Thursday, September 01, 2005

Islam’s Torture of Lebanon

Islam’s Torture of Lebanon
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com

Frontpage Interview guest today is Brigitte Gabriel, a survivor of Islam's Jihad against Lebanese Christians. She is now an expert on the Middle East conflict who lectures nationally and internationally on the subject. She's the former news anchor of World News for Middle East television and the founder of AmericanCongressforTruth.com.

FP: Brigitte Gabriel, thank you for joining us today.

Gabriel: Thank you for inviting me. I'm delighted to join you.

FP: First things first, tell us a bit about your background.

Gabriel: I was raised in the only Christian country in the Middle East, Lebanon. A lot of people think the Middle East has always been made up of Moslem countries. That is not true. There once were two non-Muslim countries in the Middle East. One is a Jewish state called Israel which is under attack for its existence today and the other was a Christian country called Lebanon now under a Moslem majority controlling influence.

When Lebanon got its independence from France in the 40's the majority of the population was Christian. We didn't have any enemies. We were merchant, descendents of the Phoenicians, strong in commerce in which we prospered. In no time Lebanon became the Paris of the Middle East the banking capital of the Middle East. We were the only westernized Arabic speaking country in the region.

I was an only child to older parents. My parents were married for twenty-two years before I came into their lives. They were unable to have any children. My mother was 55 years old and my father was 60 when I was born. I had the ideal childhood, the love, adoration and attention of two mature adults who looked at me as a miracle in their lives, and were thankful for god for blessing them with a child.

Even though I was raised in a Christian country, it was still an Arabic country trying to please its neighbors, the Arab Muslims. Even the Christian private school I went to was effected. When we studied the Bible, we only studied the New Testament. I never saw the Old Testament or heard anything about it, because it was considered the enemy's bible. All I heard was Israel is Satan, Israel the devil, Israelis are demons, and they are the source of the problem in the Middle East. The Jews are evil, they are unstoppable and they want to control the world. I heard nothing but hatred toward the Jews.

FP: Can you expand a bit on some of the tragedy that befell your family? I am sorry that this is painful territory.

Gabriel: The Christians in Lebanon always had problems with the Moslems, but we never thought our neighbors would turn on us. That situation was aggravated by the influx of the Palestinians coming from Jordan after King Hussein kicked them out in Black September. That's what tipped the scale in Lebanon. Not only had Moslems become the majority but they now also felt empowered by the presence of the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat wanting to attack the Christians, take over Lebanon and use it as a base from which to attack Israel.

When the Moslems and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975 we didn't even know what that word meant. We had taken them into our country, allowed them to study side by side with us, in our schools and universities. We gave them jobs, shared with them our way of life. We didn't realize the depth of their hatred to us as infidels. They looked at us as the enemy not as neighbors, friends, employers and colleagues.

A lot of Muslims pored in from other Muslim countries like Iran -- the founder and supporter of Hezbollah, one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world today. They came from Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The Lebanese civil war was not between the Lebanese, it was a holly war declared on the Christians by the Muslims of the Middle East.

They started massacring the Christians, city after city. Horrific events the western media seldom reported. One of the most ghastly acts was the massacre in the Christian City of Damour where thousands of Christians were slaughtered like sheep. The Muslims would enter a bomb shelter, see a mother and a father hiding with a little baby. They would tie one leg of the baby to the mother and one leg to the father and pulled the parents apart splitting the child in half. A close friend of mine was mentally disturbed because they made her slaughter her own son in a chair. They tied her to a chair, tied a knife to her hand and holding her hand forcing her to cut her own son’s throat. They would urinate and defecate on the altars of churches using the pages of the bible as toilet paper. They did so many things I don't need to go into any more detail. You get the picture.

Americans just don’t realize the viciousness of the Militant Islamic fundamentalist. I think the biggest disservice for the American people was the denial by the networks to air the beheading video of Daniel Pearl. I think we as a society need to see what type of enemy we are fighting. People have been so sheltered in this country they have not paid attention to what was going on in the last 20 some years. They were more interested in watching a documentary about Madonna than paying attention to world events.

The majority of the Lebanese army was Muslims. Christians went to universities, not to the military. The Muslims began taking over military bases across Lebanon. They combined their forces with the Palestinians and formed what they called the Arab Lebanese Army and started attacking the Christians. I lived 50 yards below the last military base left in the hands of the Christians. While attempting to bombard the military base their shells missed landing directly on my home bringing it down and burying me under the rubble. I was 10 years old.

I woke up from a dream life into a nightmare. My eyes were blinded by the bright light of the explosions. But the light faded quickly as a hot liquid started poring into my eyes burning and shutting them closed like glue. I was wounded by shrapnel, which cut the artery in my arm that was twisted on top of my face. Blood was poring over my face and into my mouth. By the time I was rescued by my parents and taken to a hospital the next morning at 8:00 AM I was on my last breath. I was put on a bench in the emergency room and operated on without anesthesia. As the nurses held me down the doctors cut my flesh with scissors and sawed into my bone to get out the embedded shrapnel. As I faded in and out of consciousness, between my screams I prayed to God to stop my torture. I ended up in the hospital for two and half months.

While there, I would ask my parents why this happened to us, they would say because we were Christians and the Moslems want to kill us. So I knew ever since I was 10 that I was wanted dead simply because I was born a Christian.

When I returned home my new home was no longer the one that I knew. We ended up living in a bomb shelter under ground without electrify, water and very little food. Little did I know that this would become my life for the next seven years. Our bomb shelter was an eight by 10 feet cinderblock room buried underground, that my father used as a storage room for our restaurant.

FP: What is life like under the threat of Islamic terror?


Gabriel: We borrowed life one day at a time. After sleeping in cardboard boxes for a month that had been stored in the bomb shelter, thinking this will be over soon, we realized this situation is getting worse and worse. We finally furnished the bomb shelter with two old mattresses from our garage. My mom and I slept on one and my dad on the other. To get food my mother and I would go out and find different types of grass and dandelions to eat around the shelter in between the bombing. My mother would soak chickpeas, rice, lentils and beans over night so we can eat something during the day. My father couldn’t get out because in the bombing of our house, he lost his hearing and he wouldn’t hear the sniper’s bullets nor the bombs coming so he can hide. He had to stay put while my mother and I got out. To get water we would crawl in a ditch under snipers bullets to a near by spring. Every time we’d leave we would say our last good-byes because we didn’t know if we would come back alive. My mother would use her stocking on top of the bottle to filter all the worms and the debris so we can drink it. Then we would crawl back with bullets flying over our heads. Sometimes it would take us hours just to crawl 100 feet back into the bomb shelter.

One day when I was 13 one of our soldiers warned us that we are no longer able to fight and we are going to be attacked viciously that night. He wished us a merciful death as he left. Knowing we were going to be slaughtered that night I put on my Easter dress because I wanted to look pretty when I was dead, knowing that there would be nobody to prepare me for burial. I stood in my dress in front of the mirror crying as my mother combed my long hair and tied a white ribbon in it. I told her: “please I don't want to die I’m only 13.”

FP: Discuss your intellectual journey about your view of Jews and Israelis, from what you were told in your childhood to when you started questioning whether it was true, to what you think today.

Gabriel: My town was 2 and half miles from the Israeli boarder. We in our Christian town were faced with the combined Muslim and Palestinian forces waiting to slaughter us. We knew our fate, knowing what they have done to other Christian towns and cities in the rest of Lebanon. To our back was Israel. The enemy, Satan, the demon possessed Jews. We had no where to turn but one way, to the devil Israel. After all we knew the Jews wouldn’t slaughter us because we had more shared values with them than we had with the Moslems. Under the cover of darkness, few men from our town went to the border, flagged down an Israeli boarder patrol, explained the situation and begged for help.

Israel agreed to help the Christians. Israel became our lifeline. The Israeli military would come during the night and bring food and ammunition to the military and milk for the children. They would take the Christian men anyone from age 13 to 70 and train them to fight; most of them have never held a rifle before. Most of the Christian men had degrees that decorated their walls, but all the degrees in the world can not defend you when an enemy is facing you with a gun, wanting to kill you by what your enemy believes is an order from God.

The only reason we stayed alive is because Israel came into Lebanon and drove the Muslims away from the surrounding hills and set up positions in our town to protect us. Things got worse as Syrian, Libyans, Iranians Egyptians became enraged and flocked into Lebanon to fight the infidel Christians and Jews.


The Muslims had one vision, to take control of the only Christian country in the Middle East and than attack Israel. Syria, with its military already suffocating the Christians, Iran with its militia Hezbollah, The PLO with the number one world terrorist Yasser Arafat, and all the other Muslim zealots on a holly mission, were using Lebanon as a terrorist breeding ground exporting terrorism into the rest of the world. Under the auspices of a peacekeeping force in Lebanon Syria shelled Israel along with Hezbollah the Iranian financed holly warriors. The world press which was getting its information from the Muslim controlled areas in Beirut were saying that Israel is occupying Lebanon and the poor Lebanese were fighting back to kick the Israelis out.

By 1982 Israel was fed up with Syria’s repeated attacks on its northern boarder. They invaded Lebanon declaring war on the terrorist infrastructure, going all the way into Beirut. During the first two days of the invasion as the Muslims were retreating they shelled us frantically. In their last artillery barrage, they scored a direct hit on the front of our bomb shelter. My mother was seriously wounded and would die without immediate medical attention. My father was too old and weak to take her to the hospital, the responsibility fell on my shoulder. We had to take her to Israel for treatment. For her it was a life saving experience. For me it was a life changing experience. It was my first lesson in the difference between the Arabs and the western world particularly the Jews.

Before we left my father gave me $60 dollars in case I needed some money since we were going to Israel for treatment. We took her first, to the Lebanese hospital in town which was vacant and bombed out. There was an Israeli doctor on duty for first aid situations. He gave my mother first aid and we put her in an Israeli ambulance and drove her under the bombs to the border. It was about a ten-minute drive, the driver was a friend of the family. When we got to the border we changed ambulances. The Lebanese driver asked me if I had any money for the ambulance fee. Like an innocent teenager who never handled money I took it out of my pocket and handed it to him and asked him how much did he want. He said: give me 30 dollars, which was half the money I had. I thanked him for driving us with tears dripping down my face and got in the Israeli ambulance and we drove off.

The drive to the hospital inside Israel was an hour long. The driver was a middle-aged soldier. He treated me like his own daughter with such respect and compassion. He listened to the radio and explained to me how the war was going in Lebanon. I felt alone and afraid. My mother was fading in and out of consciousness and moaning from pain. We got to the hospital and I walked around the ambulance to pay him the fee. I took the money out of my pocket thinking (God I’m sure this is not going to be enough for this man) If the 10 minute drive cost me 30 dollars I’m sure this is going to be much more. I extended my hand with the money asking him how much I owed him. He looked at me surprised and said: “you don’t owe me anything. The ambulance ride is a free service from us to you. Keep your money, I wish everything goes well with you. I wish your mother, health, and speedy recovery.”

I thanked him from the bottom of my heart and thought to myself: what an honest man!!! What an ethical man! He could have taken my money and partied all night and I would have not known the difference. Yet he didn’t. And all of a sudden I felt this anger towards the Lebanese driver who was supposedly a friend of the family. I realized that he actually stole my money. I didn’t have to pay a fee for the ambulance, he basically robbed me. I felt violated. I thanked the Israeli driver from the bottom of my heart for his honesty and help.

We went into the emergency room and I was shocked at such a scene. There were many wounded people lying all over the place. Israeli soldiers, Lebanese Muslims, Christians and even Palestinians brought in from Lebanon! I was stunned at such a scene. I thought to myself why the heck are the Israelis helping the Muslims and the Palestinians? I am a Christian, I am their friend, but why are they helping the Palestinian and the Moslems? Little did I know about the principles and values of the Israeli people? The doctors treated everyone according to their injury. The doctor treated my mother before he treated the Israeli soldier lying next to her because her injury was more severe. They did not see religion, they didn’t see political affiliation, they did not see nationality, they saw people in need and they helped.

They took my mother to the 4th floor of the hospital and put her in a room with two other Lebanese ladies one Muslim and one Druze. We were in the room for 5 minutes and we heard this loud commotion outside our balcony. People were walking through our room to go out and look. I went out to see what was going on. Two Israeli helicopters had just landed to deliver wounded Israeli soldiers. I stood at that balcony feeling sick to my stomach. I felt Ashamed, Humiliated, Embarrassed, Broken hearted. After all these people are wounded because of the war with my country. I didn’t even look at any one around me I kept my eyes down. I was surrounded by mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children of wounded soldiers. I felt out of place, I felt uncertain I didn’t want to make eye contact with anyone because I didn’t know how they would react to me.

While I was standing there, I felt someone tapping on my shoulder. I looked up to see a nurse standing next to me. She asked me: “You are new here aren’t you?” I said yes they just brought my mother to this room. She put her arm around me and looked into my face and said don’t worry we’ll take good care of her, everything will be fine.”

I broke out crying, I never felt such compassion and love. For the first time in my life I experienced a human quality that I know my culture would not have shown to their enemy. I experienced the values of the Israelis who were able to love their enemy in their most trying moments. That nurse didn’t even know if I was a Christian, a Moslem or a Palestinian. I spent 22 days at that hospital, those days changed my life and the way I believe information, the way I listen to the radio or to television. I realized I was sold a fabricated lie by my government about the Jews and Israel that was so far from reality. I knew for fact that if I was a Jew standing in an Arab hospital I would be lynched and thrown over to the grounds as shouts of joy of Allahu Akbar, God is great would echo through the hospital and the surrounding streets.

When Israelis heard there were Lebanese wounded in the hospitals they came barring presents, they brought chocolates, they asked people what they wanted and what they needed. They said our home is your home if you need anything let us know. They came extending a peaceful hand. I became friends with Israeli mothers staying at the hospital with their wounded sons. One in particular Rina, her only child was wounded in his eyes. One day I was visiting with her and the Israeli army band came to play national songs to lift the spirits of the wounded soldiers. As they surrounded his bed playing a song about Jerusalem Rina and I started crying. I felt out of place and started waking out of the room, and this mother holds my hand and pulls me back in without even looking at me. She holds me crying and says: “it is not your fault”. We just stood there crying holding each other’s hands.

I thought: "What a contrast between her, a mother looking at her deformed 19 year old only child, and still able to love me the Arab, and between a Moslem mother who sends her son to blow himself up to smithereens just to kill a few Jews or Christians."

The Moslem woman who was in the room with my mother stayed in the hospital for about 12 days. And even after 10 days the doctors would come and change her bandages and check on her in their morning tour, as they would be leaving the room she would have the evil look on her face and say: "I hate you all. I wish you were all dead." For the first time in my life I saw evil. I realized that this Muslim couldn’t love the Jews even after they saved her life. And when you are unable to be grateful to the people that saved your life there is no hope.

I had to go back to Lebanon because I had to take care of my parents but I vowed that one day I would return to Israel. That one day I will live among those people. These are the types of people I want to be like. These are the types of values I want to adopt. I knew they had something even I did not. They were able to love the Palestinians and forgive them much more than I was able to, and I was a Christian who was supposed to love like Jesus taught.

FP: What hope is there? I doubt that if the Palestinians get their own state that they will suddenly love the Jews and that the whole Islamic-Arab world will put anti-Semitism on the backburner. What do you think?

Gabriel: Israel is stepping out in “good faith” again to do whatever it takes to achieve peace with its neighbors. As if Hamas is going to appreciate the goodness of the Jews and re-write its charter accepting Israel as neighbor and a friend. Hamas has only one goal and that is to eradicate Israel one piece at a time until it becomes vulnerable to Arab military aggression and conquest.

As one who knows what's in the hearts and minds of Arabs, let me repeat what seems to be the hardest thing for world opinion to accept: The Arabs have no intention of having peace with the Jews period, exclamation point, end of discussion. No Jews can exist free and unencumbered in the Middle East. "What an outrage. Jews are dhimmis, how dare they come back and live in our midst, make the desert blossom and create a country more advanced than any other in the Middle East. And they don't have any oil?"

So far all territory concessions made by Israel have been an illusion of land for peace. In Egypt, who was given the Sinai Peninsula back in 1979, or Jordan, who signed a peace treaty with Israel, the phone books go from Ireland to Italy as if Israel never existed? What type of peace is this without full acknowledgement of statehood? What type of peace is it when Egyptian government, run and controlled television, airs the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

Intelligence sources say there are plans to create a terrorist state in Gaza where world terrorist operations will be planned and carried out. This is equivalent to Somalia & Afghanistan terrorist controlled societies, but within striking distance of Israel proper. The mini Hamas Terror State would have an airport and port facilities from which to export terror to the rest of the world.

U.S. security officials have received multiple confirmations of a meeting in March [2003] between al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah figures. Most alarming is Hamas' move towards embracing global jihad as evidenced by its publishing the messages of Osama bin Laden mentor Abdullah Azzam-Palestinian, originally from Jenin. Hamas openly publicizes its support and alliance with al-Qaeda organizations jihad action in Chechnya, Kashmir the Balkans and Afghanistan. As Al Qaeda associate Jordanian terrorist al- Zarqawi firmed up his relationship with bin Laden in Iraq, it is only a matter of time for Hamas to follow suit under the sovereignty of an independent mini-terror state free from the demands of the weakened PA leadership under Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah..

They will form an instant terror base from which to attack every corner of Israel bent on jihad and revenge for al Nakbah-the catastrophe of their defeat in the 1948 War of Independence. Israel is engaged in an existential crisis of Armageddon-like proportions. Another piece for a peace? You have to be kidding, right?

FP: It is interesting that most people think of Hamas as an Israeli problem. Which it is of course. But it is also an American problem. And it will become a great American problem. Can you comment on this?

Gabriel: Many terrorist organizations have already set up shop here in America. The three most threatening ones are Hamas, Al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad. Some of their operatives and supporters have entered the country illegally using visa fraud.

Of all the Islamic militant groups in the US. Hamas has developed the most sophisticated American infrastructure. Under our liberal un-restrictive environment of the United States these people are operating and were able to set up a whole array of cells that spread across the US from sea to shining sea. According to intelligence information they have cells in the top 31 cities in the US. Right in many of our towns and cities. Right in our back yard. And it’s our lazy government officials and lax laws that allowed them to come here to plan our destruction. Many are still blind in this country to the threat that we face. When are we going to wake up? Yes, we now have enacted Homeland security but without all Americans supporting the war on terrorism today our success will be limited.

What we need is to know our enemy better. And I’m not just talking about Al Qaida. How many Americans have read the Hamas charter published August 1988. Excerpts for the charter of the Hamas, the charter of Allah, the platform of the Islamic resistance movement Hamas: Article 22: "Our enemies have planned from time immemorial in order to reach the position they’ve obtained now. They strive to collect enormous material riches to be used in the realization of their dream. With money, they’ve gained control of the international media beginning with news agencies, newspapers and publishing houses, broadcasting stations. They also used this wealth to stir revolutions in different parts of the world in order to fulfill their interests and reap their fruits. With their money they created secret organizations that spread around the world in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the freemasons, rotary clubs, lions clubs, b’nai b’rith and the like. All of them are destructive espionage organizations. With their money they’ve taken control of the imperialist states and pushed them to occupy many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread corruption there."

How many rotary club members, Lions club members know they are mentioned in the Hamas charter the largest militant Muslim infrastructure in the United states that they are considered the enemy to be destroyed.?

We really need to realize…All Americans need to realize that these people hate us and want nothing but to eliminate us because as far as they are concerned we are the infidels. These are religiously motivated fanatics who you cannot negotiate with. These are people who are convinced that god has ordered them to kill us. Their motivation is tremendous. They believe that the minute they die, at the first drop of blood, a crown of pearl will be placed on their head and they will be carried by the angels to heaven and placed at the right side of god and 72 virgins are offered to them. We cannot drop our guard for a minute. We must be more vigilant than ever before. Wake up America.

FP: Brigitte Gabriel, you are an incredible person with an extraordinary, inspiring and vital story to tell. Thank you, it was an honor to speak with you.

Gabriel: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to join you today. Organizations like yours make it possible for people like me to get the word out. Together we can make a difference.

Also see "A Survivor of Palestinian Tyranny Defends Israel"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15545
Brigitte Gabriel's speech delivered at the Duke University Counter Terrorism Speak-Out, held Thursday, October 14, 2004.

Read More...

Waiting for a Leader

The New York Times

Waiting for a Leader

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

We will, of course, endure, and the city of New Orleans must come back. But looking at the pictures on television yesterday of a place abandoned to the forces of flood, fire and looting, it was hard not to wonder exactly how that is going to come to pass. Right now, hundreds of thousands of American refugees need our national concern and care. Thousands of people still need to be rescued from imminent peril. Public health threats must be controlled in New Orleans and throughout southern Mississippi. Drivers must be given confidence that gasoline will be available, and profiteering must be brought under control at a moment when television has been showing long lines at some pumps and spot prices approaching $4 a gallon have been reported.

Sacrifices may be necessary to make sure that all these things happen in an orderly, efficient way. But this administration has never been one to counsel sacrifice. And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.


While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America "will be a stronger place" for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

Read More...

Banished Whistle-Blowers

The New York Times

Banished Whistle-Blowers

The Bush administration is making no secret of its determination to punish whistle-blowers and other federal workers who object to the doctoring of facts that clash with policy and spin. The blatant retaliation includes the Army general sidelined for questioning the administration's projections about needed troop strength in Iraq, the Medicare expert muted when he tried to inform Congress about the true cost of the new prescription subsidies and the White House specialist on climate change who was booted after complaining that global warming statistics were being massaged by political tacticians.

We agree with critics like Congressman Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat, who has tracked a long list of abused federal workers who should be applauded, not penalized, for their dedication. The latest victims include Bunnatine Greenhouse, a career civilian manager at the Pentagon. She was demoted from her job as the top contract overseer of the Army Corps of Engineers after she complained of irregularities in the awarding of a multibillion-dollar no-bid Iraq contract to a subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas-based oil services company run by Dick Cheney before he became vice president.


Ms. Greenhouse made complaints internally, then publicly, describing the contract as "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed." Recently, Ms. Greenhouse was ordered removed for "poor performance," just as unfairly as the administration forced out Lawrence Greenfeld as director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Mr. Greenfeld's sin was to stand fast against senior political appointees intent on watering down a study's finding that blacks and Hispanics were subject to more searches and force in police traffic stops.

Damage control is a political hallmark of any administration. But the Bush team is taking it to the most destructive extreme.

Read More...

Roberts Poked at Congress As Reagan Lawyer

ABC News
Roberts Poked at Congress As Reagan Lawyer
Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts Took Shots at Congress While a Reagan Administration Lawyer
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

Sep. 1, 2005 - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts took shots at Congress while a Reagan administration lawyer, saying in documents released Wednesday that a congressman killed in connection with cult leader Jim Jones' massacre could be viewed as a "publicity hound" and that what Congress does best is "nothing."

Those two documents were among 420 Roberts papers released by the National Archives that originally had been withheld from Congress for privacy and security reasons. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library re-reviewed the papers and released them a week before Roberts' confirmation hearing after blacking out much material for privacy and national security reasons.

Two of the released documents show Roberts, then an assistant to White House counsel Fred Fielding, taking the then-Democratic Congress to task.

Congress voted to give California Rep. Leo Ryan, a Democrat, a Congressional Gold Medal after he was killed near the Jonestown commune in Guyana in 1978. Ryan had gone down to Guyana to investigate whether cult leader Jones was holding people against their will.

Some cult members chose to leave with Ryan but the party was ambushed; Ryan and four others were killed.

Jones ordered a mass suicide, and more than 900 members of the People's Temple cult committed mass suicide by drinking cyanide-laced punch while others were shot by guards loyal to Jones.

Roberts told Fielding in a Nov. 18, 1983, memo he was not certain he would have voted to give Ryan a congressional medal.

"The distinction of his service in the House is certainly subject to debate, and his actions leading to his murder can be viewed as those of a publicity hound," Roberts said.

Roberts, however, said he saw no legal objections to Reagan signing off on legislation for the medal.

In an Oct. 11, 1983, letter to U.S. Appeals Judge Henry Friendly of New York, Roberts complained about Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger's plan to set up a new appeals-level court to cut down on the Supreme Court's workload.

The White House counsel's office was fighting against it, Roberts wrote, but the chief justice, congressional leaders and the Justice Department were all for the idea.

"Our only hope is that Congress will continue to do what is does best nothing," said Roberts, who used to be one of Friendly's clerks.


Those statements could come back to haunt Roberts on Tuesday, when he faces the Senate Judiciary Committee in his attempt to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He will be introduced by Indiana Sens. Richard Lugar, a Republican, and Evan Bayh, a Democrat, as well as Virginia GOP Sen. John Warner.

"Of course, it's a matter of courtesy," Bayh said at a Democratic fundraiser in South Carolina. "Like many of my colleagues, I'm interested in what he has to say, and we won't know that until he's asked and answers the questions."

Warner introduced Roberts at his successful appeals courts hearing, while the nominee spent his childhood in Indiana. A Bayh spokesman said that his introduction of Roberts doesn't mean the Democrat's going to vote for him.

"He's following a long-standing tradition of senators introducing nominees from their home state," spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said. Bayh has not decided how he'll vote, Pfeiffer said.

Democrats say they need more Roberts documents to judge his candidacy to the Supreme Court. The Senate's Democratic leadership on Wednesday told the White House that not releasing key Roberts documents was "a failure to respect the role of Congress in our constitutional system."

Archives officials announced on Tuesday they had found a "large volume" of unreviewed and unreleased Roberts documents. At least one file of Roberts documents on affirmative action has gone missing, and the White House is refusing to let Democrats see Roberts' documents from his time in the solicitor general's office during the George H.W. Bush administration.

"They should be made available to senators as they decide whether Judge Roberts deserves confirmation," said a letter signed by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Charles Schumer of New York.

Several groups announced their opposition to Roberts on Wednesday, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the National Womens Law Center. Groups announcing their support of Roberts included the National Black Republican Association.

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

Read More...

Poll: Bush Approval at a Career Low

ABC News
Poll: Bush Approval at a Career Low
ABC News/Washington Post Poll Finds Iraq Ratings Negative, but Stable
Analysis by GARY LANGER

Jul. 29, 2005 - George W. Bush's job approval rating slipped to a career low 45 percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, damaged both by discontent with the war in Iraq and broad unhappiness with the price of gasoline at home.

Sampling, data collection and tabulation for this poll were done by TNS.

Views on Iraq, while stable, are not good: Fifty-three percent of Americans say the war was not worth fighting, 57 percent disapprove of the way Bush is handling it and 68 percent call the level of U.S. casualties unacceptable. The public only divides, 49-49 percent, on whether the war has improved long-term U.S. security, its basic rationale.

At home, opinions on gasoline prices are even more dire. Just 22 percent approve of Bush's work on the problem, while a whopping 73 percent disapprove. Two-thirds say gas prices are causing them financial hardship -- back up after a dip last week -- and six in 10 think the Bush administration could take measures to cut the price of gas.

That view seems to run contrary to Bush's comment Monday: "I wish I could snap my fingers and lower the price of gasoline for you. The markets don't work that way. I'd be snappin' if I could do it."

Views on Iraq, while negative, have been at least as sour in the past as they are now. Disapproval of Bush's handling of the war has been essentially steady since December, and a majority hasn't approved since January 2004. Similarly, consistent majorities since December 2004 have said the war was not worth fighting, and since July 2003 have called the level of casualties unacceptable.

In another bottom-line view, a bare majority, 51 percent, says the United States is winning the war in Iraq -- hardly an expression of broad confidence, albeit more than the 38 percent who say the United States is losing the war. Eight percent call it a draw.

Separately, in a result that could embolden Bush's critics, a majority of Americans -- including more than three-quarters of Democrats and nearly six in 10 independents -- say the Democrats in Congress have not gone far enough in opposing the war, or, for that matter, in opposing Bush's policies more generally.


The Sheehan Effect

Bush's overall rating, while a new low, also is not much worse than it's been. Forty-five percent approve of his work in office, compared with a previous low of 47 percent; 53 percent disapprove, a scant one point more than the previous high.

A better result for Bush is a little gain in ratings of his handling of terrorism more broadly, the primary underpinning of his popularity. Fifty-six percent approve, up from 50 percent in early June, which tied the post-9/11 low.

Intensity of sentiment, however, remains against Bush. People who "strongly" disapprove of his work in office overall outnumber strong approvers by 14 points, 41 percent to 27 percent. But this has been steady, too, since spring.

Indeed, it may come as a surprise that Bush hasn't fared worse despite the difficult August -- suggesting that views on his presidency overall, and Iraq in particular, are by now firmly rooted and slow to move. U.S. military fatalities in Iraq have averaged about three a day in August, making it among the deadliest months since the war began. And anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan has been a persistent voice opposing the president for the last three weeks.

Sheehan's received broad exposure -- three-quarters of Americans have heard or read about her -- and gets majority sympathy; 53 percent support what she's doing and 52 percent think Bush should meet with her again, as she's requested. Her supporters are very predominantly those who, like her, oppose the war.

All the same, Sheehan does not appear to have changed the basic equation -- or many minds. Nearly eight in 10 Americans say she hasn't changed their view of the war; among the rest, about as many say they're more likely to support the war because of Sheehan as say they're more likely to oppose it, 10 percent vs. nine percent, respectively.

Neither has Sheehan ratcheted up emotional responses to the Bush administration's work on the war. Fifty-three percent are dissatisfied, about the same as in late June. That includes 27 percent who are "angry" about it, again quite similar to the level of anger two months ago, pre-Sheehan.

Sheehan, whose son was killed while serving in Iraq, also raises the question of the views of military families. Ten percent in this survey say they or a member of their household are serving in the military, either on active duty or in the reserves. In general, the views these people hold on the war are very similar to those of people in non-military households.

Household Support of War
Military Non-military
More likely to support war 22% 8%
More likely to oppose it 17 9
No effect on views 59 81

Similarly, basic views of Sheehan are no different among people in military families than in non-military households -- a little more than half in both groups support her, and about half in both groups think Bush should meet with her.

Still, Sheehan looks to have touched more of a nerve in military households; such people are more apt to say she's affected their opinions, about equally in both directions. Twenty-two percent say she's made them more apt to support the war, 17 percent say she's made them more apt to oppose it. That compares to eight and nine percent, respectively, in non-military households.

Withdrawal

Views on what to do now in Iraq are in some ways conflicted. On one hand, the number of Americans who say U.S. forces should remain until civil order is restored, even if that means sustaining continued casualties, has slipped slightly to 54 percent, compared with 57 to 58 percent the past year. That likely reflects the obvious difficulties that restoring civil order there entails.

At the same time, the public continues to divide about evenly on whether the United States is or is not making significant progress restoring order in Iraq -- no change there. And support for increasing the number of U.S. forces actually has increased slightly, albeit just to 21 percent, up from 15 or 16 percent in March and June polls.

About twice as many, 41 percent, say U.S. troop levels should be decreased. But that remains under a majority, and many fewer -- 13 percent -- call for an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Iraq. That's been steady since spring. And even among people who strongly oppose the war, fewer than three in 10 want a complete, immediate withdrawal.

Indeed, given pro and con arguments (avoiding further casualties vs. encouraging anti-government insurgents), Americans by a substantial 20-point margin, 59 to 39 percent, oppose setting a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. (Those who favor a deadline divide about evenly on whether the end of 2006, as suggested by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is about right, or too late.)

The Big Picture

While Bush's 45-percent approval rating is weak -- majority disapproval is never a good thing -- it's by no means out of the ordinary. Among the more-popular recent presidents, Bill Clinton saw lows of 43 percent in the summer of 1993 and 44 percent in 1994, and Ronald Reagan hit 42 percent in early 1983 and 44 percent in early 1987. (The latter was Iran-Contra inspired; the others, largely economic.)

But the mid- to low-40s are kind of a break point; presidents who've gone lower are those who tend to be remembered as less popular. Bush's father, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, all one-termers, bottomed out at 33, 28 and 37 percent, respectively. Richard Nixon saw a scandal-induced 23 percent in a Gallup poll in January 1974.

What seem to be different are the factors driving majority disapproval of Bush -- not the more usual culprits of the economy or scandal, but, at least in good measure, a less-than-popular war (although gas prices certainly are not helping). The possible parallel there is with Lyndon B. Johnson, who spent most of 1968 in the low 40s, bottoming out at 35 percent approval that August. (In Gallup polling in the summer of '68, 53 percent called the Vietnam War a mistake, as many as now view the Iraq war critically.)

The Public Agenda
Even though Bush's ratings on Iraq haven't worsened, the war has gained some ground on the public's agenda: Twenty-nine percent call it the highest priority for Bush and Congress, compared with 26 percent who cite the economy. That puts Iraq numerically (albeit not significantly) ahead of the economy for the first time this year; mentions of Iraq have gained seven points since spring, while the economy's lost six. Seventeen percent mention terrorism as the top priority, up from 12 percent in April.

Handling terrorism is the only issue of seven tested in this poll on which Bush gets majority approval. Still, some others also show gains. While 52 percent disapprove of his work on Social Security, that's down from 62 percent in early June; the 40 percent who now approve is the most since April 2004. It may have helped that there's been less focus lately on Bush's less-than-popular Social Security reform plan.

Fifty-four percent disapprove of Bush's work on the economy; this peaked at 59 percent in March 2004. Fifty-seven percent disapprove of his work on immigration, not good, but essentially stable since January 2004. On Bush's approach to abortion, of interest given his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, the public divides evenly, 44-44 percent. As noted, Bush's rating on gas prices is particularly severe.

Beyond job performance, Bush has difficulty on personal empathy as well. Forty percent of Americans think he understands the problems of people like them; 59 percent say he doesn't. But this, too, has been quite stable, in this case since early 2004.

In only a few pro-Bush groups do majorities (and not always big majorities) say he understands their problems -- 76 percent of Republicans, 55 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of evangelical white Protestants and 51 percent of people with household incomes over $75,000.

Bush can take some solace, though, in ratings of Congress: Just 37 percent of Americans approve of its work, while 59 percent disapprove -- the institution's worst rating in ABC/Post polls since October 1997.

The difference is that Republicans, while remaining behind Bush (87 percent approve of his work) are much less enamored of the Republican-controlled Congress; 49 percent approve, while 48 percent disapprove. And Democrats and independents disapprove of Congress lopsidedly.

The Sexes

In addition to the customary partisanship in many of these views, there's a notable difference between the sexes. Compared with men, women are more apt to oppose the Iraq war and less apt to say it's improved U.S. security. They're 17 points more likely to favor setting a deadline for withdrawal, and 16 points less apt to say the United States is winning the war. And they're 10 points more apt to support Cindy Sheehan.

Much of this reflects the fact that women are more likely than men to be Democrats. But not all of it: Republican women are 17 points more apt than Republican men to call the level of casualties unacceptable and 11 points more likely to favor withdrawing from Iraq even if civil order is not restored.

This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Aug. 25-28, 2005, among a random national sample of 1,006 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

Click below for full questionnaire and results.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/bushpoll050830.doc



Read More...

Four Indicted in Alleged U.S. Terror Plot

ABC News
Four Indicted in Alleged U.S. Terror Plot
Four Indicted in Alleged Terrorist Plot Against Los Angeles-Area Targets
By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ
The Associated Press

Aug. 31, 2005 - The head of a militant Islamic prison gang and three others were indicted Wednesday on federal charges of planning terrorist attacks against National Guard facilities, the Israeli Consulate and other Los Angeles-area targets.

The four conspired to wage war against the U.S. government through terrorism, kill armed service members and murder foreign officials, among other charges, according to the indictment.

Named in the indictment were Levar Haley Washington, 25, Gregory Vernon Patterson, 21, Hammad Riaz Samana, 21, and Kevin James, 29.

Prosecutors contend the plot was orchestrated by Washington, Patterson and Samana at the behest of James, an inmate at the California State Prison-Sacramento who founded the radical group Jamiyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh.

Washington converted to Islam while serving three years in the prison for a robbery conviction.

According to the indictment, Washington pledged his loyalty to James "until death by martyrdom" and sought to establish a JIS cell outside prison with members with bomb expertise.

Washington, Patterson and Samana who attended the same Inglewood mosque allegedly conducted surveillance of National Guard facilities, the Israeli Consulate and several synagogues in the Los Angeles area as well as Internet research on Jewish holidays.

The attacks were to be carried out with firearms and other weapons on Jewish holidays, according to the indictment.


Patterson allegedly bought a .223-caliber rifle in July.

To finance the attacks, prosecutors said, the three robbed a string of gas stations in Los Angeles and Orange counties.

The case arose after Washington and Patterson were arrested July 5 by police in Torrance, a suburb southwest of Los Angeles, for investigation of robbing the gas stations.

Federal and local counterterrorism officials began investigating after police who searched Washington's apartment in the robbery case said they found a possible target list. Samana, a student originally from Pakistan who lived in Inglewood, was taken into federal custody Aug. 2.

Attorneys representing Washington, Patterson and Samana did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday.

James known as Shakyh Shahaab Murshid, among other aliases founded JIS in 1997 while imprisoned for an attempted-robbery conviction in Los Angeles County, prosecutors said. He preached that the duty of JIS members was to attack enemies of Islam.

Washington was paroled in November 2004, around the time authorities say he joined James' group.

James then instructed Washington to recruit five members with felony convictions and train them to conduct covert operations; acquire firearms with silencers; and appoint a group member to help produce remotely activated explosives, prosecutors claim.

The FBI recently ordered its agents nationwide to conduct "threat assessments" of inmates who may have become radicalized in prison and could commit extremist violence upon their release.

Read More...

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Cindy Sheehan to Congress: It's Time to Do Your Job

huffingtonpost.com
Arianna Huffington
Cindy Sheehan to Congress: It's Time to Do Your Job

By any measure, Cindy Sheehan's Crawford vigil has been a triumph, capturing the attention of the nation and finally making Iraq the focus of a much-needed national debate. Not bad for a plain-spoken mom in a floppy hat.

Now she is taking her protest to the next level, helping to organize a bus tour of key congressional districts and sending letters to every member of Congress, asking them to meet with her and her fellow grieving parents -- and to hold the president accountable for his disastrous policies in Iraq.

As she puts it in her letter: "The President has not been willing to meet with me, but he must meet and listen to you."

It seems like an obvious reminder -- "Hey, guys... you've got the power!" -- but it's a message our elected representatives apparently need to be hit over the head with. They've abdicated their constitutional power -- and responsibility -- for far too long, and its time for them to flex those underused oversight muscles again.

Sheehan's timing couldn't be better. Lawmakers have gotten an earful from their constituents over the August recess -- increasing numbers of whom are deeply frustrated with the lack of progress in Iraq and fed up with the president's "stay the course" mantra. With a majority of Americans now against the war -- and 56 percent saying they favor the withdrawal of some or all U.S. troops from Iraq -- things could be nearing a tipping point.

Now, I'm not saying that members of Congress are going to return to D.C. next week and suddenly vote to end the war. But they might be ready to at least start doing their job.

Sen. John Warner has announced plans to grill Don Rumsfeld about the lack of progress in Iraq. Rep. Walter Jones and his 45 co-sponsors are still trying to get their "Homeward Bound" withdrawal from Iraq resolution out of committee. And Sen. Byron Dorgan is still pushing for a new Truman-style Commission to investigate wasteful spending in Iraq. He plans to attach a Truman Commission amendment to the defense authorization bill that Congress will take up upon its return, along with a defense appropriations bill that includes an additional $45.3 billion in funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.

This, of course, is the critical power that Congress possesses -- the power of the purse strings. That was ultimately what precipitated the end of the war in Vietnam -- a 1973 vote cutting off the funds for the bombing of Cambodia over the objections of Henry Kissinger, who warned that lack of congressional support would make it impossible to negotiate a lasting settlement. Sound familiar? The words of then Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield should be required reading for all current members of Congress: "The only way to face up to our responsibilities, the only way to do it effectively, is to cut the purse strings."


Republican leaders, increasingly concerned that Iraq could become the losing issue in 2006 (you know they're getting nervous when even Rick Santorum admits to "concerns" over the administration's handling of the war), would also be well advised to study the words and deeds of another Vietnam era figure, Sen. William Fulbright. As the powerful Democratic Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Fulbright took on LBJ, holding nationally televised hearings to debate war. The hearings, in the words of historian Barton Bernstein, "legitimized dissent" and galvanized public opposition to the Vietnam war.

Here's Fulbright on the purpose of the hearings: "Under our system Congress, and especially the Senate, shares responsibility with the President for making our nation's foreign policy. This war, however, started and continues as a Presidential war in which the Congress, since the fraudulent Gulf of Tonkin episode, has not played a significant role… The purpose of these hearings is to develop the best advice and greater public understanding of the policy alternatives available and positive congressional action to end American participation in the war." Substitute "WMD claims" for the Gulf of Tonkin episode and some courageous GOP senator has a ready-made opening for the modern equivalent of the Fulbright hearings.

So who will be the Fulbright of Iraq? Warner? Not likely, given that he's still dismissing parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. John McCain? Sadly not, since he wants to send 15,000 to 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

The Boston Globe's Derrick Jackson makes a strong case that it could be Sen. Chuck Hagel, whom Jackson calls "the principled face of revulsion from within." It's a comparison that Hagel himself seems to be embracing, quoting Fulbright about the hearings in a speech earlier this year. And unlike Warner, Hagel, a Purple Heart Vietnam vet, sees the parallels between the two wars. ''I watched 58,000 Americans get chewed up," he said on Meet the Press last month, "during a time when in fact we had a policy that was losing. And the members of Congress were interestingly silent and absent in asking tough questions. As long as I'm a United States senator, I will do everything I can to ensure that we have a policy worthy of these brave young men and women who are sacrificing their lives and doing the things that they do for this country. I don't think that policy is there today."

Sounds like a man ready for his close-up -- and fed up with an administration that has treated Congress "like a nuisance." He's already said that President Bush should have met with Cindy Sheehan. Maybe he, like Cindy, will now take it to the next level.


Read More...

Poll: Fewer See Dems As Religion-Friendly

Poll: Fewer See Dems As Religion-Friendly

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats' efforts to improve their image with religious voters after the 2004 presidential election appear to be getting off to a bumpy start.

Fewer people see Democrats as friendly to religion now than felt that way a year ago, according to a poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

That number has dropped from 40 percent in August 2004 who thought the Democrats were friendly to religion to 29 percent now.

"The change is seen across all groups," said Scott Keeter, director of survey research for the Pew Research Center, which conducted the poll for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.


After Democrats fared poorly with religious voters in the 2004 election, the Democratic National Committee initiated numerous efforts to strengthen its standing with religious voters.

The DNC hired someone to coordinate religious outreach, encouraged state parties to work more closely with the religious community, and had Chairman Howard Dean meet with clergy and others in the religious community during his travels around the country.

"We're at the beginning," said Democratic spokeswoman Karen Finney, who said religious voters share many of the values of the Democratic Party. "But we know we need to do a better job of talking about our values in a way that people see we share their values."

More than half of those polled, 55 percent, said the Republican Party is friendly to religion.

A majority of political independents, 54 percent, said religious conservatives have too much influence over the GOP. Fewer than half of independents said those who are not religious have too much impact on the Democratic Party.

The poll of 2,000 adults was conducted July 7-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

---

On the Net:

Pew Research Center - http://www.people-press.org

Read More...

Both sides step up battle over US court nominee

Reuters

Both sides step up battle over US court nominee

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Dueling special interest groups stepped up their respective efforts on Tuesday in the battle over U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, whose U.S. Senate confirmation hearing begins next week.

Progress for America, a conservative organization, unveiled a $400,000, nationwide television ad campaign, set to begin on Wednesday, in support of U.S. President George W. Bush's nomination of Roberts, while the liberal Alliance for Justice announced its opposition.

At the same time, a flap over Roberts' records mounted when the National Archives announced that more documents stemming from his work as a lawyer in the Reagan administration had been discovered and would be released as soon as possible.

The Alliance for Justice, in a 105-page report, blasted Roberts, based largely on a review of thousands of pages of documents already made public.

It said Roberts' record "suggests that he would limit Congress' long-standing ability to address nationwide problems, restrict the court's historic authority to vindicate individual rights and legal protections, expand the powers of the president and law enforcement and lower the wall separating church and state."


Chris Myers, executive director of Progress for America, dismissed the opposition by the alliance, an association of more than 70 civil rights and public interest groups, and said Roberts appeared well positioned to win Senate confirmation.

"But he is not confirmed yet and we must remain vigilant," Myers said. "We must help make the case."

Senate Democrats are anxious to grill Roberts on many issues, particularly to see if he supports the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. If confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, Roberts would be in a position to vote to overturn the ruling.

In its 60-second TV ad, Progress for America declared, "Justice depends on fair judges -- who do not prejudge cases."

QUESTIONS TO ANSWER?

It noted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated to the high court by Democratic President Bill Clinton, won Senate confirmation in 1993 on a vote of 96-3 after refusing to answer questions that could come before the court.

"As with Ginsburg, Judge Roberts should not answer questions that force him to pre-judge cases," the announcer says. "Some senators will object solely for partisan reasons."

Bush's nomination of Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor appears to enjoy broad support among Republicans who control the Senate, holding 55 of 100 seats.

Key Senate Republicans have hailed Roberts, a federal appeals court judge for the past two years, as "a mainstream conservative" with impeccable credentials.

No Senate Democrat has announced opposition, but several have voiced concerns.

The confirmation hearing is set to begin next Tuesday and is expected to last at least five days.

The National Archives said the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, which has released about 51,000 pages of documents related to Roberts' work the Reagan administration, had found even more.

The library is part of the National Archives, which said in a statement that Roberts' records were initially searched by the standard procedure of using his name. But it said that on Monday the library found "a large volume" that were entered by a code. It said some will duplicate previously released files.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who has pushed for more records, complained that the "handling of information relating to this important nomination is extremely disappointing."

Read More...

Bush appeals to public to support him on Iraq

Reuters

Bush appeals to public to support him on Iraq

By Adam Entous

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, facing waning support for his Iraq policy, appealed on Tuesday to Americans not to waver because of the rising death toll and again rejected protesters' calls for a troop withdrawal.

With Americans already worried about sharply rising oil prices, Bush said a pull-out would allow al Qaeda to take hold of Iraq's oil fields to fund new attacks, as well as damage America's credibility.

With nearly 1,900 U.S. troops killed in Iraq and anti-war protesters trailing him from his secluded Texas ranch to California, Bush has seen his job approval ratings plummet to the lowest levels of his presidency.

In a speech in which he sought to cast the conflict as the modern day equivalent of America's World War Two struggle against Japan, which ended 60 years ago this month, Bush said Americans "once again" had a stark choice to make.

"Now as then our enemies have made their fight a test of American credibility and resolve. Now as then they are trying to intimidate free people and break our will," Bush said.

"This is the choice we face: Do we return to the pre-September 11 mind-set of isolation and retreat? Or do we continue to take the fight to the enemy and support our allies in the broader Middle East?" Bush said.

"I've made my decision. We will stay on the offensive. We will stand with the people of Iraq and we will prevail," Bush said.

While Bush invoked World War Two to try to boost public support for staying in Iraq, critics, including some Republicans, say Iraq looks increasingly like another Vietnam.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean also challenged administration comparisons, saying unlike U.S. presidents during World War Two, "Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should."

Bush made his appeal at the same San Diego naval air station where, on May 1, 2003, he boarded a Navy plane for a short flight to the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln to give a speech to the nation under a "Mission Accomplished" banner. He declared "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

On his return to the naval station more than two years later, Bush had a different message: urging the American public not to show what he called a lack of "courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy."


If Osama bin Laden and the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, gain control of the country, Bush warned, "they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks. They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They can recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

"America will not run in defeat and we will not forget our responsibilities," Bush said. "A free Iraq will show that when America gives its word, America keeps its word."

Though it has been rejected by Sunni Arabs, Bush seized on Iraq's draft constitution as a step toward full democracy and "the result of democratic debate and compromise."

But Bush's personal -- and ultimately unsuccessful -- appeal last week to the Shi'ites to cut a deal with the Sunnis underscored U.S. concerns that the referendum could turn into a sectarian showdown.

But anti-war protesters led by Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, say they are emboldened by polls showing growing doubts about Bush's policies.

Later this week Sheehan, who has been camped out near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, will launch a bus tour seeking support for a troop withdrawal. The tour will start in Austin, Texas on Wednesday and end in Washington late next month.

The White House said Bush's speech was to mark the 60 years since Tokyo's surrender ended World War II. The actual anniversary of Emperor Hirohito's declaration of surrender was August 15.

Read More...

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Cindy Sheehan: In My Life I Loved You More

HuffingtonPost.com

Cindy Sheehan: In My Life I Loved You More

Since I began my vigil in Crawford, an average of 2.69 per day of our nation's brave and noble troops died in Iraq for George's cowardly and ignoble war. 2.69 families per day have been devastated for no reason except that: we have to continue killing American soldiers because so many have been killed already. My heart and soul go out to these families who had a loved one killed so needlessly and avoidably.

How many more are we as Americans going to tolerate before we force the reckless commander in chief to bring our kids home? How much more blood are we going to allow congress to wash their hands in before we force them to force George to bring our children home?

We are doing everything at Camp Casey to build awareness of this illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. Now we need your help. We are taking Camp Casey to Congress. We plan to hold rallies and meetings in key Congressional districts (Democrats and Republican alike), where the incumbent is weak on the war. Here is the letter I am sending to all of our Congressional representatives:

Dear [Representative],

My son Casey, just 24, was killed in Baghdad on April 4, 2004. It is devastating to me knowing that Casey died needlessly, that so many other families face this same grief, and that new families are added daily. I have been sitting outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford since August 6 th in a roadside ditch we named Camp Casey, seeking a meeting and a dialogue about an illegal and immoral war. I have been joined there by other mothers and families, many of whom have lost children in the war, some who have children now serving in the military, and still others who in one way or another have been touched by the war.

The President has not been willing to meet with me, but he must meet and listen to you. President Bush sent our sons and daughters to war in Iraq. Congress gave him the authority to do so. That's why we are now turning to you, the elected officials who have the power to declare wars -- and end wars. We come to you with grieving hearts to request that you meet with us to answer our simple questions:


President Bush has said that brave Americans like my son Casey have died for a "noble cause." What is that "noble cause "?

How many more lives are we as a country willing to sacrifice in Iraq? How many are you personally willing to sacrifice?

What are you specifically doing to bring our sons and daughters home from this needless war?

Mothers from your district – all who share my conviction that this war must come to an end - are eager to meet with you, and pose to you the questions that the President has refused to answer for me. They will be coming to meet you with a symbol from our vigil in Crawford and will seek honest, straightforward responses to our simple questions. They are your constituents, and they will be asking you my questions, their questions, and the nation's questions. They are going to ask you, your colleagues, and the President to answer us.

As a member of Congress you have the enormous responsibility to end this tragedy and bring our sons and daughters home now. Meet with us, answer us, and show us that there need not be a Camp Casey in your district. Show us that the Crawford Camp Casey, brought on by a stonewalling leader, was all we need. Show us your compassion and leadership.

Sincerely,

Cindy Sheehan

Mother of Casey Sheehan

Please keep watching www.MeetWithCindy.org for the schedule of our bus tour and our Congressional visiting schedule. We need your support at these events.

Yesterday was extraordinary at Camp Casey. It was filled with love, passion, and compassion. We started off the day with a prayer service led by religious leaders of all faiths, topped off with a little preaching by the Rev. Al Sharpton who gave an amazing talk in support of Camp Casey and all we are doing. Right before the Rev. Sharpton arrived, Sean Hannity said that if he were truly a man of God, instead of supporting me, the Reverend would "denounce" me for speaking ill of the President. The Reverend didn't take Hannity's advice, and I am glad.

The next stunning event was the marriage of Peter and Genevieve at Camp Casey II. It was so beautiful. Genevieve walked down the aisle towards Peter and his two sons, while we all hummed: "Here Comes the Bride." The couple for peace then had a collection taken up for our bus tour ( www.BringThemHomeNow.org) in lieu of gifts. They also made a generous donation to the tour. It was amazing, beautiful, and touching, and I am so honored, but not surprised, that they chose to begin their new lives together in such a loving place as Camp Casey. At the end of the ceremony, they played "In My Life" by the Beatles. One part of the song says: "Some are dead and some are living, in my life, I loved you more." I had about all I could handle when I heard that line and I wept for my loss, but also for my gain. Camp Casey has given me back my joy for life, and a renewed sense of hope for my future and my country's future.

We ended the day reciting a rosary, led by Martin Sheen. Martin said Camp Casey was "holy ground" and he met with the Iraqi veterans and with me. I called him my "dream President." I am so happy that at least I was able to meet with a President, if a TV one, who turns out to be a very nice guy on top of everything.

Just another day at Camp Casey.

Read More...

Bush Slashed Hurricane Funding For New Orleans

ThinkProgress.org

Bush Slashed Hurricane Funding For New Orleans

Yesterday, President Bush said “I want to thank all the folks at the federal level and the state level and the local level who have taken this storm seriously.” He’s not one of them. Bush has sought to slash funds that would help New Orleans prepare for a major hurricane.

From the 6/6/05 New Orleans CityBusiness:

In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding…The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now.


[snip]

Landrieu said the Bush administration is not making Corps of Engineers funding a priority. “I think it’s extremely shortsighted,” Landrieu said. “When the Corps of Engineers’ budget is cut, Louisiana bleeds. These projects are literally life-and-death projects to the people of south Louisiana.”

Read More...

Iraq contract whistle-blower to sue after demotion

Reuters

Iraq contract whistle-blower to sue after demotion

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former top U.S. Army procurement official who raised concerns about Halliburton Co.'s contracts in Iraq plans to sue the Army after being demoted, her lawyer said on Monday.

Lawyer Michael Kohn said Bunny Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting official-turned whistle-blower, was removed, effective Saturday, from the senior executive service and moved into a lower-ranking job.

Earlier, in a June 3 memo, Army Corps of Engineers Commandant Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, said the move came after a staff analysis clearly showed the decision was based on Greenhouse's "unacceptable performance" and "not in retaliation for any disclosures of alleged improprieties she may have made."

But Greenhouse's lawyer and Democratic lawmakers disputed that characterization and urged the Pentagon to investigate.

"This is pure retaliation for having exposed contract abuse dealing with Halliburton and stemming back even before that," said Kohn, noting that he planned to file a federal lawsuit next month against the Army and Army Secretary Francis Harvey, alleging racial, sexual and whistle-blower discrimination.

He said a similar claim filed against the Army had stalled since February, after he raised conflict-of-interest questions about the involvement of an Army lawyer in that investigation who had played a role in taking action against Greenhouse.

Two Democratic senators and one congressman on Monday urged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to conduct an investigation into the Army's action against Greenhouse, saying her sudden dismissal appeared "highly suspect" since the Pentagon inspector general was still investigating her allegations.


They said the inspector general's office had also told them it was "working with the Department of Justice regarding potential prosecutions relating to the Halliburton contracts."

"Retaliation against employees for providing information to Congress is illegal and entirely unacceptable," Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Rep. Henry Waxman of California said in the letter.

Halliburton's subsidiary KBR is the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq and has been accused by Democrats of getting lucrative work there because of its ties to Vice President Dick Cheney who headed Halliburton company from 1995-2000.

Halliburton has strongly rejected Greenhouse's comments. Both the Pentagon and the Corps, which was in charge of a sole-source oil contract given to KBR in Iraq, have denied any special treatment for KBR.

Greenhouse first raised questions internally in 2003 about the five-year term of a no-bid contract awarded to Texas-based Halliburton to repair Iraqi oil fields.

Last fall, she went public with her allegations, and the Army referred them to the Pentagon inspector general for further investigation. At the time, acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee ordered that any adverse actions against Greenhouse be suspended until a "sufficient record" was available.

The IG investigation is ongoing, said Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch, declining further comment.

Army spokeswoman Nancy Ray declined comment on the decision to demote Greenhouse, which was approved by Harvey last month.

"Personnel actions are personal matters and we don't comment on personnel action," she said. "We respect people's privacy."

Army Corps spokeswoman Carol Sanders also declined comment.

Greenhouse told congressional Democrats at a hearing in June that Halliburton's deals in Iraq were the worst example of contract abuse she had seen, adding that "every aspect" of the deal had been under the control of Rumsfeld's office.

"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career," said Greenhouse, a procurement veteran of more than 20 years.

Read More...

U.S. sued over toad at center of Roberts' case

Reuters

U.S. sued over toad at center of Roberts' case

By Dan Whitcomb

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - An environmental group and a Christian prayer network have joined forces to sue the Bush administration over the fate of an endangered toad -- the same "hapless" amphibian at the center of a legal opinion by U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

The Center for Biological Diversity and Christians Caring for Creation claim in their federal lawsuit that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to protect the California habitat of the endangered arroyo toad.

Roberts issued an opinion in a separate case involving the arroyo toad in 2003, while sitting as a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, an opinion that has been criticized by liberal groups as evidence of his "radical" views on states rights and environmental laws.

In that case an appeals court found the federal government could use the Endangered Species Act to stop a developer from building on land that had been designated part of the arroyo toad's habitat.

Roberts disagreed, questioning whether "a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California," could be subject to federal laws. He suggested that it should be up to California legislators to protect the toad.

The current lawsuit, filed last week in Riverside, California, claims that in cutting the number of acres (hectares) set aside for the toad from 478,000 to 12,000 in April, the Fish and Wildlife Service has threatened to drive the toad into extinction.


A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of the Interior, which oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, could not be reached for comment.

"It's an unfortunate commentary on the willingness of this administration to undermine the Endangered Species Act," said David Hogan, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Despite its small size this toad needs a lot of land to complete its life cycle."

Hogan said the center has been working since 1999 to save the arroyo toad and called it a coincidence that the amphibian has also surfaced in the debate over Roberts' nomination -- but added the group was happy to take advantage of that to gain publicity for their issue.

They have named their Web site devoted to the issue Hapless Toad (www.haplesstoad.com) -- a reference to an aside by the justice in his dissenting opinion on the 2003 case.

The liberal People From the American Way, which has opposed Roberts' nomination, has said his "radical" view on the toad case could extend far beyond environmental laws to areas of federal authority including Medicare and Social Security.

Read More...

France and Belgium have published separate blacklists of airlines banned from their territory on safety grounds

BBC NEWS
Banned airlines lists published
France and Belgium have published separate blacklists of airlines banned from their territory on safety grounds.

The lists were posted on the websites of the French civil aviation authority (DGAC) and Belgium's Transport Ministry on Monday.

Switzerland has also promised to provide its own list on Thursday.

The moves follow a plane crash in Venezuela on 16 August, in which 152 French passengers died on their way home to the island of Martinique.

Meanwhile on Saturday, at a meeting of the European Civil Aviation Conference in Bucharest, experts called for a Europe-wide definition of common criteria for blacklists.

The European Commission reached a deal in February to allow the creation of EU-wide blacklists of unsafe airlines by the end of the year.

But correspondents say it is unclear whether agreement on the blacklists is possible, with Italy calling for just a list of safe companies.

Charter transparency

The two countries' lists were mutually exclusive, though several names of airlines coincided with those on a list published in the UK.


AIRLINE BLACKLISTS
French list
Air Koryo, North Korea
Air Saint-Thomas, US Virgin Islands
International Air Service, Liberia
Air Mozambique (LAM), including its subsidiary Transairways
Phuket Airlines, Thailand
Belgian list
Africa Lines, Central African Republic
Air Memphis, Egypt
Air Van Airlines, Armenia
Central Air Express, Democratic Republic of Congo
ICTTPW, Libya
International Air Tours Ltd., Nigeria
Johnsons Air Ltd., Ghana
Silverback Cargo Freighters, Rwanda
South Airlines, Ukraine

In addition to the list of banned airlines, the DGAC site also published a list of authorised companies including charter airlines.

French Transport Minister Dominique Perben said last week that by the end of the year passengers taking charter or tour group flights would have the right to be told which company was operating the flight.

Checks on aircraft making stopovers at French airports will also be stepped up.

Switzerland has already revealed the names of some banned airlines, but said it would publish a full list on 1 September.

Passenger revolt

On Wednesday night, 235 passengers of a Tunisian charter plane flying from Paris to the Tunisian island of Djerba refused to re-board a plane which was forced to return to Orly airport for checks shortly after take-off.

That incident came a week after the Venezuela crash, which involved a Colombian-owned plane.

August 2005 has been marked by a string of major plane disasters.

In less then two weeks, three planes have crashed in Greece, Venezuela and Peru - all three of them operated by minor airlines.

More than 300 people have lost their lives in the three accidents.

The issue of blacklisting came to prominence when 148 people - most of them French - died in January 2004 in a crash involving an airline which had been banned from Swiss airspace, a fact which the passengers had no way of knowing.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4194084.stm

Read More...

US 'harming' Uganda's Aids battle

BBC NEWS
US 'harming' Uganda's Aids battle
The UN's special envoy on fighting Aids in Africa has accused the United States of endangering the gains Uganda has made in containing the disease.

Stephen Lewis told the BBC that Uganda - under pressure from Washington - was putting greater emphasis on abstinence to tackle the disease than condoms.

His remarks follow a report by US health campaigners saying the country was facing a condom shortage.

Ugandan Health Minister Mike Mikula denies any change in policy.

Religious right

Mr Lewis said: "Over the last eight to 10 months, there's been a very significant decline in the use of condoms, significantly orchestrated by the policies of government."

"At the moment, the government of Uganda appears to be under the influence of the American policy through the presidential initiative of emphasising abstinence far and away over condoms," he said.

He suggested US President George Bush, who launched his multi-billion dollar campaign to tackle Aids in Africa two years ago, was acting under the influence of the religious right in US.

The UN envoy said condoms were now in short supply in Uganda and had tripled in price.

He said political leaders in Uganda were demeaning the value of condoms in favour of abstinence.

US-based Center for Health and Gender Equity reported that Uganda has been facing a shortage for 10 months.


But Mr Mikula rubbished the report, saying condoms remained a vital part of the country's Abstinence, Be faithful and Condoms (ABC) strategy.

"The weight of the ABC is all equal in that abstinence has been one of the critical strengths of Uganda's ability to reduce the prevalence in the country.

"And obviously, being faithful, which is the B has equally done very well. But condoms and the distribution of condoms continues unabated."

He said 65 million condoms had been procured about two months ago and another 80 million were on the way.

Uganda is often held up as a model of how to fight HIV/Aids, with infection rates falling from 15 to 5%.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/4195968.stm

Read More...

KPMG fined $456m for tax misdeeds

BBC NEWS
KPMG fined $456m for tax misdeeds
Global accounting giant KPMG has agreed to pay a $456m fine to settle a case related to past tax shelter sales.

The deal means KPMG will avoid potentially crippling criminal charges.

But prosecutors have charged nine people - mainly former KPMG executives - with conspiring to defraud US tax authorities in relation to the case.

In June, the company publicly said it took "full responsibility for the unlawful conduct by former KPMG partners" and deeply regretted it.

The settlement and federal indictments follow a lengthy investigation into tax shelters sold to individuals between 1996 and 2002.

KPMG - one of the "big four" global accounting firms - has admitted it helped "high net worth" clients evade billions of dollars in taxes by developing and marketing the tax shelters and concealing them from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).


Charges considered

Federal prosecutors had thought very hard about indicting the firm, as a similar charge destroyed Athur Andersen after it was found guilty of obstructing justice in the Enron investigation.

The US Supreme Court reversed Andersen's conviction earlier this year - but the move was unable to help the firm's 85,000 employees who lost their jobs.

"KPMG's action were a direct assault on our progressive system of income taxation," IRS commissioner Mark Everson said.

"Today's actions demonstrate our resolve to hold accountable those who play fast and loose with the tax code."

While Judge Loretta Preska at Manhattan's federal court said the company's board had agreed to the deal, the group had no immediate comment.

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had " agreed to defer prosecution" provided KPMG met a series of "stringent conditions".

Agreement terms

As well as the multi-million dollar fine, KPMG has also had to agree a number of other conditions under the settlement.

The group has agreed to close its tax business for high net worth individuals within six months.

It has also agreed to be monitored by former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Richard Breeden, who will act as an independent monitor to check the company is complying with the settlement.

The deal is similar to a "suspended sentence" offered in the UK - if it breaks the agreement between now and 31 December 2006 it can still face a grand jury indictment.

Meanwhile, eight former KPMG executives - including former deputy chairman Jeffrey Stein - and an outside tax lawyer have also been charged following the three year investigation.

KPMG operates in 148 countries and employs around 93,900 staff across the globe.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/4195840.stm

Read More...

Monday, August 29, 2005

And Just Why Does Robertson Want to Off Chavez?

Huffingtonpost.com

And Just Why Does Robertson Want to Off Chavez?

Pat Robertson's recent call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez was not simply bizarre or unbecoming for a man of the cloth. It also made clear that the ideology of at least a part of the Christian right has little to do with Christianity -- or religion, for that matter.

After all, what is it about Chavez that Robertson finds so objectionable?
The head of the Christian Broadcasting Network did not claim that Chavez violated or threatened any core Christian values; nor that Chavez was destroying family values, in Venezuela or elsewhere. And Robertson's concern was certainly not about democracy since Chavez was duly elected (unlike the military officers whose coup attempt against Chavez was praised by Robertson).

Indeed, Robertson's words made clear that Chavez should be disposed of because of his anticapitalist views and his resistance to American domination of the western hemisphere. (By the way, someone should tell Robertson that the Monroe doctrine was aimed at European powers, not at indigenous Latin American radicals.) And also, of course, because Venezuela has alot of oil, which we might need.


To advocate removing a foreign leader (even peaceably) for such reasons expresses a crude political and economic agenda, not a moral one: Robertson's statement vibrated with Cold War hostility to the political left, while also voicing the fantasy that the left is somehow allied to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorists. Is this what the Christian right is becoming -- very right and not very Christian?

Read More...

Al Sharpton speaks at anti-war camp near Bush ranch

USA TODAY

Al Sharpton speaks at anti-war camp near Bush ranch

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — The Rev. Al Sharpton joined hundreds of war protesters camping near President Bush's ranch for an interfaith service Sunday, saying he felt compelled to meet Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who started the rally three weeks earlier.

Sheehan arrived in Bush's hometown Aug. 6 and refused to leave until she could question the president about the war that has killed more than 1,870 U.S. service members, including her son Casey.

"I feel that it is our moral obligation to stand and to be courageous with these families, and particularly Cindy, that have become the conscience of this nation," said Sharpton, an activist and former Democratic presidential candidate.

Sharpton and Sheehan laid roses at crosses near "Camp Casey," named for Sheehan's 24-year-old son who was killed in Iraq last year.

Actor Martin Sheen, who portrays the Democratic president on NBC's "The West Wing," also met with Sheehan on Sunday.

Several cars with pro-Bush signs drove slowly down the road by the protest campsite. One man was arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault for allegedly shoving an anti-war demonstrator, McLennan County sheriff's deputies said.

After the war protest ends Wednesday, the anti-war group plans to spread its message on a bus tour, with the first stop probably in the southeast Texas district of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.


Bush has said he appreciates Sheehan's right to protest and sympathizes with her, but his aides have said there are no plans to change his schedule to meet with her.

Sheehan and other grieving families met with Bush about two months after her son died last year, before she became a vocal opponent of the war.

Read More...

Sunday, August 28, 2005

The Boy In The Bubble





The Boy In The Bubble

Read More...

To Counter Cindy Sheehan





To Counter Cindy Sheehan

Read More...

We're here because . . .





We're here because . . .

Read More...

On Iraq:





On Iraq:

Read More...

In Christ's name, of course





In Christ's name, of course

Read More...

We need a wider car





We need a wider car

Read More...

Which two times?





Which two times?

Read More...

Show Me the Science

The New York Times

Show Me the Science
By DANIEL C. DENNETT

Blue Hill, Me.

PRESIDENT BUSH, announcing this month that he was in favor of teaching about "intelligent design" in the schools, said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." A couple of weeks later, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, made the same point. Teaching both intelligent design and evolution "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone," Mr. Frist said. "I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."

Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.

First, imagine how easy it would be for a determined band of naysayers to shake the world's confidence in quantum physics - how weird it is! - or Einsteinian relativity. In spite of a century of instruction and popularization by physicists, few people ever really get their heads around the concepts involved. Most people eventually cobble together a justification for accepting the assurances of the experts: "Well, they pretty much agree with one another, and they claim that it is their understanding of these strange topics that allows them to harness atomic energy, and to make transistors and lasers, which certainly do work..."

Fortunately for physicists, there is no powerful motivation for such a band of mischief-makers to form. They don't have to spend much time persuading people that quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity really have been established beyond all reasonable doubt.

With evolution, however, it is different. The fundamental scientific idea of evolution by natural selection is not just mind-boggling; natural selection, by executing God's traditional task of designing and creating all creatures great and small, also seems to deny one of the best reasons we have for believing in God. So there is plenty of motivation for resisting the assurances of the biologists. Nobody is immune to wishful thinking. It takes scientific discipline to protect ourselves from our own credulity, but we've also found ingenious ways to fool ourselves and others. Some of the methods used to exploit these urges are easy to analyze; others take a little more unpacking.

A creationist pamphlet sent to me some years ago had an amusing page in it, purporting to be part of a simple questionnaire:

Test Two

Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? [YES] [NO]

Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? [YES] [NO]

Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? [YES] [NO]

If you answered YES for any of the above, give details:

Take that, you Darwinians! The presumed embarrassment of the test-taker when faced with this task perfectly expresses the incredulity many people feel when they confront Darwin's great idea. It seems obvious, doesn't it, that there couldn't be any designs without designers, any such creations without a creator.

Well, yes - until you look at what contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection - the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge - has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.

Take the development of the eye, which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists. How on earth, they ask, could that engineering marvel be produced by a series of small, unplanned steps? Only an intelligent designer could have created such a brilliant arrangement of a shape-shifting lens, an aperture-adjusting iris, a light-sensitive image surface of exquisite sensitivity, all housed in a sphere that can shift its aim in a hundredth of a second and send megabytes of information to the visual cortex every second for years on end.

But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.

We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have detailed computer models to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says.


All it takes is a rare accident that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate - this was Darwin's insight - eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.

Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.

If you still find Test Two compelling, a sort of cognitive illusion that you can feel even as you discount it, you are like just about everybody else in the world; the idea that natural selection has the power to generate such sophisticated designs is deeply counterintuitive. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, once jokingly credited his colleague Leslie Orgel with "Orgel's Second Rule": Evolution is cleverer than you are. Evolutionary biologists are often startled by the power of natural selection to "discover" an "ingenious" solution to a design problem posed in the lab.

This observation lets us address a slightly more sophisticated version of the cognitive illusion presented by Test Two. When evolutionists like Crick marvel at the cleverness of the process of natural selection they are not acknowledging intelligent design. The designs found in nature are nothing short of brilliant, but the process of design that generates them is utterly lacking in intelligence of its own.

Intelligent design advocates, however, exploit the ambiguity between process and product that is built into the word "design." For them, the presence of a finished product (a fully evolved eye, for instance) is evidence of an intelligent design process. But this tempting conclusion is just what evolutionary biology has shown to be mistaken.

Yes, eyes are for seeing, but these and all the other purposes in the natural world can be generated by processes that are themselves without purposes and without intelligence. This is hard to understand, but so is the idea that colored objects in the world are composed of atoms that are not themselves colored, and that heat is not made of tiny hot things.

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as "some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers." What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair-splitting.

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.

To see this shortcoming in relief, consider an imaginary hypothesis of intelligent design that could explain the emergence of human beings on this planet:

About six million years ago, intelligent genetic engineers from another galaxy visited Earth and decided that it would be a more interesting planet if there was a language-using, religion-forming species on it, so they sequestered some primates and genetically re-engineered them to give them the language instinct, and enlarged frontal lobes for planning and reflection. It worked.

If some version of this hypothesis were true, it could explain how and why human beings differ from their nearest relatives, and it would disconfirm the competing evolutionary hypotheses that are being pursued.

We'd still have the problem of how these intelligent genetic engineers came to exist on their home planet, but we can safely ignore that complication for the time being, since there is not the slightest shred of evidence in favor of this hypothesis.

But here is something the intelligent design community is reluctant to discuss: no other intelligent-design hypothesis has anything more going for it. In fact, my farfetched hypothesis has the advantage of being testable in principle: we could compare the human and chimpanzee genomes, looking for unmistakable signs of tampering by these genetic engineers from another galaxy. Finding some sort of user's manual neatly embedded in the apparently functionless "junk DNA" that makes up most of the human genome would be a Nobel Prize-winning coup for the intelligent design gang, but if they are looking at all, they haven't come up with anything to report.

It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance - not yet truth - to make them worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.

SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts.

The Discovery Institute, the conservative organization that has helped to put intelligent design on the map, complains that its members face hostility from the established scientific journals. But establishment hostility is not the real hurdle to intelligent design. If intelligent design were a scientific idea whose time had come, young scientists would be dashing around their labs, vying to win the Nobel Prizes that surely are in store for anybody who can overturn any significant proposition of contemporary evolutionary biology.

Remember cold fusion? The establishment was incredibly hostile to that hypothesis, but scientists around the world rushed to their labs in the effort to explore the idea, in hopes of sharing in the glory if it turned out to be true.

Instead of spending more than $1 million a year on publishing books and articles for non-scientists and on other public relations efforts, the Discovery Institute should finance its own peer-reviewed electronic journal. This way, the organization could live up to its self-professed image: the doughty defenders of brave iconoclasts bucking the establishment.

For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content."

Since there is no content, there is no "controversy" to teach about in biology class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politics: Is intelligent design a hoax? And if so, how was it perpetrat- ed?

Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is the author of "Freedom Evolves" and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea."

Read More...

Bike-Deep in the Big Muddy

The New York Times
Bike-Deep in the Big Muddy
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

W. has jumped the couch.

Not fallen off the couch, as he did when he choked on that pretzel.

Jumped it.

According to UrbanDictionary.com, "jump the couch" has now become slang for "a defining moment when you know someone has gone off the deep end. Inspired by Tom Cruise's recent behavior on 'Oprah.' Also see 'jump the shark.' "

The former stateside National Guardsman who was sometimes M.I.A. jumped the shark by landing on that "Mission Accomplished" carrier. (With Tom Cruise cockiness.)

Then, as president, he jumped the couch by pedaling through the guns of August - the growing carnage and chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He did do a few minutes of work this month, calling a Shiite leader in Baghdad a few days ago to lobby him to reach a consensus with the Sunnis, so Iraq doesn't crack apart. But the Shiites and Kurds ignored the president and skewered the Sunnis.

Iraq, it turns out, is the one branch of American government that the Republicans don't control.

W. had a barbecue for the press on Thursday night. (If only the press had grilled him instead.) He mingled over catfish and potato salad with the reporters, who had to ride past Cindy Sheehan's antiwar encampment to get to the poolside party.

Dan Froomkin wrote on the Washington Post Web site that many of the reporters "fawned over Bush, following him around in packs every time he moved." W. chatted about sports and the twins, still oblivious to the cultural shift that is turning 2005 into 1968.

As the news correspondent Dan Harris noted on ABC on Wednesday, the mood is much different now from what it was when the Dixie Chicks got pilloried for criticizing the president just before the war began.

The No. 1 music video requested on MTV is Green Day's antiwar song, "Wake Me Up When September Ends," about the pain of soldiers and their families. On Sunday, Joan Baez sang peace anthems at Camp Casey, including "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" The N.F.L. did not cancel its sponsorship of the Rolling Stones tour, even though the band has a new song critical of Mr. Bush and the war.

Gary Hart began his Washington Post op-ed piece this week by quoting from an anti-Vietnam War song, "Waist-deep in the Big Muddy, and the big fool said to push on."

The former campaign manager for George McGovern's antiwar campaign in 1972 wrote: "We've stumbled into a hornet's nest. We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began. Who now has the courage to say this?"

Anxiety is growing among politicians on both sides of the aisle. More and more Americans don't want to stay-the-course on stay-the-course.

You'd think that by now, watching the meshugas in Iraq, the Bush crowd would have learned some lessons about twisting facts to suit ideology, and punishing those who try to tell the truth. But they're still behaving like Cinderella's evil stepsisters, who cut their feet to fit them into the glass slipper: butchering reality to make the fairy tale come out their way.


Eric Lichtblau reported in The Times this week that the administration was dumping the highly respected Lawrence Greenfeld, appointed by President Bush in 2001 to head the Bureau of Justice Statistics, because he refused superiors' orders to delete from a press release an account of how black and Hispanic drivers were treated more aggressively by the police after traffic stops. The Justice Department study showed markedly higher rates of searches and use of force for black and Hispanic drivers, compared with white drivers.

Fearing that the survey would give ammunition to members of Congress who object to using racial and ethnic data in terrorism and law enforcement investigations, Mr. Greenfeld's supervisors buried it online with no press release or briefing for Congress.

Mr. Lichtblau wrote that when Mr. Greenfeld sent the planned press release to the office of his supervisor, Tracy Henke, then an acting assistant attorney general, the section on the treatment of black and Hispanic drivers was crossed out with a notation: "Do we need this?" Ms. Henke herself had added a note: "Make the changes."

Like Condi Rice, Stephen Hadley, John Bolton and others who helped spin reality to suit political ends, Ms. Henke was rewarded by the president. She has been nominated for a senior post in the Homeland Security Department.

I feel safer already.

Read More...