the key Republican goal of U.N. reform.

Since Bush's re-election last year, the president and his aides have emphasized a renewed focus on diplomacy and shoring up relations with allies after strains over the Iraq war.

Some officials say Bolton may be more closely scripted working for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice than when he was undersecretary for nonproliferation under her predecessor, Colin Powell.

Bolton, a 56-year-old lawyer, is an unapologetic advocate of assertive American global leadership. Some analysts said appointing him U.N. envoy may be the best way to ensure that U.N. reform takes place and is credible to U.S. conservatives.

Critics accuse him of provoking confrontations over Iran and North Korea. With Rice now heading State and Bolton replaced as nonproliferation adviser, the administration has shifted from some of his harder positions by endorsing European negotiations with Iran, showing flexibility in talks with Pyongyang and agreeing to broad nuclear cooperation with India.

NEW ENERGY

But some experts credit Bolton with infusing new energy into efforts to curb nuclear-weapons proliferation, including rigorous use of sanctions to penalize Chinese and other entities doing nuclear and missile business with Iran.

He is also associated with a security initiative under which more than 60 countries agreed to interdict illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and their components.

Bolton, top nonproliferation official in 2001-2005, hoped for a promotion in Bush's second term and was disappointed when Rice chose Trade Representative Robert Zoellick as her deputy. For months, his political future seemed in limbo.

Apart from policy contributions, Bolton helped ensure Bush's first presidential victory. He was on the team former Secretary of State James Baker took to Florida in 2000 to represent the Bush campaign in a disputed vote count ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Former Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms, a conservative Republican from North Carolina, once called Bolton "the man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon" and another admirer described him in the Wall Street Journal as "the most dangerous man at State."

During Bolton's unsuccessful Senate confirmation fight, one former U.S. official who had tangled with him described him as a "quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy."

But Bolton himself enjoys throwing rhetorical hand grenades and keeps a defused real one in his office, along with a copy of the "most dangerous man at State" article.

INFIGHTER

A fierce infighter with an independent streak, he has insisted on holding Iran and North Korea to strict account for their nuclear activities and has voiced an interest in seeing both governments overturned.

He has fought repeated administration battles aimed at bringing both countries to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions and at countering other officials who wanted to pursue dialogue.

Bolton "has overseen this administration's flawed proliferation policy that has seen North Korea quadruple its nuclear arsenal and seen Iran take dangerous steps toward the development of nuclear weapons," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Attempting to defuse opposition, Rice has extolled Bolton's previous service as the assistant secretary of state who dealt with the United Nations and his successful 1991 campaign to persuade the international body to repeal a resolution that equated Zionism with racism.

But Bolton also led the U.S. withdrawal from International Criminal Court jurisdiction and encouraged U.S. opposition to Europe's decision to lift its arms embargo on China, two initiatives that fanned tensions with allies.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush: Rove has 'my compete confidence' despite leak

Reuters

Bush: Rove has 'my compete confidence' despite leak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Monday declared "complete confidence" in his top political adviser, Karl Rove, despite his alleged role in leaking a covert CIA operative's identity, according to an interview.

Federal investigators are trying to determine who outed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose name first appeared in a column by newspaper journalist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.

"Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team," Bush said in his strongest defense yet of Rove, the architect of his presidential campaigns.

Bush made his comments in a roundtable interview with several Texas newspapers, portions of which were posted online by Knight Ridder Newspapers.

Plame's husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, said the leak was meant to discredit him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy in 2003 after a CIA-funded trip to investigate whether Niger helped supply nuclear materials to Baghdad.


Rove was the first person to tell a Time magazine reporter that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, but did not disclose her name, according to the reporter.

NOVAK BREAKS SILENCE

Novak broke his silence on the case on Monday to challenge a former CIA spokesman who said that he had warned Novak not to publish the agent's name.

Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman cited by Novak, told the Washington Post last week that he had testified before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published.

Harlow said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the trip to Niger and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed, the Post reported.

Novak, in his column on Monday, brushed aside Harlow's comments about warning him.

"That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America,"' Novak wrote, referring to a publication that compiles information about prominent people.

Novak wrote that he "never would have written those sentences (in July 2003) if Bill Harlow, then-CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger her or anybody else."

The White House has refused in recent weeks to comment on the case after initially denying that Rove involved.

"Why don't you wait and see what the true facts are?" Bush said on Monday in the roundtable interview.

Democrats have urged Bush to fire Rove or revoke his access to classified information. It is against the law in some cases to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA officer.

The special prosecutor investigating the case could also be considering charges of obstruction of justice or perjury.

Bush said last month that he would fire anyone found to have acted illegally in the case, but critics accused him of lowering the "ethics bar." Bush and his aides have at times in the past been broader in saying that those involved in the leak would face consequences.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush thumbs nose at Senate, US Citizens - appoints Bolton

Once again, President George W. Bush proves himself to be a divider, not a uniter. Not wasting a moment, he appointed John Bolton as the US representative to the UN just as soon as Congress went into recess, thereby circumventing the process.



The hopes for cooperation from the rest of the world on matters of national and international security and other pressing issues, has just diminished even further. And, if the Democratic Party is smart, they will take this opportunity to unite and make those in this country that still don't get it, understand what it is that this President has done and is doing to this country.

Read More...

Summary only...

Thinking Inside The Brain

Thinking Inside The Brain

Read More...

Summary only...

All Loaded Up

All Loaded Up

Read More...

Summary only...

Trojan Judge

Trojan Judge

Read More...

Summary only...

Armchair Warrior

Armchair Warrior

Read More...

Summary only...

Energy Bill

Energy Bill

Read More...

Summary only...

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Read More...

Summary only...

Guantanamo Detentions Disgraceful

ABC News
Carter: Guantanamo Detentions Disgraceful
Jimmy Carter Says Detention of Terror Suspects at Guantanamo Bay 'Is a Disgrace to the U.S.'
By CASSANDRA VINOGRAD
The Associated Press

Jul. 30, 2005 - Former President Carter said Saturday the detention of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base was an embarrassment and had given extremists an excuse to attack the United States.

Carter also criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as "unnecessary and unjust."

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

Carter said, however, that terrorist acts could not be justified, and that while Guantanamo "may be an aggravating factor ... it's not the basis of terrorism."

Critics of President Bush's administration have long accused the U.S. government of unjustly detaining terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base on the southeastern tip of Cuba. Hundreds of men have been held indefinitely at the prison, without charge or access to lawyers.

"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."

Earlier this month, Carter called for the Guantanamo prison to be shut down, saying reports of abuses there were an embarassment to the United States. He also said that the United States needs to make sure no detainees are held incommunicado and that all are told the charges against them.

Carter, who won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.

"I thought then, and I think now, that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjust. And I think the premises on which it was launched were false," he said Saturday.


The Baptist World Alliance, comprising more than 200 Baptist unions around the world, was formed in London in 1905. The headquarters of the alliance, which meets in a different location every five years, moved to the United States in 1947.

An estimated 12,700 delegates gathered in the city of Birmingham in central England for the conference. Carter, a Sunday school teacher in his hometown of Plains, Ga., was due to lead a Bible study lesson during the conference.

He praised British police and intelligence services for the swift arrests in connection with the July 21 failed bombing attempts on London's transit system.

"I'm very proud to be in a nation that stands so stalwart against terrorism with us," he said. "The people of my country have united our hearts and sympathy for the tragedy that you have suffered from terrorism."

On the Net:

http://www.bwacongress2005.org.uk

Read More...

Summary only...

For Security, Follow the House

The New York Times
July 31, 2005
For Security, Follow the House

After the London bombings, it is more obvious than ever that next year's Homeland Security budget should direct as much money as possible to the places most at risk of attack. But that may not happen. The Senate, disgracefully, voted this month to take money from states like New York, California and Texas, which are at greatest risk, and give it to states like Wyoming. But the House of Representatives has now done the right thing, and voted to hand out more of the money based on risk. When the final formula is settled on, it is important that the House version prevail.

The 9/11 commission and the Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, have both stated that the only responsible way to allocate antiterrorism funds is by degree of risk. But many members of Congress have ignored this expert advice and treated the Homeland Security budget like any other pot of money in Washington, supporting whatever formula sends the most to their states.

The Senate's domestic security committee, which is headed by Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, should be fighting for a formula that will direct the most money to where it is needed the most. But instead, Ms. Collins formed an alliance with other representatives of small, low-risk states, and came up with a formula that is dangerously skewed in favor of the states that need the money the least.

Earlier this month, the Senate was faced with a fateful choice. It could have voted for Ms. Collins's irresponsible formula, which showers antiterrorism money on rural America, or an alternative formula backed by all six senators from New York, California and Texas to direct more money to high-risk states. In a low moment for the war on terror, the Senate voted for the Collins amendment. That was good news for rural areas that face little real threat of terrorism, but the chemical plants, ports and subway systems that terrorists are likely to take aim at would be left unnecessarily vulnerable.


After the Senate acted, the House voted for a far superior formula. It adopted an amendment sponsored by Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat, and John Sweeney, a New York Republican, that would distribute more of the Homeland Security funds on the bases of threats, vulnerability and consequences of an attack. It would do this in part by using substantially lower "state minimums" - money that is guaranteed to small, low-risk states regardless of whether they are in serious danger of being attacked.

Now it is up to the two houses to reconcile their funding formulas. There are reports that the Senate may be considering dropping the misguided Collins amendment, now that the House has passed a superior formula that would do more to make the nation safe. That is the right thing to do.

If the Senate stands by its formula, when the time comes to reconcile the House and Senate formulas, Dennis Hastert, the House speaker, and Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader, should make sure that the House holds firm. Defending America from acts of terrorism will not be easy in the best of circumstances. It will be a lot harder if the Collins amendment's formula becomes law, and scarce Homeland Security dollars are turned into a wasteful gravy train.

Read More...

Summary only...

GOP Not Doing Enough for Troops

ABC News
Inouye: GOP Not Doing Enough for Troops
In Dems' Radio Address, Sen. Inouye Accuses Republicans of Not Doing Enough for Troops in Iraq
The Associated Press

Jul. 30, 2005 - Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, an Army veteran who lost his right arm in World War II, criticized Republicans on Saturday for not doing enough to help troops fighting in or returning from Iraq.

In the Democrats' weekly radio address, Inouye said Senate Republicans were focusing on legislation sought by the gun lobby while ignoring the needs of troops.

On Tuesday, the Senate put off completion of a $491 billion defense bill to act on the National Rifle Association's top priority: shielding gun manufacturers and dealers from liability suits stemming from gun crimes.

"For years, we've heard the president and congressional Republicans speak eloquently about honoring our troops," Inouye said. "But this week when push came to shove their priorities were different."


The senator added: "Our men and women who have served should not worry about funding for health care year after year, and our soldiers on the front lines should get the resources they need. Our Congress could consider our men and our women in uniform as our nation's top priority."

The gun bill cleared the Senate 65-31 Friday, with Inouye in opposition.

Read More...

Summary only...

GOP Says It Will 'Bury' Name-Calling Candidate

washingtonpost.com
GOP Says It Will 'Bury' Name-Calling Candidate

By Dan Balz

Paul Hackett doesn't fit conventional political profiles. He is a Marine Reservist and an Iraq war veteran who opposed the war before the U.S. invasion and remains a harsh critic of President Bush's policy there. He is also a Democrat battling to win a special House election in Ohio in a district that has been in Republican hands for more than three decades.

On Tuesday, voters in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District will elect a successor to former representative Rob Portman, who quit Congress to become U.S. trade representative. Hackett hopes to beat the long odds by defeating Republican nominee Jean Schmidt, a former state representative, by stressing his military service and independence.

A lawyer and a major in the Marine Reserves, Hackett volunteered last year to serve in Iraq and spent seven months there in a civilian affairs job, including service around Ramadi and Fallujah. He returned to Ohio in March and decided to jump into the race for Portman's seat, seeking to become the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress.

His campaign has drawn support from Democrats across the country. Liberal blogs have defended him from GOP attacks. Former Ohio senator John Glenn, another former Marine, sent a message to online supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) asking them to pitch in financially. Democracy for America, the organization founded by former Vermont governor Howard Dean, says it has raised $80,000 for Hackett.

Schmidt, who won a crowded GOP primary, has charged that Hackett's views don't fit with those of voters in conservative southwest Ohio, where Bush won 64 percent of the vote last November. But the outspoken Democratic nominee hasn't been shy about bad-mouthing the president.

Hackett told USA Today that Bush's taunting line, "Bring 'em on!" was "the most incredibly stupid comment I've ever heard a president of the United States make." He also told the newspaper that, while he was willing to put his life on the line for the president, "I've said that I don't like the son-of-a-[expletive] that lives in the White House."

Both the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee have bought TV time for commercials over the weekend. "He called the commander in chief a son-of-a-[expletive]," said NRCC spokesman Carl Forti. "We decided to bury him."


Hackett, hoping to capitalize on the widespread disarray in the scandal-plagued Ohio GOP, remains unapologetic about his characterization of the president. "I said it. I meant it. I stand by it," he said in a phone interview. "In this district, we need more straight-talking, straight-shooting politicians."
Edwards Uneasy About Roberts Nomination

If he had sought and won reelection last year, former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) would be looking forward to a prominent role in the upcoming confirmation hearings of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for a seat on the Supreme Court. Instead, he is on the outside looking in.

On Friday, Edwards spoke to the American Constitution Society about the courts and the Roberts nomination, saying the Senate should demand the right to see documents from Roberts's tenure in the solicitor general's office during the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

Edwards sounded troubled by what he has seen of Roberts's record and said his former colleagues should press the nominee to explain his philosophy in greater detail. "Does Judge Roberts still hold today the views he promoted earlier in his career?" he asked, according to his prepared text. "Is Judge Roberts committed to implementing the radical 'protect-the-powerful' jurisprudence or does he recognize the claims of the powerless as well as the powerful?"

These were questions that Edwards did not linger over in 2003 -- when he joined other Democrats in voting to send Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

As a former senator, Edwards won't get to grill Roberts this time, but at least he gets to travel where he wants. Where he wants is New Hampshire -- the 2008 aspirant left for an appearance there immediately after his speech.
Panel Tackles Granite State's Influence

Speaking of New Hampshire, the Democratic National Committee commission tasked with studying whether to change the nominating calendar for the 2008 primaries and caucuses has begun looking at ideas that could reduce the Granite State's outsize influence in picking presidents.

Commission members say they want to preserve the kind of coffee shop style of campaigning required of any candidate who runs in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. But they also want some changes to ensure a larger voice for blacks, Hispanics and other minorities, as well as organized labor, in the crucial opening weeks of a nominating contest.

At a recent meeting in Washington, the commission staff presented the group with scenarios that included regional primaries and the more radical idea of trying to prevent states from having primaries or caucuses before early March. Democrats say none of these proposals is likely to be embraced in the end.

But there appears to be more interest in plans that call for keeping Iowa as the site of the first caucuses and New Hampshire as the host of the first primary, but that would insert a few other caucus contests between the two.

Read More...

Summary only...

Oregon anti-meth law would require prescriptions

Reuters

Oregon anti-meth law would require prescriptions

PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - A bill passed by lawmakers on Saturday would make Oregon the first U.S. state to require a doctor's prescription for cold medicines containing an ingredient that can be used to make the illegal drug methamphetamine.

"We hope this will reduce the supply" of meth, Democratic state Sen. Ginny Burdick told Reuters after the Senate passed the bill.

Oregon's House of Representatives approved the measure earlier this month and Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski was expected to sign it.

The bill has widespread support, but critics say it would hurt people without medical insurance who cannot afford to go to a doctor for a cold or an allergy.

Although much of the nation's meth supply is produced in large labs in Mexico, the addictive drug can be made in smaller labs with easily available equipment and ingredients, including cold or allergy medicines containing pseudoephedrine.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said recently that meth had surpassed marijuana as the drug posing the greatest danger to the nation's children.

The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that would move medicines containing pseudoephedrine, such as Sudafed, NyQuil, and Tylenol Cold, behind pharmacy counters and limit how much one person can buy to 7.5 grams a month -- the equivalent of roughly 250 30-milligram tablets.


Customers also would be required to show a photo identification and sign a log.

It is modeled after an Oklahoma law, copied by at least a dozen other states, that authorities say has resulted in a large drop in meth labs seized by police.

The bills passed by the Oregon Senate and House of Representatives also would toughen penalties for meth-related crimes.

Lt. Brian Schmautz of the Portland Police Bureau said it was "naive to think that this will solve the meth problem."

But he said the bill would likely reduce the number of local labs and thus the property contamination, fires and danger to children sometimes found in homes with meth labs.

Oregon had the highest per-capita rate of treatment admissions for meth in the United States in 2002, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

More than 326 of every 100,000 Oregonians sought treatment for meth addiction, and more Oregonians sought treatment for meth addiction than any other drug except alcohol, according to the data.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush draws heat from conservatives on highway bill

Reuters

Bush draws heat from conservatives on highway bill

By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite big legislative wins this week, President Bush is drawing heat from some conservatives over his plans to sign a highway bill that critics say warranted a veto because it is chock full of extra spending.

Bush was pleased by a mid-July report from his budget office that slashed the fiscal 2005 deficit forecast to $333 billion -- down nearly $100 billion from its February projection and lower than last year's $412 billion shortfall.

But Bush, whose first four years in office saw a shift from record surplus to record deficits, has some persuading to do with members of his own Republican Party when he extols a commitment to fiscal discipline.

Many Republican activists are upset over the six-year $286.5 billion highway bill approved by Congress on Friday. Bush's aides made clear he would sign the bill even though he previously pledged to veto any measure above $284 billion.

"This bill is an egregiously bloated spending bill and this all happens as we move to the final phase of the spending season," said Pat Toomey, head of the Club for Growth, a group that raises money for Republican candidates.

By backing down on a pledge to hold the line on highway funds, Toomey said Bush was sending a signal of laxity to Congress as it prepares to finalize spending bills this fall, which often include funds for members' pet projects in their districts.

"How will his future threats be taken seriously?" Toomey asked.


'SPENDING SPREE'

Former House of Representatives Republican Leader Dick Armey said a highway-bill veto would be a chance to show Congress "the spending spree is over."

The legislation, which lays out guaranteed amounts of money for road and transit projects, was overwhelmingly approved in both chambers of Congress. Such bills give lawmakers a chance to show they are funneling funds back to their districts and spurring construction and new jobs.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said that Bush felt lawmakers had come a long way in whittling down the bill's cost. A Senate version of the bill in May sought $295 billion.

An administration official, eager to emphasize a push to hold the line on spending, said White House budget director Joshua Bolten spoke this week to House of Representatives lawmakers to oppose Senate plans to shift funds out of the defense budget to pay for non-security programs.

Budget analysts see the Senate move as a gimmick intended to free up more money because the defense funds will be replenished in a supplemental spending bill for Iraq and the war on terror.

William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute think tank, referred to the highway bill as an "abomination" but said Bush likely agreed to it to buy votes for a key priority, the U.S. Central-American Free Trade Agreement.

The CAFTA pact narrowly passed this week. Bush's long-sought revamp of energy policy also passed Congress this week.

Niskanen said it may also have been in Bush's interest to avoid a fight with the Senate on a spending bill as he seeks approval of his nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts.

Brian Riedl, budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation think tank, said that while at some point Bush may have to veto a spending bill, letting the highway bill go through won't by itself spell fiscal doom.

"The president has convinced Congress to generally stick within his discretionary spending guidelines," Riedl said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush to bypass Senate to appoint Bolton-sources

Reuters

Bush to bypass Senate to appoint Bolton-sources

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush plans to bypass the U.S. Senate and install John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, officials said.

Bush can go around the Senate and give Bolton a "recess appointment" when the Senate begins its August recess this weekend. Bolton would be able to serve until January 2007, when a new Congress is sworn in.

Two U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was Bush's intent to make a recess appointment. An announcement could come as early as Monday.

Senate Democrats have stalled the nomination of Bolton, a favorite of conservatives, over accusations he tried to manipulate intelligence and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his hawkish views while the top U.S. diplomat for arms control.

Asked about the possibility of a recess appointment for Bolton, White House spokesman Scott McClellan argued that the job needed to be filled soon.

"We need our permanent representative in place at the United Nations at this critical time. There is an effort under way to move forward on comprehensive reform," he said.

"And it's a critical time to be moving forward on this. The United Nations will be having their General Assembly meeting in September, and it's important that we get our permanent representative in place," he said.

A recess appointment would risk the wrath of the Senate at a time when Bush is pressing senators to support his nominee for Supreme Court justice, John Roberts. His confirmation hearings begin on Sept. 6.

"A recess appointment is not in the interest of the country. Mr. Bolton does not have the full confidence of the Senate. Sending him to the U.N. without the Senate's approval would send a mixed message to friend and foe alike," said Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat and a sharp critic of Bolton.

Thirty-five Senate Democrats and one independent sent Bush a letter on Friday urging him to find a different U.N. envoy.


A STATE DEPARTMENT REVERSAL

Questions about Bolton surfaced anew on Thursday when the State Department reversed itself and acknowledged that Bolton had given Congress inaccurate information when he wrote that he had not been questioned or provided information to jury or government investigations in the past five years.

At first, the State Department had insisted Bolton's answer was truthful.

But it later acknowledged that Bolton had failed to tell lawmakers that he had been interviewed as part of a State Department-CIA joint investigation on intelligence lapses that led to the Bush administration's claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

"When Mr. Bolton completed his form during the Senate confirmation process he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department inspector general. Therefore his form as submitted was inaccurate in this regard and he will correct the form," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

McClellan said the White House was not concerned by the episode.

Officials have said Bolton was not interviewed in special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The White House has argued that Bolton should be given an up-or-down vote in the Senate but Democrats have blocked such a move.

(Additional reporting by Saul Hudson and Vicki Allen)

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats challenge White House on Roberts documents

Reuters

Democrats challenge White House on Roberts documents

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats challenged the White House on Friday to provide documents stemming from U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' work as an attorney in the first Bush administration and lawmakers announced his confirmation hearings would begin on Sept. 6.

The White House had declared the documents the Democrats want off-limits, but Democratic lawmakers said the Senate Judiciary Committee would need them to scrutinize Roberts properly.

"We would appreciate your prompt attention to this request so that the committee may have adequate time to review the requested documents," eight Democrats on the panel wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The White House had no immediate comment, though Senate Republicans accused Democrats of a fishing expedition.

"We expect this from Democrats," said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and Judiciary Committee member. "The White House has made clear the answer: No."

A few hours later, Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's top Democrat, announced confirmation hearings would begin on Sept. 6, after Congress returns from a month-long recess, with a committee vote anticipated by Sept. 15.

Democrats and Republicans had been trying to reach an agreement on those hearings since President Bush last week nominated Roberts, a 50-year-old conservative, to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Bush has said he wants a Senate confirmation vote before the Supreme Court begins its new term on Oct. 3. Democrats argue they need enough time to adequately review Roberts, who has spent the past two years as a federal appeals court judge.

Under the agreement, Democrats waived some of their rights to delay consideration of Roberts, but refused to guarantee a committee vote by mid-September, which had been a key bone of contention in at times roller-coaster talks.

"The Constitution gives us the duty to make this decision as correctly as we can, not to do it as fast as we can," Leahy said.


ABORTION CASE

Democrats, in their letter to Gonzales, requested documents dealing with 16 cases that Roberts was involved in while deputy solicitor general in the early 1990s.

They touch on a host of divisive issues including school desegregation, the death penalty, civil rights and a case in which Roberts echoed the administration position that the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

The White House riled Senate Democrats on Tuesday when it began releasing the first of up to 65,000 pages of documents from Roberts' work in the Reagan administration, but said it would refuse to release papers from his time as deputy solicitor general.

The White House cited a letter in 2002 by seven former solicitors general declaring the internal memos are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Senate Democrats say there is plenty of precedent of sensitive materials from other Supreme Court nominees being turned over to the committee.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, first disclosed plans to request the documents on Thursday as he questioned Roberts' commitment to civil rights laws.

Kennedy did so in releasing documents from Roberts' work in the Reagan administration, which had a number of clashes with civil rights groups.

No Senate Democrat has announced plans to oppose Roberts, and many have spoken glowingly of him. But virtually all say they will withhold final judgment until confirmation hearings. (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan)

Read More...

Summary only...

US Senate approves veterans funds, sends to Bush

Reuters

US Senate approves veterans funds, sends to Bush

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Friday approved $1.5 billion in additional spending for veterans' health care programs strained by seriously wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan combat.

By a vote of 99-1, the Senate approved the emergency funds that were passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday. The legislation, attached to an unrelated spending bill for environmental programs, now goes to the White House for President Bush's signature.

The measure will give the Department of Veterans Affairs "full flexibility to fill the coffers that they have been borrowing from," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican.

This fall, Congress is expected to debate a second round of additional veterans health-care spending that is expected to total $1.5 billion to $2 billion for the fiscal year starting on Oct. 1.

"With all of our new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan every day, this problem is only going to get more severe," cautioned Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington State Democrat who fought for the additional money over the objections of Republicans earlier this year.


Last month, the Veterans Administration acknowledged a funding shortfall, after months of insisting it had adequate resources for hospitals and clinics.

Besides larger-than-anticipated numbers of injured veterans from the Iraq war, the VA said its resources were strained by aging veterans of wars in Vietnam, Korea and World War II.

During debate on the bill, Murray warned the Bush administration that it should use the added funding to end a hiring freeze at veterans' health facilities, which has contributed to long waits for nonemergency care, and to expand outpatient services.

The emergency funds, Murray said, "cannot be used for budget shell games to make the VA look solvent."

In its budget plan submitted in February to Congress, the Bush administration called for new fees on veterans as one way to cover some rising costs.

Murray said that when adjusted for inflation, the Veterans Administration is spending 25 percent less for patients than it did in 2000.

Lawmakers attached the veterans money to an unrelated spending bill because it was headed for quick approval and they wanted the funds put into the pipeline before a month-long congressional recess.

Read More...

Summary only...