Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Miers Backed Ban on Most Abortions in '89

ABC News
Miers Backed Ban on Most Abortions in '89
Court Nominee Miers Indicated in 1989 Questionnaire That She Supported Banning Most Abortions
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.

As a candidate for the Dallas city council, Miers also signaled support for the overall agenda of Texans United for Life agreeing she would support legislation restricting abortions if the Supreme Court ruled that states could ban abortions and would participate in "pro-life rallies and special events."

Miers made her views known in a candidate questionnaire the White House submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is expected to hold hearings on her Supreme Court nomination next month. The one-page questionnaire was filled out, but unsigned, although the Bush administration affirmed its authenticity.

"The answers clearly reflect that Harriet Miers is opposed to Roe v. Wade," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and only woman on the Judiciary Committee. "This raises very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard. It will be my intention to question her very carefully about these issues."

GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas, who support Miers, say the questionnaire was written while Miers was a politician, and she would leave political decisions behind as a judge. "That information is interesting, and some people may draw their own conclusions from it, but I believe that Harriet Miers will be the type of judge who will not attempt to pursue a personal or political agenda from the bench," Cornyn said.

That view was echoed at the White House where presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said that Miers answered the questions as a candidate during the course of a campaign.

"The role of a judge is very different from the role of a candidate or a political officeholder," McClellan said.

"Harriet Miers, just like Chief Justice (John) Roberts, recognizes that personal views and ideology and religion have no role to play when it comes to making decisions on the bench," he said. "Your role as a judge is to look at all the facts and look at the law and apply the law to that case."

The questionnaire also revealed that the White House was considering Miers for its first Supreme Court nomination along with now-Chief Justice John Roberts.

"When Justice Sandra Day O'Connor first announced her desire to retire, I was asked whether my name should be considered," she said in the questionnaire. "I indicated at that time that I did not want to be considered."

The document surfaced as the White House struggled to reassure conservatives who have been critical of Miers' appointment, depicting her as a crony of President Bush who lacks the background or qualifications to sit on the high court.

There was fresh evidence of trouble for Miers during the day, when Sen. David Vitter, R-La., issued a statement saying, "My top questions are: does she have a consistent and well-grounded conservative judicial philosophy and what objective evidence is there of it from her life's work?"

Miers, 60, meanwhile, continued meeting privately with senators during the day, part of a round of courtesy calls that precede the opening of confirmation hearings.

"With her conservative judicial philosophy, she understands that judges must not legislate from the bench," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice and a Miers supporter. "And while she may hold personal views that underscore the value of human life, it would be wrong for those views to be used against her in the confirmation process."

The 1989 questionnaire was designed to gauge candidates' views on the drive to ban most abortions, either by constitutional amendment or by state law in the event the Supreme Court overturned a 1973 ruling that established abortion rights.

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.

The abortion issue hangs over Miers' nomination much as it did over the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts earlier this year. The situations are different, however Roberts replaced the late William Rehnquist, who voted to overturn the 1973 abortion ruling. Miers would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has voted to uphold it.

"A candidate taking a political position in the course of a campaign is different from the role of a judge making a ruling in the judicial process." said Jim Dyke, a White House spokesman.

Miers' nomination has been met with skepticism from some conservatives, who say she has little by way of a record to establish her views on abortion, affirmative action and other issues. The Texans United for Life questionnaire is additional evidence of how Miers feels about abortion, with some of her supporters assuring conservatives that they believe she would overturn the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.

Miers also bought a $150 ticket to a Texans United for Life dinner in 1989 and took a leadership role in trying to get the American Bar Association to reconsider its abortion-rights position in 1993.

Senators say Miers has insisted that she has not given anyone any assurances that she would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance.

"She said nobody knows my views on Roe v. Wade. Nobody can speak for me on Roe v. Wade," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., on Monday, referring to the case that guaranteed women's constitutional right to an abortion, setting a legal precedent that abortion foes have been trying to overturn ever since.

In the questionnaire that she turned in the Judiciary Committee, Miers answered "no" to questions asking whether anyone during the nomination process discussed specific cases or legal issues with her to get an assurance on her positions. She also answered "no" to whether she told anyone how she might rule if confirmed.

Miers also revealed that her law license was suspended in the District of Columbia earlier this year for non-payment of bar dues. "I immediately sent the dues to remedy the delinquency," she wrote. "The nonpayment was not intentioned, and I corrected the situation upon receiving the letter."

Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman and Elizabeth White contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Documents including the full questionnaire, financial disclosures and the TULPAC letter are available at: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/miers/index.html

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

Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 2:35 PM

Key CIA leak detail disputed as announcement nears

Reuters

Key CIA leak detail disputed as announcement nears

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff may have given New York Times reporter Judith Miller inaccurate information about where the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA, a former intelligence official said on Monday.

The possible discrepancy comes amid signs the federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, will announce whether he will bring charges as early as Wednesday, people close to the case said.

Investigators have questioned Miller and other witnesses about whether Cheney was aware or authorized his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, to talk to reporters about Wilson, Miller and others involved in the case have said.

The Washington Post reported special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has assembled evidence showing Cheney's long-running feud with the CIA contributed to Plame's unmasking.

Wilson, a former diplomat, says White House officials exposed his wife, damaging her ability to work undercover, to discredit him for accusing the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war in a New York Times opinion piece on July 6, 2003.

According to Miller's account of a meeting with Libby on July 8, she wrote in her notes that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, or Winpac, unit, which tracks unconventional arms.

A former intelligence official said Plame did not work at Winpac but for the CIA's clandestine service. The former official, who is familiar with Plame's CIA activities, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity.

AFFECT THE INVESTIGATION

It is unclear how the discrepancy might affect the investigation. The former intelligence official said the WINPAC error could bolster Libby's defense, if he were charged with intentionally compromising the identity of a covert operative, since most Winpac employees are not undercover.

"It may actually be helpful to him by showing he was acting under a misimpression and it wasn't an intentional outing of a known undercover officer," the official said.

Libby and President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, are among the officials facing possible charges, legal sources have said.

Miller, who was jailed for 85 days before agreeing to testify about her conversations with Libby, said she told the grand jury Libby "indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative."

While Fitzgerald could try to charge administration officials with knowingly revealing the identity of an undercover operative, several lawyers in the case said he was more likely to seek charges for conspiracy and easier-to-prove crimes such as disclosing classified information, making false statements, obstruction and perjury.

Fitzgerald's office said on Monday it had decided to announce any decisions in the Plame case in Washington, rather than Chicago, where the special prosecutor is based.

It is unusual for Fitzgerald's office to comment on the case and the statement led some observers to wonder if it might signal an imminent decision or that Fitzgerald was trying to increase pressure on potential targets to cut a deal.

After promising to fire anyone found to have leaked the information, Bush offered a more qualified pledge in July, saying, "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."

Asked on Monday if he would expect members of his administration to resign or take a leave if they were indicted, Bush said: "My position hasn't changed since the last time I've been asked this question. There's a serious investigation. ... I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of the investigation."

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 2:33 PM

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Meirs Religious Beliefs

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:20 AM

"Unrehearsed"

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:19 AM

Bush To New Orleans: Drop Dead

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:18 AM

Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:17 AM

Cramming

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:17 AM

Assisted Suicide

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:15 AM

America 2008

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:14 AM

One hopes

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:14 AM

Faith Based Lack of Initiative

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:12 AM

Disaster Planning Part XXXVII

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:11 AM

Matthews, Mitchell, and O'Beirne combined for Plame misinformation triple-team

mediamatters.org/

Matthews, Mitchell, and O'Beirne combined for Plame misinformation triple-team

On the October 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne, and host Chris Matthews presented false and misleading statements concerning the investigation into the alleged outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame. Mitchell wrongly asserted that Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, claimed that Vice President Dick Cheney "dispatched" him to Niger in 2002 to investigate the alleged sale of yellowcake uranium to Iraq. Matthews stated as fact the disputed claim that Plame "suggested her husband for the mission" to Niger. And O'Beirne confused two statutes that may have been violated when Plame's identity was leaked to the press -- the 1917 Espionage Act and the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- and wrongly attacked Wilson's credibility by claiming he was "[n]o expert in weapons of mass destruction."

Mitchell, claiming she wanted to "clear something up," stated that "[t]here had been inaccurate reporting -- some of it came from Wilson's mouth himself -- that he was dispatched by the vice president." Wilson, however, never claimed that Cheney or Cheney's office sent him to Niger. As Media Matters for America has noted, Wilson -- in his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed and in numerous televised appearances -- claimed he was sent to Niger by the CIA to answer questions from Cheney's office regarding the purported sale of uranium to Iraq. The false claim that Wilson stated or implied that Cheney sent him to Niger (literally a Republican National Committee talking point) is significant to the controversy surrounding the White House's alleged outing of Plame. In an attempt to justify the purported leaking of Plame's identity to the press, the White House claimed that it had a legitimate interest in setting the record straight by disclosing that Plame, not Cheney, was actually responsible for Wilson's being sent to Niger.

Responding to Mitchell's remarks, Matthews commented that "[o]f course Valerie Plame suggested her husband for the mission." But what Matthews presented as fact is a matter very much in dispute. Unnamed intelligence officials have been quoted in the press claiming that the CIA -- not Plame -- selected Wilson for the mission. Also, CIA officials disputed the accuracy of a State Department intelligence memo that reportedly indicates that Plame "suggested" Wilson's name for the trip. Moreover, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not officially conclude that Plame suggested the trip in its 2004 "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq."

O'Beirne, in an attempt to dismiss the possibility that leaking Plame's identity violated the law, apparently confused the Espionage Act and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) -- two statutes under which special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is reportedly considering seeking indictments. Responding to Matthews's comment that White House officials "could have still broken the law to whack" Wilson, O'Beirne said: "Yes, that underlying Espionage Act is pretty darn hard to break. They could've been unaware ... of what her status was at the CIA." The Espionage Act does not, however, specifically address the identities of covert agents, but instead deals generally with the unlawful distribution of classified information to individuals not authorized to receive it. O'Beirne's comments echo the language of the IIPA, which states that revealing the identity of an undercover agent is illegal only if the leaker was aware of the agent's covert status. Conservatives have questioned whether any law was broken in Plame's outing by claiming that the IIPA sets very high hurdles for prosecution, while apparently ignoring the other laws that may have been violated in the Plame leak. According to the IIPA:

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Also, O'Beirne attempted to undermine Wilson's credibility by claiming he was "[n]o expert in weapons of mass destruction." But as Media Matters noted, it is unclear how a lack of expertise in weapons of mass destruction would prevent Wilson from successfully investigating the reported sale of a commodity such as yellowcake uranium, particularly given that he had taken a similar trip to Niger in 1999 to investigate possible purchases by Iran.

From a discussion with New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, Matthews, Mitchell, and O'Beirne, on the October 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MITCHELL: Chris, I actually wanted to clear something up, because I was involved in that back then. And, in fact, one of the things that the administration, the Vice President's Office, was trying so desperately to clear up was that Dick Cheney, in his trips to the CIA, did not solicit Joe Wilson to go. There had been inaccurate reporting -- some of it came from Wilson's mouth himself -- that he was dispatched by the vice president. This was clearly the case, according to the Vice President's Office, where the vice president asked a lot of questions about the uranium in Niger. And as a result, he was tasked to go.

MATTHEWS: I acknowledge that that's their defense, but don't we know now the fact that the trip was, in fact, triggered. Of course Valerie Plame suggested her husband for the mission. But the mission was triggered by the inquiry by the vice president, and the vice president was denying that at that time, wasn't he?

MITCHELL: In fact, that's not the case. The trip was triggered by the vice president's inquiries on the part of NSC [National Security Council] and CIA officials who were eager to answer his questions.

MATTHEWS: Right.

MITCHELL: He did not necessarily know that any trip was even under way at the early stages of that trip.

MATTHEWS: Sure, but they --

MITCHELL: That's what they were trying to clear up. That's why they jumped up. And that was probably the original motivation.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Because he said there was some kind of a deal going on, and says the only thing Niger has to sell is uranium. It might be that that involved uranium, right?

O`BEIRNE: So given those questions that were raised, people said, well then how did he wind up getting sent, given that he is no expert.

MATTHEWS: Well, he was an expert in African relations. He had been an ambassador in that part of the world, right?

O`BEIRNE: No expert in weapons of mass destruction, and given that his findings, people don't find particularly persuasive, what was he doing over there? And the innocent answer would be, his wife works at the CIA, and she recommended him.

MATTHEWS: Everything you say could be true, and they could have still used -- they could have still broken the law to whack him. That's still possible, too. We will find out.

O`BEIRNE: Yes, that underlying Espionage Act is pretty darn hard to break. They could've been unaware --

MATTHEWS: Is it hard to --

O`BEIRNE: -- of what her status was at the CIA.

MATTHEWS: I understand that if you distribute -- Bob check me, but -- both, of you. But I understand the Espionage Act says if you distribute classified information --

O`BEIRNE: Knowingly.

MATTHEWS: -- then it's classified. Even if you get it from somebody else, a reporter, but you know it's classified, you are guilty.

— S.S.M.

Posted to the web on Friday October 14, 2005 at 7:10 PM EST

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:09 AM

CIA Leak Scandal: Rove Defied Bush's Command?

thenation.com
CIA Leak Scandal: Rove Defied Bush's Command?
David Corn

As I noted previously, it has been interesting to watch Karl Rove's defense evolve. After the news broke in September 2003 that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak in Bob Novak's July 14, 2003, column that outed former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie, as an undercover CIA officer, the White House declared that Rove and Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, were not involved in the leak--no ifs, ands or buts. Speaking of Rove, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "He wasn't involved. The president knows he wasn't involved." The White House was signaling--rightly or wrongly--that it had no worries about its uber-strategist. And a year later, a White House aide who had just left his job at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue told me that the consensus view within the Bush gang at that point was that Rove was too smart for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and that there was no reason for Rove to explain--or admit--anything. (One prominent Washington defense attorney said--after I recently mentioned this conversation--"only a fool would think he or she could outsmart a prosecutor.")

This past July, after Time agreed to turn over Matt Cooper's notes to Fitzgerald, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff revealed that Cooper had spoken to Rove about Joe Wilson. Responding to Isikoff's scoop, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." But a week later, Isikoff disclosed that Cooper and Rove had discussed Wilson's wife and her employment at the CIA and that an email from Cooper to his editors had confirmed this. And days later, news reports--probably relying upon Luskin as an unidentified source--disclosed that Rove had told Novak that he, like Novak, had heard that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer. All this undermined the Rove camp's claim that Rove never mentioned Valerie Plame and her CIA position to any reporter. (I supposed Luskin could argue that Rove, during his chats with Cooper and Novak, had not referred to Wilson's wife as "Valerie Plame.")

In the three months since, Rove's defense has shifted further. This week, Luskin told CNN that "Karl has truthfully told everyone who's asked him that he did not circulate Valerie Plame's name to punish her husband, Joe Wilson." (When CNN asked if that included George W. Bush, Luskin added, "Everyone is everyone.") This line--Rove did not circulate Plame's name to punish Joseph Wilson--is a far cry from the assertion that Rove did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer. It appears that Luskin and Rove are making up lyrics as the music changes. Rove detractors might find this legalistic squirming perversely enjoyable. But what's telling is a comparison between Rove's position (the current one) and that of his boss.

Two years ago, when Bush was asked about the Plame/CIA leak, he said:

I have told our administration, people in my administration, to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true.

A journalist then asked:

Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him?

Bush answered:

Listen, I know of nobody--I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing....And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it....And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would....I want to know who the leakers are.

By Rove's own admission--or that of his attorney--Rove did pass classified information (Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was classified) to at least two reporters (Cooper and Novak). By Bush's statement, Rove deserves "appropriate action." Yet so far no "appropriate action" has apparently been taken. Why might that be?

Moreover, if Rove used his current defense--that he did not circulate the Plame name to punish Wilson--in his conversations with Bush, as Luskin suggested to CNN, then Rove engaged in insubordination. Bush had said that he wanted to know the truth and that anyone with information should "come forward and speak out." Did Rove do that? No. According to Luskin, Rove told people--including the president--that he did not circulate the name of Wilson's wife. This seems to indicate that Rove did not tell Bush that he actually had spoken to Cooper about Wilson's wife and that he had confirmed the leak to Novak--actions that Rove and Luskin apparently do not consider "circulating." In other words, Rove did not respond to Bush's public request for information. Bush said he wanted to know who the leakers were. Yet Rove, if Luskin is to be believed, only assured Bush that he had not disseminated Valerie Wilson's maiden name in an act of vengeance. That was not being responsive to Bush. That was not sharing the full truth with the president. That was being insubordinate.

Perhaps the latest version of Rove's defense is--shall we say--not fully accurate. Perhaps Rove told Bush more. That would mean that Bush knew the White House line--Rove ain't involved--was false and took no steps to better inform the public.

There is no way to reconcile Bush's statements on the leak investigation and Rove's new-and-improved defense. Rove disobeyed Bush's I-want-to-know command. And Bush has let this slide and tossed aside his vow to take "action" against the Plame/CIA leakers. The wait for indictments continues, but Rove is already guilty of spreading--if not circulating--classified information, and he is guilty of either disobeying the president or drawing him into a White House conspiracy to mislead the public. His continued presence at the White House indicates that Bush does not take his own words seriously.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:07 AM

This Is How It Works

huffingtonpost.com
This Is How It Works
Marty Kaplan

If you want to see the reality-based community in action, check out this excerpt from Judy Miller's account (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html) of her Grand Jury testimony:

Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer."

My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.

Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.

So even though the White House was attacking Joe Wilson, Libby felt no compunction about creating his own reality, where the White House wasn't attacking him.

Though Judy Miller, scooped by Bob Novak, never published a piece based on this conversation, it's entirely conceivable that the Times would have run the attribution Libby requested. This is how the game works in Washington. Not to realize it, say Beltway royalty, is to be naive about high-end journalism, and to "criminalize politics."

In recent years, many papers have come up with new rules for indicating a source's motive for being unnamed. But I don't recall a guideline that would generate an accurate attribution for this case. It would need to be something like, "said a former Hill staffer, who did not want his position as Vice President Cheney's chief of staff noted because it could lead to his being indicted and undermine the administration's case for sending thousands of American troops to their death."

Maybe they should update the journalism handbooks - they could call it "the Libby rule."

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:05 AM

CIA leak prosecutor asked about any Cheney role

Reuters

CIA leak prosecutor asked about any Cheney role

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal prosecutor questioned New York Times reporter Judith Miller about whether Vice President Dick Cheney himself was aware or authorized her discussions with his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, about a covert CIA operative, Miller said on Saturday.

Miller also disclosed for the first time that the notebook she used for an interview with Libby in July 2003 contained the name "Valerie Flame," a clear reference to Valerie Plame, the covert operative whose outing triggered a sweeping criminal investigation that has shaken the Bush administration.

Miller told federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who could bring indictments as early as next week, that she did not think Libby was the source of the "Valerie Flame" reference in her notebook but that she could not recall who gave her that information.

Plame's diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, asserts that White House officials outed his wife, damaging her ability to work undercover, to discredit him for accusing the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war in a New York Times opinion piece on July 6, 2003.

Viewed by some as a martyr for press freedom, Miller has faced criticism for some of her prewar news reports on Iraq's alleged weapons programs. Critics say those reports helped boost the administration's case that Iraq posed a threat. No weapons of mass destruction were found.

While Fitzgerald could bring charges against administration officials for the crime of knowingly revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, several lawyers involved in the case said he was more likely to bring conspiracy charges or easier-to-prove charges such as making false statements or perjury.

Libby and President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, are among those who could face charges for talking to reporters about Plame, the lawyers say.

But Miller's account of her testimony to the grand jury suggests Fitzgerald is not only interested in Libby's role in the leak, but also in learning whether he received any direction from Cheney.

During her testimony to the grand jury, Fitzgerald asked whether Cheney was aware of what Libby was doing and saying. Fitzgerald also asked her "if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them. The answer was no," Miller wrote.

Fitzgerald also questioned Miller about whether a letter she received in jail from Libby last month might have been an attempt to shape her testimony to the grand jury.

In that letter, Libby said Miller should testify about their conversations, but noted that the other reporters who have done so have made clear "they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me."

WHITE HOUSE FOCUSED EARLY ON WILSON

Miller said that surprised her "because it might be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby to suggest that I, too, would say we had not discussed Ms. Plame's identity."

"Yet my notes suggested that we had discussed her job," said Miller, who spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify about her conversations with Libby.

She said her notes, however, "do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or 'operative.'"

In Miller's personal account of her role in the case, she wrote that Wilson became "a focus of significant scrutiny" at the highest levels of the Bush administration well before he went public with his criticisms on July 6.

Starting with a June 23, 2003 meeting, Libby was already defending Cheney, seeking to "insulate his boss" from Wilson's charges and his CIA-sponsored mission in 2002 to Niger to investigate whether Iraq sought uranium there, Miller wrote.

In that June meeting, Libby raised the subject of Wilson's wife for the first time, and Miller wrote in her notes that she might work for the CIA.

Miller and Libby met again on July 8 -- at the St. Regis Hotel near the White House -- and she learned that Wilson's wife worked in a CIA unit known as WINPAC -- weapons intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control.

The notebook she used that day also included the reference to "Valerie Flame," which Miller said was "clearly a reference to Ms. Plame."

"Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," Miller wrote.

After Miller spoke by phone with Libby on July 12, 2003, her notes included the name "Victoria Wilson."

Two days later, on July 14, columnist Robert Novak publicly identified Wilson's wife as Valerie Plame, an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

The New York Times report also sheds new light on why Miller refused to testify after Libby offered an earlier waiver of confidentiality.

According to the Times, Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, told Miller's attorney about Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Miller the name or undercover status of Wilson's wife.

Miller told the Times she concluded that Tate was sending her a message that Libby did not want her to testify without an assurance that Miller would exonerate his client.

Tate called Miller's interpretation "outrageous."

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:03 AM

Farrakhan wants govt sued over hurricane response

Reuters

Farrakhan wants govt sued over hurricane response

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan accused the federal government of "criminal neglect" for its slow response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, during a rally on Saturday marking the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March.

Speaking to thousands of African-Americans gathered on the National Mall, he also urged minorities and the poor to work together to improve their lives.

In his speech, the highlight of the daylong event, Farrakhan asked why the government did a better job helping the citizens of Florida last year, and why so few lives were lost, when the state was hit by four major hurricanes.

"I believe that we can charge the government with criminal neglect," he said. "I firmly believe that if the people on those rooftops (in New Orleans) had blond hair and blue eyes and pale skin, something would have been done in a more timely manner. We charge America with criminal neglect," he said from the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

There has been renewed attention on race relations in recent weeks, after Hurricane Katrina ripped through New Orleans and devastated the lower Ninth Ward, which was largely populated by black and poor residents.

Farrakhan also said the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security should be sued.

"I think we need to look at a class action (law)suit on behalf of the citizens of New Orleans who have lost everything, and the government is not acting responsibly to give them back what they have lost and return them to their homes," he said.

MILLIONS MORE MOVEMENT

This year's event, known as the "Millions More Movement," was a stark contrast to 1995, when only black men were invited to participate to promote black self-reliance and responsibility. On Saturday, women and other minorities were invited, attended and spoke to the crowd.

"For a few years it was good for the men to come out for themselves -- to atone -- but now we need to come together," said Jamillia Lawrence, 35, of Atlantic City.

"This march, particularly, it was for families. It just came from a need. This is what the need is, to have more unity in our families," she said, citing gang violence and black children going astray, with no structure in their families.

Farrakhan, who organized the 1995 event and has made controversial statements in the past, told the crowd that African-Americans should work together to improve their lives.

"The more we are organized, the more we can generate power to change reality. The more we unify, the more power we can generate to change reality," he said.

Farrakhan also urged other minorities and the poor to unite.

"The time has never been more ripe for a strategic relationship between the black, the brown, the Native American and the poor of this nation and the world," he said.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, a former Democratic presidential candidate who also addressed the crowd, called for a move away from violence and for millions to fight against poverty, illiteracy and the kind of suffering that befell the poor in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

"Don't imitate the violence, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism, gay bashing," he told the crowd. "We need ... millions more to build a multiracial coalition, we need not battle alone to fight poverty and greed and war."

The event appeared smaller than the Million Man March, with crowds dispersed between the U.S. Capitol steps across to the grassy Mall. A decade ago, hundreds of thousands stretched from the Capitol to the Washington Monument.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:01 AM

Ohio neo-Nazi march sparks violence, fire, arrests

Reuters

Ohio neo-Nazi march sparks violence, fire, arrests

CHICAGO (Reuters) - At least two dozen people were arrested on Saturday after a planned march by white supremacists in Toledo, Ohio, prompted a crowd to pelt police with rocks and bottles and set a fire, city officials said.

Members of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement had been scheduled to march under police protection through north Toledo, with anti-Nazi groups set to counter-protest.

But police canceled the event and told the neo-Nazi group to leave as tensions rose and violence erupted nearby, the Toledo Blade reported. The confrontations continued for several hours.

The crowd threw bottles and rocks at police, and some officers and firefighters received minor injuries, officials said. Police cars and a fire truck were damaged.

"We made about two dozen arrests, but quite frankly could have made a couple of hundred arrests easily," Toledo Police Chief Michael Navarre said.

Police started making arrests after a business was set on fire, he said.

"The crowd is temporarily dissipated, that's a good sign, but we are going to have problems here for the next few days," Navarre said. "There will be a very strong police presence in this neighborhood for several days, as long as it takes."

Toledo Mayor Jack Ford blamed the violence on gang members who took advantage of the tensions to settle scores.

"I don't think it was race relations at all. It was some gang members who had real or imagined grievances and took it as an opportunity to speak in their own way over the march, in their park, their area," Ford told reporters.

"That's exactly what (the white supremacist group) wanted," he added.

Navarre said that just about every police officer in the city has been called back to duty and that the Ohio State Patrol had sent officers to help maintain order.

Toledo set an 8 p.m. (0000 GMT on Sunday) curfew aimed at people roaming the streets or alleys.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:59 AM

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Double Game

MSNBC.com

Double Game
Regardless of whether Miers makes it to the Supreme Court, conservative anger over Bush’s choice could paralyze the rest of his presidency.

By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek

Oct. 14, 2005 - Democrats are doing what they do best, sitting on their rear ends, as the White House turns the venom on its own base, accusing conservatives of sexism because they don’t like President Bush's Supreme Court pick. For once, the Democrats have the right strategy. Watching the evangelists wrestle with the conservative intellegentsia is the political equivalent of Hulk Hogan taking on Jesse (the Body) Ventura.

It doesn’t matter who comes out on top, the moves are worth the price of admission. President Bush wouldn’t care either if it were just the pointy-headed neocons griping about Harriet Miers. But he’s scared of losing his religious base. The reason the religious right got involved in Republican politics was for this moment: when a pro-life president would reward their years of hard work with a Supreme Court that voted their way.

The religious right doesn’t care about affirmative action or antitrust issues or the reach of the court. All they care about is abortion, and Bush’s attempts to reassure them by stressing Miers’s evangelical faith is compounding his problems with the rest of the party, if not the country. Focus on the Family chairman James Dobson said he’d been assured by White House pointman Karl Rove that Miers attends a “very conservative” Texas church “which is almost universally pro-life.” That was good enough for Dobson, but a former Reagan aide involved in the nomination of Judge Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court recalled similar assurances that Kennedy was an ardent Roman Catholic who would vote right on abortion and other social issues. Kennedy voted to uphold Roe v. Wade.

Bush is playing a dangerous double game. He’s telling conservatives that because of her faith, Miers will vote the way they want. And he’s telling the rest of the country religion is irrelevant in choosing a Supreme Court nominee.

What about stem-cell research? Americans are close to unified on supporting federal funding on this research. Is Miers going to vote Dobson’s way on everything or only on abortion? On Capitol Hill, Republican senators were less impressed with Miers after meeting with her, noting that she avoided stating her views either out of an excess of caution or ignorance of constitutional law. GOP staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee were in open revolt, suggesting Miers should step down while she still has some dignity left.

Is it sexism? The president, First Lady and senior White House advisors said as much, further infuriating conservatives who’d heard enough of that over the years from Democrats. Miers’s gender isn’t the issue; it’s her credentials, or lack thereof. “A man with her credentials did get the same treatment--his name was Clarence Thomas,” says a former Republican Senate staffer, a woman. “Her shortcomings look worse because of those sappy, stupid notes. No man would ever write those notes.” Miers has a scant body of writing, but among the bursts of prose made public this week by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission were these gems: ”You are the best governor ever--deserving of great respect” on Bush’s 51st birthday. In another note, she pronounced him “cool.” Bush returned the compliments, thanking Miers for her “candor” and adding, “never hold back your sage advice.”

Miers spent most of her time at the White House shuffling papers. She was responsible for getting Bush his daily document minder, and it was always nice and neat. But the Supreme Court is not a patronage post. “It’s like putting your own personal accountant in charge of OMB [Office of Management and Budget],” says the former GOP staffer. “Nobody supports her. Who wants to defend someone with a record that’s nonexistent?”

The answer is the evangelical poohbahs--Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who are all over the religious airways touting Miers. On his “700 Club” broadcast, Robertson threatened grass-roots retaliation: “These so-called movement conservatives don’t have much of a following, the ones that I’m aware of. And you just marvel, these are the senators, some of them who voted to confirm the general counsel of the ACLU [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] to the Supreme Court, and she was voted in almost unanimously. And you say, ‘Now they’re going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they’re going to vote against her for confirmation.’ Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office.”

Conservative Sen. Sam Brownback is not going to be cowed by Pat Robertson, and all it takes is one Republican senator to say he’s not going to vote for her and the cultural war will explode. “If you don’t hear that in a week or so, she’ll skate through,” guesses a GOP strategist. “It will be unpleasant for her, but she’ll get through.” If the nomination goes down, “There’s no overstating how bad this is. He has no ability to change the momentum. All he can hope for is an end to a downward spiral.” Whatever happens to Miers, the damage is done. Conservatives know how to carry a grudge. Just ask Bush's father. Bush is not up for re-election, but the right is vindictive, and they can paralyze his presidency.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9696804/site/newsweek/?rf=nwnewsletter

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:34 PM

The Nexus of Politics and Terror

msnbc.com
The Nexus of Politics and Terror
-Keith Olbermann

Secaucus - Last Thursday on Countdown, I referred to the latest terror threat - the reported bomb plot against the New York City subway system - in terms of its timing. President Bush’s speech about the war on terror had come earlier the same day, as had the breaking news of the possible indictment of Karl Rove in the CIA leak investigation.

I suggested that in the last three years there had been about 13 similar coincidences - a political downturn for the administration, followed by a “terror event” - a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning.

We figured we’d better put that list of coincidences on the public record. We did so this evening on the television program, with ten of these examples. The other three are listed at the end of the main list, out of chronological order. The contraction was made purely for the sake of television timing considerations, and permitted us to get the live reaction of the former Undersecretary of Homeland Security, Asa Hutchinson.

We bring you these coincidences, reminding you, and ourselves here, that perhaps the simplest piece of wisdom in the world is called “the logical fallacy.” Just because Event “A” occurs, and then Event “B” occurs, that does not automatically mean that Event “A” caused Event “B.”

But one set of comments from an informed observer seems particularly relevant as we examine these coincidences.

On May 10th of this year, after his resignation, former Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge looked back on the terror alert level changes, issued on his watch.

Mr. Ridge said: “More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it. Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don’t necessarily put the country on (alert)… there were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said ‘for that?’”

Please, judge for yourself.

Number One:

May 18th, 2002. The first details of the President’s Daily Briefing of August 6th, 2001, are

revealed, including its title - “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.” The same day another memo is discovered - revealing the FBI knew of men with links to Al Qaeda training at an Arizona flight school. The memo was never acted upon. Questions about 9/11 Intelligence failures are swirling.

May 20th, 2002. Two days later, FBI Director Mueller declares another terrorist attack “inevitable.” The next day, the Department of Homeland Security issues warnings of attacks against railroads nationwide, and against New York City landmarks like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.

Number Two:

June 6th, 2002. Colleen Rowley, the FBI agent who tried to alert her superiors to the specialized flight training taken by Zacarias Moussaoui, whose information suggests the government missed a chance to break up the 9/11 plot, testifies before Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Graham says Rowley’s testimony has inspired similar pre-9/11 whistle-blowers.

June 10th, 2002. Four days later, speaking from Russia, Attorney General John Ashcroft reveals that an American named Jose Padilla is under arrest, accused of plotting a radiation bomb attack in this country. Padilla had, by this time, already been detained for more than a month.

Number Three:

February 5th, 2003. Secretary of State Powell tells the United Nations Security Council of Iraq’s concealment of weapons, including 18 mobile biological weapons laboratories, justifying a U.N. or U.S. first strike. Many in the UN are doubtful. Months later, much of the information proves untrue.

February 7th, 2003. Two days later, as anti-war demonstrations continue to take place around the globe, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge cites “credible threats” by Al Qaeda, and raises the terror alert level to orange. Three days after that, Fire Administrator David Paulison - who would become the acting head of FEMA after the Hurricane Katrina disaster - advises Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves against radiological or biological attack.

Number Four:

July 23rd, 2003: The White House admits the CIA -- months before the President's State of the Union Address -- expressed "strong doubts" about the claim that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. On the 24th, the Congressional report on the 9/11 attacks is issued; it criticizes government at all levels; it reveals an FBI informant had been living with two of the future hijackers; and it concludes that Iraq had no link to Al-Qaeda. 28 pages of the report are redacted. On the 26th, American troops are accused of beating Iraqi prisoners.

July 29th, 2003. Three days later, amid all of those negative headlines, Homeland Security issues warnings of further terrorist attempts to use airplanes for suicide attacks.

Number Five:

December 17th, 2003. 9/11 Commission Co-Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable. The next day, a Federal Appeals Court says the government cannot detain suspected radiation-bomber Jose Padilla indefinitely without charges, and the chief U.S. Weapons inspector in Iraq, Dr. David Kay, who has previously announced he has found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, announces he will resign his post.

December 21st, 2003. Three days later, just before Christmas, Homeland Security again raises the threat level to Orange, claiming “credible intelligence” of further plots to crash airliners into U.S. cities. Subsequently, six international flights into this country are cancelled after some passenger names purportedly produce matches on government no-fly lists. The French later identify those matched names: one belongs to an insurance salesman from Wales, another to an elderly Chinese woman, a third to a five-year old boy.

Number Six:

March 30th, 2004. The new chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer tells Congress we have still not found any WMD there. And, after weeks of refusing to appear before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice finally relents and agrees to testify. On the 31st: Four Blackwater-USA contractors working in Iraq are murdered, their mutilated bodies dragged through the streets and left on public display in Fallujah. The role of civilian contractors in Iraq is widely questioned.

April 2nd, 2004. Homeland Security issues a bulletin warning that terrorists may try to blow up buses and trains, using fertilizer and fuel bombs - like the one detonated in Oklahoma City - stuffed into satchels or duffel bags.

Number Seven:

May 16th, 2004. Secretary of State Powell appears on “Meet The Press.” Moderator Tim Russert closes by asking him about the “enormous personal credibility” Powell had placed before the U.N. in laying out a case against Saddam Hussein. An aide to Powell interrupts the question, saying the interview is over. Powell finishes his answer, admitting that much of the information he had been given about Weapons of Mass Destruction was “inaccurate and wrong, and, in some cases, deliberately misleading.”

May 21st, 2004, new photos showing mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison are released. On the 24th - Associated Press video from Iraq confirms U.S. forces mistakenly bombed a wedding party - killing more than 40.

Wednesday the 26th. Two days later, Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller warn that intelligence from multiple sources, in Ashcroft’s words, “indicates Al-Qaeda’s specific intention to hit the United States hard,” and that “90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete.” The color-coded warning system is not raised, and Homeland Security Secretary Ridge does not attend the announcement.

Number Eight:

July 6th, 2004. Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his vice presidential running mate, producing a small bump in the election opinion polls, and a huge swing in media attention towards the Democratic campaign.

July 8th, 2004. Two days later, Homeland Secretary Ridge warns of information about Al-Qaeda attacks during the summer or autumn. Four days after that, the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, DeForest B. Soaries, Junior, confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming Presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts.

Number Nine:

July 29th, 2004. At their party convention in Boston, the Democrats formally nominate John Kerry as their candidate for President. As in the wake of any convention, the Democrats dominate the media attention over the ensuing weekend.

Monday, August 1st, 2004. The Department of Homeland Security raises the alert status for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange. The evidence supporting the warning - reconnaissance data, left in a home in Iraq - later proves to be roughly four years old and largely out-of-date.

Number Ten:

Last Thursday. At 10 AM Eastern Time, the President addresses the National Endowment for Democracy, once again emphasizing the importance of the war on terror and insisting his government has broken up at least 10 terrorist plots since 9/11.

At 3 PM Eastern Time, five hours after the President’s speech has begun, the Associated Press reports that Karl Rove will testify again to the CIA Leak Grand Jury, and that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has told Rove he cannot guarantee that he will not be indicted.

At 5:17 PM Eastern Time, seven hours after the President’s speech has begun, New York officials disclose a bomb threat to the city’s subway system - based on information supplied by the Federal Government. A Homeland Security spokesman says the intelligence upon which the disclosure is based is “of doubtful credibility.” And it later proves that New York City had known of the threat for at least three days, and had increased police presence in the subways long before making the announcement at that particular time. Local New York television station, WNBC, reports it had the story of the threat days in advance, but was asked by "high ranking federal officials" in New York and Washington to hold off its story.

Less than four days after revealing the threat, Mayor Michael Bloomberg says "Since the period of the threat now seems to be passing, I think over the immediate future, we'll slowly be winding down the enhanced security."

While news organizations ranging from the New York Post to NBC News quote sources who say there was reason to believe that informant who triggered the warning simply ‘made it up’, a Senior U.S. Counter-terrorism official tells the New York Times: "There was no there, there."

The list of three additional examples follows.

Number Eleven:

October 22nd, 2004. After weeks of Administration insistence that there are terrorist plans to disrupt the elections, FBI, Law Enforcement, and other U.S. Intelligence agencies report they have found no direct evidence of any plot. More over, they say, a key CIA source who had claimed knowledge of the plot, has been discredited.

October 29, 2004. Seven days later - four days before the Presidential election - the first supposedly new, datable tape of Osama Bin Laden since December 2001 is aired on the Al-Jazeera Network. A Bush-Cheney campaign official anonymously tells the New York Daily News that from his campaign’s point of view, the tape is quote “a little gift.”

Number Twelve:

May 5th, 2005. 88 members of the United States House of Representatives send a letter to President Bush demanding an investigation of the so-called “Downing Street Memo” - a British document which describes purported American desire dating to 2002 to "fix" the evidence to fit the charges against Iraq. In Iraq over the following weekend, car bombings escalate. On the 11th, more than 75 Iraqis are killed in one.

May 11th, 2005. Later that day, an instructor and student pilot violate restricted airspace in Washington D.C. It is an event that happens hundreds of times a year, but this time the plane gets to within three miles of the White House. The Capitol is evacuated; Vice President Cheney, the First Lady, and Nancy Reagan are all rushed to secure locations. The President, biking through woods, is not immediately notified.

Number Thirteen:

June 26th, 2005. A Gallup poll suggests that 61 percent of the American public believes the President does not have a plan in Iraq. On the 28th, Mr. Bush speaks to the nation from Fort Bragg: "We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

June 29th 2005. The next day, another private pilot veers into restricted airspace, the Capitol is again evacuated, and this time, so is the President.

--

To summarize, coincidences are coincidences.

We could probably construct a similar time line of terror events and warnings, and their relationship to - the opening of new Walmarts around the country.

Are these coincidences signs that the government’s approach has worked because none of the announced threats ever materialized? Are they signs that the government has not yet mastered how and when to inform the public?

Is there, in addition to the "fog of war" a simple, benign, "fog of intelligence”?

But, if merely a reasonable case can be made that any of these juxtapositions of events are more than just coincidences, it underscores the need for questions to be asked in this country - questions about what is prudence, and what is fear-mongering; questions about which is the threat of death by terror, and which is the terror of threat.

Comments? E-mail: KOlbermann@msnbc.com

originally published October 12, 2005

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:42 AM

Millions to receive Social Security boost

southcoasttoday.com
Millions to receive Social Security boost

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Social Security checks for nearly 50 million Americans are going up next year an average of $39 a month, the biggest boost in 15 years, although rising energy bills and higher Medicare premiums will erase a big chunk of the gain for many.

The 4.1 percent cost of living adjustment announced Friday by the Social Security Administration is the biggest increase since a 5.4 percent gain in 1991. Last year's increase was 2.7 percent.

The average Social Security check will increase from $963 to $1,002 in January.

Rising energy prices, including a record-breaking surge in September, were the driving force behind the big cost of living increase, which is based on changes in the government's Consumer Price Index. The inflation figure rose 1.2 percent in September, the biggest monthly increase in a quarter-century, mostly because of a huge hurricane-linked rise in energy costs.

About one-fourth of the monthly Social Security gain will be eaten up by a rise in Medicare premiums, which will grow by $10.30 per month starting in January.

Still, with gas prices high and home heating oil and natural gas prices following suit, seniors across the country were thankful for anything.

"It's something. It's going to pay for probably the telephone bill," said Murray Levine, 86, as he maneuvered a shopping cart full of groceries in downtown Philadelphia.

That sentiment was echoed by Grace Bryan, 75, of Monroe, Ind., who was waiting with her husband for a train at Union Station in Chicago. "We've cut back," she said. "I think a lot on how much we drive - making our trips count."

Rother says the increase in Social Security benefits is no windfall for recipients.

The government estimated this week that natural gas bills will rise by 48 percent this winter over last winter and heating oil bills will go up by 32 percent, reflecting energy prices that have soared higher in the aftermath of the Gulf Coast production shutdowns caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Dean Swafford, 92, a retired farmer in Rayville, Mo., said the additional Social Security money would go to paying his heating bills.

"Everything that we buy has gone up so fast," he said. "The extra money will be spent, that's for sure."

In addition to the higher premium for Medicare Part B, Medicare recipients who decide to take advantage of the new prescription drug benefit will start paying a premium of around $32 per month in January. The amount will vary depending on which plan they choose.

Bill Novelli, head of AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, said that without the Social Security cost of living adjustments, inflation over the past decade would have reduced beneficiaries' incomes by more than 25 percent. He said the eight out of 10 Americans 65 and older who rely on Social Security as the largest part of their incomes see the COLAS as a critical lifeline.

President Bush had hoped to get Congress this year to pass a Social Security overhaul he viewed as the centerpiece of his second term. It would have bolstered Social Security finances to deal with a looming funding crisis when 78 million baby boomers begin retiring and it would have allowed younger workers to create personal accounts. However, the measure has failed to attract widespread support in Congress.

The cost of living adjustment announced Friday will go to more than 52 million people. More than 48 million receive Social Security benefits and the rest Supplemental Security Income payments, aimed at the poor.

The average retired couple, both receiving Social Security benefits, will see their monthly check go from $1,583 to $1,648.

The standard SSI payment will go from $579 to $603 per month for an individual and $869 to $904 for a couple.

The average monthly check for a disabled worker will go from $902 to $939.

The Social Security Administration also announced Friday that 11.3 million workers will pay higher taxes next year because the maximum amount of Social Security earnings subject to the payroll tax will rise from $90,000 to $94,200 next year. In all, an estimated 159 million workers will pay Social Security taxes next year.

By law, the monthly increase in Medicare premiums cannot be higher than an individual's cost of living adjustment. Social Security recipients whose cost of living increase will be less than the $10.30 premium increase next year will not be forced to pay the entire $10.30.

---

Associated Press writers Tara Burghart in Chicago, Jeff Douglas in Kansas City and Ron Todt in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

---

On the Net:

Social Security Administration: http://www.socialsecurity.gov

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:36 AM

Group starts move to get Christian converts, voters

newstimelive.com
Group starts move to get Christian converts, voters

By JOHN McCARTHY
Associated Press Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A new coalition dedicated to converting thousands to Christianity and getting thousands more on voter registration lists got its start Friday with a tightly scripted rally that resembled a revival meeting.

More than 1,000 people gathered outside the Statehouse for the launch of Reformation Ohio. The group, founded by the Rev. Rod Parsley, a television evangelist and pastor of the World Harvest Church in suburban Columbus, vehemently opposes gay rights, and Parsley has written that the teachings of Islam were inspired by demons.

The group's formation comes after last November's election in which Christian conservatives helped pass a gay-marriage ban in Ohio and give President Bush the electoral votes he needed to claim victory.

Speakers included U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas who is considering a White House run in 2008; Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., and Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor next year.

Blackwell, who also won Brownback's endorsement Friday, praised the efforts of Parsley and others to sign up new voters. Parsley's goal is to add 400,000 people to voter rolls.

"Reformation Ohio is about history-making times, reforming the culture," Blackwell said. "We are a government that governs only with the consent of the governed."

Brownback, who has emerged as a leading skeptic of President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court, said the nation is engaged in a cultural struggle.

"We need a culture that buttresses our families, not attacks them. We need a society that honors good and condemns what is bad," Brownback said.

Parsley said voter registration is secondary to Reformation Ohio's two main objectives: converting 100,000 people to Christianity within four years and providing food, clothing and other necessities to the needy. He sent his followers from the Statehouse on an evangelical note.

"Sound an alarm. A Holy Ghost invasion is taking place. Man your battle stations, ready your weapons, lock and load," Parsley said to enthusiastic applause.

Participants were mostly members of Parsley's church, with many entire families in attendance. A production staff choreographed the event, much like Parsley's broadcasts from his church, with directors huddled inside a tent and cameras throughout the grounds, including one mounted on a small crane that hovered over the crowd.

Tying evangelical gospel to voter registration is a new phenomenon, said Mark Rozell, a public policy professor at George Mason University who studies political mobilization by religious groups. "Most of these types of groups don't tend to mix these activities in the same venue, at least not so overtly," Rozell said.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:33 AM

US cannot explain suspicious Zawahri letter passage

Reuters

US cannot explain suspicious Zawahri letter passage

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence officials who released a letter purporting to be from an al Qaeda leader to Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this week said on Friday they could not account for a passage that has raised doubts about the document's authenticity.

The July 9 dated letter, which U.S. officials say was written by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri, appears near its close to urge the Iraq insurgent leader to send greetings to himself if visiting the Iraqi city of Falluja.

"My greetings to all the loved ones and please give me news of Karem and the rest of the folks I know," says an unedited English translation posted at www.dni.gov, the office Web site of U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte.

"And especially, by God, if by chance you're going to Falluja, send greetings to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," it states.

Zarqawi is the Jordanian-born leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, the most prominent segment of the deadly Iraq insurgency. His organisation has said the letter is a fabrication.

A spokesman for Negroponte, who is the U.S. director of national intelligence, or DNI, acknowledged the greetings passage was confusing but said the intelligence community was confident the letter was addressed to Zarqawi by Zawahri.

"We don't know what to make of it (the passage). It's unclear," the Negroponte spokesman said.

"But we are absolutely confident that it was intended for Mr. Zarqawi, based on a review by multiple agencies over a protracted period of time."

U.S. officials have refused to disclose details of where, when or how authorities came by the letter, or what methods have been used to determine its authenticity.

Some experts contend the strange passage undermines the letter's credibility.

"This would appear to be conclusive evidence that the DNI was mistaken, and that the letter was written to someone other than Zarqawi," Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists said on on Friday in his e-mail intelligence newsletter, "Secrecy News."

Aftergood cited an article in the online Slate magazine that called attention to the passage as well as the fact the letter was signed with the name, Abu Muhammad.

Experts have already said the letter depicts Zawahri as making unrealistic admissions involving al Qaeda's need for money, the Pakistan army's hunt for al Qaeda leaders and the May capture of al Qaeda member Abu Faraj al Liby.

The greetings passage gained little noticed from initial news coverage of the letter's release, which came days before this weekend's constitutional referendum in Iraq.

News coverage concentrated instead on language that suggested rifts between al Qaeda militants, including Zawahri's advice that insurgents avoid the unpopular killing of civilians and begin seeking public support for an Islamic state.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:31 AM

Rove spends hours before grand jury

Reuters

Rove spends hours before grand jury

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, testified at length on Friday for a fourth time before a grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's identity, as prosecutors neared a decision on whether to bring charges.

Rove spent 4 1/2 hours at the federal courthouse and was told by prosecutors they had yet to decide whether he should face charges, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said. Legal sources said that could soon change.

Friday's testimony appeared to be Rove's last opportunity to convince grand jurors that he did nothing illegal following the disclosure that he had spoken to two reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband, despite earlier White House denials.

Prosecutors have told Rove, the most powerful and controversial political strategist in Washington, that they can not guarantee that he would not be indicted.

Plame's husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson, says administration officials outed his wife, damaging her ability to work undercover, to retaliate against him for publicly questioning Bush's justification for invading Iraq in 2003.

When pressed by reporters, White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not explicitly repeat past expressions of confidence in Rove, who serves as deputy chief of staff and senior adviser.

After initially promising to fire anyone found to have leaked information in the case, Bush in July offered a more qualified pledge: "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."

People close to the case said Rove's unusually lengthy grand jury appearance on Friday suggested prosecutors scrutinized his earlier testimony for inconsistencies and confronted him with new information from witnesses.

"Being in there that long after testifying three times before can't be viewed as a particularly positive sign," said a legal source in the case.

But Zachary Carter, a former U.S. attorney in New York, warned against reading too much into the length of Rove's appearance alone. "We're not talking about a neutral witness. We're talking about someone who is under investigation," he said.

WHAT'S NEXT

While special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could bring charges against officials for the crime of knowingly revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, several lawyers in the case said he was more likely to bring a broad conspiracy charge or easier-to-prove crimes such as making false statements and perjury.

Fitzgerald could send out letters to senior administration officials advising them they are targets of his probe, and bring indictments as early as next week, the lawyers said. Fitzgerald also might decide that no crime was committed and issue a report of his findings.

"The special counsel has not advised Mr. Rove that he is a target of the investigation and affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges," Luskin said. "The special counsel has indicated that he does not anticipate the need for Mr. Rove's further cooperation."

Luskin declined to discuss Rove's testimony.

The outcome of the investigation could shake up an administration already reeling from criticism over its response to Hurricane Katrina and the indictment of House of Representatives Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas on charges related to campaign financing.

Asked if the investigation was a distraction for the White House, McClellan reeled off the president's priority list, from Iraq to hurricane reconstruction to expanding gasoline refining capacity. "We are aware of all those things but we've got a lot of work to do, and that's where we're focused," he said.

WHITE HOUSE ASSURANCES

Two years ago, the White House assured the public that Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, had no role in the Plame leak. Since then, reporters have identified Rove and Libby as their sources.

Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter who was jailed for 85 days before reaching an agreement to reveal her source, testified twice before the grand jury about three conversations she had with Libby.

Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper testified that Rove was the first person to tell him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, although Cooper said Rove did not disclose her name. Cooper also discussed Wilson and his wife with Libby.

Rove also spoke to newspaper columnist Robert Novak, who first revealed Plame's identity in a column on July 14, 2003, citing two administration officials, a legal source said.

Fitzgerald appears to be focusing on evidence that top White House officials began seeking information about Wilson and his wife in May and June of 2003, well before Wilson came out publicly accusing the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:29 AM

Friday, October 14, 2005

Michael Brown Clone Will Oversee U.S. Response to Avian Flu Pandemic

ThinkProgress.org
Michael Brown Clone Will Oversee U.S. Response to Avian Flu Pandemic

“It could kill a billion people worldwide, make ghost towns out of parts of major cities, and there is not enough medicine to fight it,” ABC News reports. It is the avian flu, and if it were to reach U.S. shores, it could be “like having a Category 5 viral hurricane hit every single state simultaneously.”

How fitting, then, that Stewart Simonson, the Bush administration’s assistant secretary for public health emergency preparedness, has a resume “disturbingly reminiscent” to that of disgraced former FEMA chief Michael Brown.

Though Simonson is “now the point man for just about every health emergency that may hit our shores, ranging from anthrax attacks to an avian flu pandemic,” he has no background in medicine, public health, or bioterrorism preparedness. His chief accomplishment seems to be his position from 1995-1999 as legal counsel to former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, who was tapped as President Bush’s first Health and Human Services secretary. Under Thompson, Simonson apparently specialized in “crime and prison policy.”

President Bush has again left Americans dangerously unprepared for a potential disaster.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:31 AM

US setting up new spying agency

BBC NEWS
US setting up new spying agency

The US has announced the creation of a new intelligence agency led by the CIA to co-ordinate all American overseas spying activities.

The National Clandestine Service (NCS) will oversee all human espionage operations - meaning spying by people rather than by technical means.

The move is the latest in the post-9/11 reforms of US intelligence agencies.

Analysts say the NCS restores some authority to the CIA after it lost overall control of US intelligence.

'Expression of confidence'

The chief of the new service will supervise the CIA's espionage operations and co-ordinate all overseas spying, including those of the FBI and the Pentagon.

The director of the new agency, whose identity will remain secret and is simply known as "Jose", will report directly to the head of the CIA, Porter Goss.

"This is another positive step in building an intelligence community that is more unified, co-ordinated and effective," National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said.

Setting up the NCS was one of more than 70 recommendations made by a commission on weapons of mass destruction in March, which was highly critical of the US' intelligence capabilities.

As part of reforms following the 11 September 2001 attacks, the CIA lost overall control of US intelligence to the newly created National Director of Intelligence.

Mr Goss said the new service represents "an expression of confidence in the CIA" from President George Bush and Mr Negroponte.

"No agency has greater skill and experience in this difficult, complex, and utterly vital discipline of intelligence," Mr Goss said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4340318.stm

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:17 AM

Opening Celebrated at Clintons' Ark. Home

ABC News
Opening Celebrated at Clintons' Ark. Home
Opening Celebrated at Arkansas Home Where Clintons Were Married, Now a Museum
By NOAH TRISTER
The Associated Press

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - Three decades later, Marie Clinton Bruno was thrilled to return to the house where she watched Bill and Hillary Clinton get married.

"It brings back lots of great memories," said Bruno, the former president's cousin and a Little Rock resident.

The Clintons' former home in Fayetteville has been converted to a museum, and a crowd of about a hundred including friends and family members responded to invitations to the grand opening Thursday.

Former President Clinton and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were married in the one-story brick home on Oct. 11, 1975. They lived there from August 1975 to December 1976, when they moved to Little Rock so Bill Clinton could serve as Arkansas' attorney general. He was Arkansas governor for 12 years before becoming president in 1993.

In its 1,700 square feet, the Clinton House Museum displays pictures and memorabilia from President Clinton's career. Many items on display predate his run for president. One room has been converted into a small theater with a big-screen television, showing clips from his campaigns for governor, Congress and state attorney general.

Clinton House Director Joseph Barnes said the museum hopes to add more items on Hillary Clinton's career.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:15 AM

Bush Presidency Judged Unsuccessful

ABC News
Poll: Bush Presidency Judged Unsuccessful
Poll Finds More People Say Bush's Presidency Is Going to Be Judged As Unsuccessful in Long Run
By WILL LESTER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - For the first time, more people say George W. Bush's presidency will be judged as unsuccessful than say it will be seen as a success, a poll finds.

Forty-one percent of respondents said Bush's presidency will be seen as unsuccessful in the long run, while 26 percent said the opposite. Thirty-five percent said it was too early to tell, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

In January, 36 percent said successful and 27 percent said unsuccessful.

The increasing pessimism about Bush's long-term prospects comes at a time when many polls have found the public increasingly is negative about Bush's performance and the direction of the country.

Seven in 10 said they want the next president to offer policies and programs that are different from the Bush administration's.

Only half said they wanted the next president to offer different policies in 2000, at the end of the Clinton presidency. By a 2-1 margin, people said the Bush administration has had a negative impact on politics and the way government works.

People were inclined to say Bush's policies have made things worse on a wide range of issues such as the federal budget deficit, the gap between rich and poor, health care, the economy, relations with U.S. allies, the tax system and education. By 47 percent to 30 percent, those surveyed said Bush has improved the situation with national security.

Republicans give the president mixed reviews in many of these areas. Almost half of Republicans said Bush's policies have made the deficit worse and just 12 percent say he has improved that situation.

The poll of 1,500 adults was taken Oct. 6-10 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

On the Net:

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

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:11 AM

Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged

ABC News
Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
President Bush Teleconference With U.S. Troops Was Choreographed to Match His Goals for Iraq War
By DEB RIECHMANN
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering how often do we train with the Iraqi military who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit the hometown and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:09 AM

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

An Open Letter to Günter Grass

HuffingtonPost.com

An Open Letter to Günter Grass
RJ Eskow

Dear Sir: I was told today by your US publisher that you will not comment on the Judith Miller case, or on the petition you signed in support of her. That is a disappointment to many Americans who hold both you and your work in the highest regard. In 2003 you declared that you “stand with” the “many Americans who … are horrified by the betrayal of their founding values.” Please stand with us again.

There are many who believe that Ms. Miller, working with allies inside the Bush Administration, actively collaborated in distorting vital facts in order to trigger the war you so eloquently condemned at the time. At a minimum, the stories Ms. Miller published in the New York Times – stories we now know were based on incorrect information – contributed significantly to create a climate of support for that war within the US.

A prosecutor is now investigating whether government officials illegally revealed confidential information about an intelligence officer for propaganda reasons, and/or as an act of vengeance for her husband’s disclosure of State deception. Such an act would be government suppression and punishment of a source, not the protection of one. Nevertheless, Ms. Miller declined to cooperate with the investigation for many weeks - an act for which she was honored with your signature on a petition of support.

Many of your US supporters tend to believe you were not aware of the specifics of the case at the time. Since then Ms. Miller has reversed herself for reasons that are unclear, and is now apparently cooperating with the prosecutor. She also has recently “discovered” additional notes regarding the affair. Under these circumstances, I ask the following question with the greatest respect: Do you believe she should continue to operate under a public statement of support from you?

In 2003 you wrote that “… we must not let our voices, our no to war and yes to peace, be silenced.” Ms. Miller’s journalism prior to the Iraq invasion constituted a powerful “yes” to war, at the expense of the truth. The investigation currently underway involves a government vendetta, and an attempt to silence one of those voices you so forcefully defended.

I recognize that it may seem presumptuous for someone like me to address you in this manner. I'm neither a statesman nor a man of letters. Please understand that I write this letter in all appropriate humility. In the spirit of the words you wrote two years ago, I ask you today: Please reconsider your public support for Ms. Miller in this matter.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:28 AM

Death Toll Rises for Military Reservists

Death Toll Rises for Military Reservists

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Guard and Reserves are suffering a strikingly higher share of U.S. casualties in Iraq, their portion of total American military deaths nearly doubling since last year.

Reservists have accounted for one-quarter of all U.S. deaths since the Iraq war began, but the proportion has grown over time. It was 10 percent for the five weeks it took to topple Baghdad in the spring of 2003, and 20 percent for 2004 as a whole.

The trend accelerated this year. For the first nine months of 2005 reservists accounted for 36 percent of U.S. deaths, and for August and September it was 56 percent, according to Pentagon figures.

The Army National Guard, Army Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve accounted for more than half of all U.S. deaths in August and in September - the first time that has happened in consecutive months. The only other month in which it even approached 50 percent was June 2004.

Casualties in Iraq have shifted toward citizen soldiers as their combat role has grown to historic levels. National Guard officials say their soldiers have been sent into combat in Iraq in numbers not previously seen in modern times - far more than were sent to Vietnam, where active-duty troops did the vast majority of the fighting.

Charles Krohn, a former Army deputy chief of public affairs, said the reservists are taking up the slack for the highly stressed active-duty Army.

"Decisions made years earlier made going to war in any significant way impossible without Guard and Reserve participation. But I can't imagine anyone postulated the situation we face today: We don't seem very anxious to bring back the draft and we can't get enough volunteers for a war that is not universally popular," Krohn said.


About 45 percent of all Guard and Reserve deaths since the start of the war - 220 of the almost 500 total - occurred in the first nine months of 2005, according to Pentagon figures. The deadliest month was August, when 49 Guard and Reserve members died.

The mounting casualties among reservists in Iraq has been overshadowed by the attention focused on a rising overall U.S. death toll, now approaching 2,000. It complicates recruiting for the National Guard and Reserve, which often attract people who think of the military reservists' role as something other than front-line combat.

Gone are the days when the National Guard and Reserve served mainly as "rear-area" support, far from the front-line fighting.

In Iraq the front line is everywhere - on rural roads where Guard and Reserve soldiers drive supply trucks, at urban checkpoints, in remote villages and at major supply bases. Some units also have been attached to active-duty units with the specific mission of conducting offensive operations.

The casualties have contributed to what has been the most challenging time for the Guard and Reserve since the military became an all-volunteer force in 1973. In addition to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and helping keep the peace in the Balkans, the Guard in particular was called to action in large numbers for rescue and relief from hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

At one point this year more than half of the combat forces in Iraq were National Guard.

"That's a first," said Army Maj. Les Melnyk, historian for the Pentagon office that manages the Army and Air National Guard. "The Guard can't claim that (level of combat) for World War II or World War I - the other major wars we fought in. Never more than 50 percent of the combat forces were Guard."

At present, of the approximately 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about half are reservists: 49,000 Army National Guard, 22,000 Army Reserve and 4,000 Marine Reserve, according to figures provided by those organizations.

The trend is almost certain to be reversed next year, when the active-duty Army is scheduled to make a proportionally larger contribution to the overall force. The number of National Guard brigades in Iraq, for example, is scheduled to drop next year from seven to two.

Since the Vietnam era, the military has given the Guard and Reserve more vital support functions like military police and engineers, so that any major conflict would involve more than just the active-duty force. Thus it was inevitable that a sizable portion of the force in Iraq would be Guard and Reserve; what has made the Iraq experience so different is the large numbers of reservists getting killed and wounded.

At least 300 soldiers of the National Guard, 78 of the Army Reserve and 93 of the Marine Corps Reserve, have died in the Iraq conflict. The Navy Reserve has lost 13, the Air Force Reserve three and the Air National Guard one. Together that is one-quarter of the total U.S death toll, which stood at 1,947 on Monday, by the Pentagon's count.

Lt. Gen. James Lovelace, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, said in an interview that the increased reliance on the Guard and Reserve in 2005 was deliberately planned to allow active-duty units like the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne Division to complete a reorganization before they returned to Iraq.

"It bought us the time we needed," Lovelace said.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 12:23 AM

Sunday, October 09, 2005

I fluffed your pillow

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:34 AM

Oh Great. More Flooding.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:33 AM

You'll Do A Heck of a job

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:32 AM

Intelligent Design

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:32 AM

Am I For or Against?

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:31 AM

Her Heart's In The Right Place

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:31 AM

Letter shows Cheney aide was prodded in leak probe

Letter shows Cheney aide was prodded in leak probe

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney got a push from a prosecutor before telling New York Times reporter Judith Miller that he wanted her to testify in a probe into the outing of a CIA operative whose diplomat husband was an Iraq-war critic.

The prosecutor's encouragement, in a letter obtained by Reuters, has prompted some lawyers in the case to question whether Cheney's aide was acting completely voluntarily when he gave Miller the confidentiality waiver she had insisted on.

The investigation has spotlighted free-press issues and the Bush administration's aggressive efforts to defend its Iraq policy against critics.

Miller maintains she only agreed to testify -- after spending 85 days in jail -- because she received what she describes as a personal and voluntary waiver of confidentiality from her source. She dismissed an earlier waiver by Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, as coerced.

But Libby offered a new waiver that Miller accepted after he received a September 12 letter in which the prosecutor, investigating a possible White House role in the leak, repeatedly encouraged him to do just that.

"I would welcome such a communication reaffirming Mr. Libby's waiver," prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald told Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate.

"It would be viewed as cooperation with the investigation," Fitzgerald said.

Some lawyers in the case called the letter a thinly veiled threat seeking Libby's cooperation, and said it raised questions about whether Libby's waiver was as voluntary as Miller and her lawyers had described.

Others said it was not coercive.

"Is that pressure? Absolutely," said Richard Sauber, a Washington lawyer who represents Time magazine's Matt Cooper, who has also testified to the grand jury. But he added, "It is not unfair and it is not unduly coercive."

Fitzgerald has been investigating Libby, President George W. Bush's top political adviser Karl Rove and other administration officials over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and lawyers involved in the case said there were signs Fitzgerald might be preparing to bring charges.

Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, has accused the administration of leaking her name and damaging her ability to work undercover in retaliation for his criticisms of Bush's Iraq policy.

Wilson had investigated for the CIA an administration charge that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials in Niger and concluded it was unsubstantiated, then he publicly accused the administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the September 12 letter that he was not seeking to compel a more-explicit confidentiality waiver.

"Mr. Libby, of course, retains the right not to so reaffirm his waiver ... if he would prefer that the status quo continue and Ms. Miller remain in jail rather than testify about their conversations," Fitzgerald wrote.

A lawyer in the case, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, said, "It's coercive to have the prosecutor, at end of his investigation, say: 'Unless you take this additional step, I'm going to draw a negative inference against you.'"

Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law, said Fitzgerald's letter sounded reasonable on the surface, but the reference to cooperation could be taken either way.

"If you think you might be a target of an investigation, being cooperative could be viewed as a desirable thing to be," Kirtley said.

Marvin Kalb of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government said, "Libby took the hint."

Three days after Fitzgerald's letter, Libby on September 15 wrote directly to Miller urging her to testify. The New York Times has released copies of Libby's letter, but not Fitzgerald's.

On Sept 30, Miller testified before the grand jury about two conversations with Libby in July 2003.

Fitzgerald has summoned Miller again for a meeting on Tuesday after she found notes from an earlier, previously undisclosed conversation with Libby. The Times reported the conversation was on June 25, 2003.

Those notes could help Fitzgerald establish that Libby and other White House officials took an early interest in the backgrounds of Wilson and Plame, and talked to reporters, as reports of Wilson's investigation were surfacing but before he went public in a July 6, 2003, opinion piece in the Times.

Read More...

Posted by politicalstuff at 1:23 AM

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)