Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Some Volunteers Hid Support for Bloomberg

Some Volunteers Hid Support for Bloomberg

By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- When Mayor Michael Bloomberg picked up the endorsement of an influential black minister at a Harlem restaurant last month, the diners there appeared to be ordinary people whose pancakes and coffee just happened to be interrupted by a campaign event.

But several were actually volunteers for the campaign - even though one of them told a reporter she had no idea the mayor would be there that morning. She and another volunteer were quoted in news stories as if they were Bloomberg supporters casually observing the event, not participating in it.

Michelle Middleton was one of about nine volunteers who blended into the morning crowd at the International House of Pancakes, campaign spokesman Stu Loeser said after The Associated Press inquired about her.

Experts say the practice of stacking crowds at campaign events with supporters is nothing new, but the fact that volunteers hid their allegiance to Bloomberg startled some. Loeser stressed the volunteers were not told to lie about why they were there.

"It just sounds like it was amateur hour," said Republican strategist Rich Galen.

Loeser said the campaign often invites volunteers to attend events like the Sept. 15 endorsement from the Rev. Calvin Butts. But volunteers are usually identifiable because they are cheering, holding signs, handing out literature or clearly doing campaign work.

A spokeswoman with the campaign of Bloomberg's opponent, Fernando Ferrer, asked Monday why the mayor would want to "surround himself" with "lackeys."

However, the Ferrer campaign itself has been known to dispatch volunteers to events. And during last year's presidential election, both candidates often filled crowds with their own supporters, especially during so-called town hall events. On one occasion, those who signed up to attend a speech by Vice President Dick Cheney were asked to sign a pledge endorsing President Bush.

"Campaign 101 is if you're having a rally or event, you should definitely make sure you have supporters there, but you should be straightforward about it," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist.

The Bloomberg campaign said only a few volunteers, out of thousands, were asked to attend the news conference at the International House of Pancakes in Harlem.

As reporters waited for the mayor and Butts to begin their news conference, several fanned out to interview "regular people" about their opinions on the mayor - a common practice at campaign stops.

A striking number of diners were effusive about Bloomberg.

"His record speaks for itself," Middleton said, "and I think he needs another four years to continue his progress as well as new policies."

Middleton said she was a Democrat, but planned to vote for the mayor, a billionaire Republican. She identified herself as a consultant, and said she was in Harlem that morning just to have breakfast with friends.

In a telephone follow-up interview later that day, she said again that her presence there was a coincidence. Middleton did not respond to several calls seeking comment after the AP learned last week she was a volunteer.

Another volunteer was quoted by The New York Sun in a story about the endorsement. Marilyn Foulks identified herself as a Democrat who skipped her party's primary because she was "saving her vote for Bloomberg."

And a man, Fred Wilson, who spoke with The New York Times, but whose quote ended up not being used in their coverage, has been a volunteer since February.

Wilson declined to comment late Monday to the AP.

None identified themselves as being affiliated with the campaign.

Read More...

Civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks dies

Reuters

Civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks dies

By Tom Brown

DETROIT (Reuters) - Rosa Parks, the black seamstress whose refusal to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus to a white man sparked a revolution in American race relations, died on Monday. The U.S. civil rights pioneer was 92.

Shirley Kaigler, Parks' lawyer, said she died while taking a nap early on Monday evening surrounded by a small group of friends and family members.

"She just fell asleep and didn't wake up," Kaigler said.

The cause of death was not immediately known. Medical records released earlier this year, as part of a long-running legal dispute over the use of Parks' name in a song by the hip-hop group OutKast, revealed the she was suffering from progressive dementia. She rarely appeared in public in recent years.

Kaigler said Parks was at home in an apartment complex overlooking the Detroit River and the border with Ontario, Canada, when she died.

"She lived in the neighborhood that I grew up in," Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick said of Parks, who lived in the predominantly black city for decades and had a major thoroughfare named after her.

"Everybody knew where her house was. Everybody would walk past and point her out," said Kilpatrick. "She was an amazing individual."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a statement: "The nation lost a courageous woman and a true American hero. A half century ago, Rosa Parks stood up not only for herself, but for generations upon generations of Americans."

CIVIL RIGHTS ICON

"We are saddened by the passing of Rosa Parks. We rejoice in her legacy, which will never die. In many ways, history is marked as before, and after, Rosa Parks," said civil rights leader Jesse Jackson.

"She sat down in order that we all might stand up, and the walls of segregation came down."

Parks was a 42-year-old seamstress for a Montgomery department store when she caught a bus in downtown Montgomery on December 1, 1955.

Three stops after she got on, a white man boarded and had to stand. To make room for him to sit alone, as the rules required, driver James Blake told Parks and three other black riders, "You all better make it light on yourselves and let me have those seats."

The other riders complied but Parks did not.

"No. I'm tired of being treated like a second-class citizen," she told Blake. Blake called police, who asked Parks why she didn't move: "I didn't think I should have to. I paid my fare like everybody else."

Parks was not the first black Montgomery bus rider to be arrested for failing to give up a seat, but she was the first to challenge the law. For years before her arrest, Parks and her husband had been active with local civil rights groups, which were looking for a test case to fight the city's segregation laws.

Four days later, she was convicted of breaking the law and fined $10, along with $4 in court costs. That same day, black residents began a boycott of the bus system, led by a then-unknown Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

The boycott lasted 381 days, and the legal challenges led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that forced Montgomery to desegregate its bus system and put an end to "Jim Crow" laws separating blacks and whites at public facilities throughout the South.

Parks and her husband, Raymond, moved to Detroit in 1957, after she lost her job and received numerous death threats in Alabama. From 1965 to 1988, she worked as an aide to U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat and founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

"For a long time people were a little bit afraid of Rosa Parks because she had created this whole new modern civil rights movement," Conyers told Detroit radio late on Monday. "They didn't know what to expect, and they certainly didn't expect someone that quiet. She sought no limelight; you'd never hear her talking about her own civil rights activities and all the things that she had been in," he said.

"She has saint-like qualities," Conyers added.

Parks' husband died in 1977. The couple had no children and Parks' closest living relatives are her brother's 13 sons and daughters.

Parks received the highest U.S. civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in 1996 and Congressional Gold Medal of Honor in 1999. Recommending the medal for Parks that year, the U.S. Senate described her as "a living icon for freedom in America."

Read More...

Monday, October 24, 2005

Fed Chair nominee Bernanke - logic flawed on Outsourcing

Fed Chair nominee Bernanke - logic flawed on Outsourcing

By Richard Kuper

The Op Ed Page
http://theopedpage.blogspot.com

In June 2004, Minneapolis Fed Research Director Art Rolnick interviewed Ben S. Bernanke, whom President George W Bush has today nominated to succeed Alan Greenspan. Of interest to US citizens seeking work in the United States is Mr. Bernanke's response to a question about outsourcing.

Please read the full article here:

http://theopedpage.blogspot.com/2005/10/fed-chair-nominee-bernanke-logic.html

Read More...

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Trick or Treat

Read More...

Turning Point

Read More...

The Northwest, 2045

Read More...

The Court Awaits You

Read More...

The Perfect Storm

Read More...

NYT, Miller Spar Over Role in Leak Probe

ABC News
NYT, Miller Spar Over Role in Leak Probe
N.Y. Times, Reporter Engage in Public Fight About Her Seeming Lack of Candor in CIA Leak Probe
By PETE YOST
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - In the latest fallout from the CIA leak investigation, reporter Judith Miller and The New York Times are engaging in a very public fight about her seeming lack of candor in the case.

In a memo to the staff, Executive Editor Bill Keller says Miller "seems to have misled" the newspaper's Washington bureau chief, Phil Taubman, who said Miller told him in the fall of 2003 that she was not one of the recipients of a leak about the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Miller says Keller's criticism is "seriously inaccurate."

"I certainly never meant to mislead Phil, nor did I mislead him," Miller was quoted as saying in a Times story Saturday.

According to a Times story on Oct. 16, Miller told Taubman two years ago that the subject of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson and Wilson's wife, Plame, had come up in casual conversation with government officials, but that Miller said "she had not been at the receiving end of a concerted effort, a deliberate organized effort to put out information."

In recent weeks, Miller testified to the grand jury in the leak probe that she had discussed Wilson and his wife in three conversations with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in June and July of 2003.

Keller wrote that if he had known of Miller's "entanglement" with Libby, he might have been more willing to explore compromises with the prosecutor who was trying to get her testimony for the criminal investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.

Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to cooperate with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. She was freed on Sept. 29 when she finally agreed to testify.

Responding to Keller's criticism, Miller told the newspaper, "I was unaware that there was a deliberate, concerted disinformation campaign to discredit Wilson and that if there had been, I did not think I was a target of it."

"As for your reference to my 'entanglement' with Mr. Libby, I had no personal, social or other relationship with him except as a source," Miller said.

Underlying the issue is Miller's own flawed prewar reporting on Iraq.

Her stories pointing to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq helped clear a path for the administration's arguments in favor of going to war. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, and Keller said he regretted waiting a year before confronting problems with Miller's reporting.

In his memo, Keller wrote that the newspaper in the summer of 2003 had just been through the trauma of the Jayson Blair episode, in which a reporter was found to have fabricated articles, resulting in the departure of the Times' executive editor and managing editor.

"It felt somehow unsavory to begin a tenure by attacking our predecessors," Keller wrote. By waiting more than a year, he said, "We allowed the anger inside and outside the paper to fester. Worse, we fear, we fostered an impression that the Times put a higher premium on protecting its reporters than on coming clean with its readers."

Op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd weighed in with further criticism in Saturday's Times. "Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, (Miller) was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers," Dowd wrote.

If Miller returns to covering national security issues, Dowd wrote, "the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands."

In a column written for Sunday's editions of The Times, public editor Byron Calame wrote, "It seems to me that whatever the limits put on her, the problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter."



Read More...

Senator Urges Gov't to Stop Price Gougers

ABC News
Senator Urges Gov't to Stop Price Gougers
Democratic Senator Calls on Federal Gov't to Pursue Price Gougers, Help Poor With Heating Bills
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Calling upon lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina, Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas said Saturday the federal government can do a better job of caring for its citizens.

Consumers need protection from price gouging in times of gasoline shortages and supply delays and low-income families need help paying home-heating fuel bills, projected to rise by as much as 50 percent this winter, Pryor said in the weekly Democratic radio address.

High energy costs also are hurting small and large businesses alike, he said.

Pryor said Congress and the Bush administration must return to an era of "responsible budgeting" and be less inclined to advocate tax cuts for special interests as a remedy for economic ills.

"We simply must do a better job of putting the needs of all Americans over the wants of a privileged few," the senator said.

He also stressed the importance of energy independence and said the country should waste no time in developing alternative fuels

Pryor reminded listeners that much work in health care, housing and economic opportunities remained to rebuild communities damaged by Gulf Coast hurricanes, and pledged Democratic resolve to fix problems that caused the failed government response to Hurricane Katrina.

Read More...

Young Lawmaker Likens Congress to Jr. High

ABC News
Young Lawmaker Likens Congress to Jr. High
Rep. Patrick McHenry, Youngest Member of Congress, Says Capitol Hill Is Like Junior High
By ELISABETH GOODRIDGE
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Don't let his age fool you. The youngest member of Congress says he thinks he has Capitol Hill all figured out, though he's been on the job only 10 months.

"This place is a much more sophisticated junior high school," 30-year-old Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., said recently in an interview. "There are the nice guys that everybody likes, the jocks, the geeks, the bullies they're all here. It's a representative democracy."

It's easy to imagine where McHenry fits in this analogy. The freshman lawmaker, whose birthday was Saturday, would be the kid brother, the one eager to subject himself to an occasional barb if it helps him get into the club.

At a White House lunch for new members, President Bush teased McHenry about his boyish appearance despite his prematurely graying hair. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., a former high school wrestling coach, put him in a playful headlock after a conference of House Republicans.

Brash, enthusiastic and a strong believer in an aggressive conservative agenda, McHenry is clearly looked upon by GOP leaders as just the type of eager-to-please foot soldier needed for carrying on their cause.

"He brings a fresh perspective to the issues at hand," said Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Hastert. "We are lucky to have him."

And just like a kid brother, McHenry has remained loyal as scandals threaten the crowd he has joined. He continues to lead cheers for Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, after his indictment on money-laundering charges, and for Karl Rove, Bush's political adviser caught up in an investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity.

McHenry echoes DeLay, calling Travis County district attorney Ronnie Earle "a partisan hack" and accusing the House Democrats' campaign operation of playing a role in the indictment.

"It's a major part of their agenda," McHenry said. "It's so clear that this is a major desire for (Democratic Reps.) Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel and the leftist organizations to make political hay out of this."

Democrats say McHenry's inside-the-Beltway posturing comes at the expense of his constituents.

"I think the 10th District (of North Carolina) sent him to Washington to work for them, not Tom DeLay or Karl Rove," said Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

McHenry has demonstrated some independence. Textile and furniture manufacturing are a big part of the economy in his district, and he bucked party leaders by upholding a campaign promise to vote against the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

In March, he was among a small number of conservatives who threatened to vote against the 2006 budget resolution unless it included new rules to restrain spending.

"I got a lot of pressure over a period of about two weeks, and I held my ground," McHenry said. "I was committed to a cause."

He has eagerly sought the role of an attack dog against Democrats, although he has sometimes come off as more like a puppy nipping at their heels. But GOP leaders chose him over more senior members to debate Democrats twice his age on national television.

According to fellow freshman Rep. Cathy McMorris, R-Wash., McHenry is right where he wants to be.

"He enjoys a good debate and being at the center of the action," she said.

Rep. Sue Myrick, a friend and fellow North Carolina Republican, said McHenry has "got innate political sense, simply because he's been in politics since he was knee-high."

McHenry first ran for public office as a 22-year-old candidate for the North Carolina legislature. He lost to the father of a high school classmate.

He worked as a national youth coordinator for Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, and after cultivating top Republicans and conservative leaders in Washington for two years, returned to western North Carolina to win a seat in the state legislature. He was serving his first term when veteran Republican Rep. Cass Ballenger decided not to seek re-election.

"I got into the race and people literally laughed," McHenry said. "They thought I had no chance of winning."

Largely outspent by his opponents in the primaries, McHenry credits his win to an army of college-age Republicans knocking on 70,000 doors and making more than 100,000 campaign calls.

When he won the primary by 85 votes, he promptly received $10,000 each from the political action committees operated by Hastert, DeLay and another Republican leader, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. He won in November with 63 percent of the vote against Democratic social worker Anne Fischer.

McHenry sits on the Budget, Government Reform and Financial Services committees. The House Republican campaign operation placed him on its executive committee, and he is a member of the House Republican Study Committee, a group of 100 of the most conservative House members.

"I thought it would take years for a new member to become a player," McHenry said. "It's better than I expected."

On the Net:

Rep. Patrick McHenry: http://www.house.gov/mchenry

Read More...

Poll: Clinton Would Lead Rice in '08 Race

ABC News
Poll: Clinton Would Lead Rice in '08 Race
Poll Shows Hillary Clinton Leading Condoleezza Rice in Hypothetical 2008 Presidential Matchup
By MARC HUMBERT
The Associated Press

ALBANY, N.Y. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton leads Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a hypothetical presidential matchup, according to an independent poll released Friday.

The poll, conducted by Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion in conjunction with New York City television station WNBC, gave the former first lady 50 percent to 41 percent for Rice.

But Republicans John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani both topped Clinton.

Clinton, McCain and Giuliani are all considered potential 2008 presidential candidates. Rice has said she will not run.

The poll, mirroring other recent national surveys, had Clinton as the clear front-runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination, favored by 41 percent of her party's voters to 17 percent for Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and 14 percent for former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Kerry's running mate in 2004.

Asked about Clinton's political leanings, 39 percent of voters said she was too liberal, while 46 percent said she was about right.

"She remains a controversial figure when she moves out from the Democratic primary sweepstakes," Marist pollster Lee Miringoff said.

On the Republican side, Rice, Giuliani and McCain were about tied for the GOP nomination, each attracting about 20 percent of the vote.

But with Rice out of the mix, Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, was favored over the senator from Arizona, 31 percent to 24 percent.

No other Republican topped single digits.

The poll had McCain leading Clinton, 50 percent to 41 percent. Giuliani was ahead of the former first lady, 50 percent to 43 percent.

Voters were divided over electing a woman as president. Twenty-six percent told pollsters they were likely or very likely to vote for a woman, while 28 percent said they were not likely to vote for a woman.

They were also divided on whether Clinton should run for president, 48 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed.

Marist's telephone poll of 827 registered voters was conducted Oct. 12-13 and Oct. 17 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Read More...

Like Father, Like Son for Bushes

ABC News
Newsview: Like Father, Like Son for Bushes
Newsview: Bush Has Struggled to Avoid Father's Mistakes but Is Bedeviled by Similar Problems
By TOM RAUM
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Throughout his first term, President Bush struggled to avoid repeating his father's mistakes. Yet less than a year after he claimed the re-election mandate denied his dad, he is confronting some of the same problems that bedeviled the first Bush presidency.

Like father, like son:

Conservatives are rebelling.

His poll numbers are in the basement.

Economic unrest is growing.

Top White House staffers are under fire.

"George W. Bush always wanted to be like Ronald Reagan, rather than like his father," said presidential historian Thomas Cronin of Colorado College.

But it was an aspiration that may have set him up for failure.

"Both Bushes were held to a real and imagined Reagan bar. And when his father broke his promise on 'no new taxes,' he got hit really hard by the right," Cronin said.

Likewise, when the younger Bush nominated Harriet Miers, his former personal lawyer, to the Supreme Court, bypassing experienced jurists with proven conservative credentials, many prominent conservatives balked. He promised them another conservative like Justice Antonin Scalia, but he gave them a mystery. Politicians of all stripes hate uncertainty.

Congressional misgivings over Miers and the CIA leak investigation involving White House advisers have cast a cloud over the administration. Soaring gas prices, hurricane reconstruction costs, the war in Iraq and declining consumer confidence have darkened the economic outlook.

Avoiding his father's path was a first-term mantra for the younger Bush.

Where the father distanced himself from religious conservatives, the son aggressively courted them.

The first Bush built an international coalition and ended the first Gulf War after driving Iraq from Kuwait. The younger Bush ignored international opposition and toppled Saddam Hussein's government.

The father was criticized for lacking an economic program other than "message: I care." The son promised big tax cuts and muscled them through Congress. No one called him a wimp.

But the younger Bush made several miscalculations, some of his Republican critics suggest.

"I think he concluded that as long as he remained loyal to the conservative side on one issue tax cuts he could pretty much do anything he wanted in other areas and the conservatives would stand behind him," said Bruce Bartlett, who was deputy assistant treasury secretary in the first Bush administration.

"And that worked for quite a while. But it was a shortsighted point of view," said Bartlett, who has just written a book, "The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

The selection of Miers, the White House counsel, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor followed growing conservative unease about other Bush moves: the escalating cost of the Iraq war, Medicare and other government programs; his proposal to liberalize immigration laws; and his pledge to "spend what it takes" and lift New Orleans out of poverty.

"There's a lot of frustration that was bubbling and building up," said Republican consultant Greg Mueller. "And Harriet Miers kind of became the vehicle to channel that frustration, kind of the tipping point in many ways."

Some of the fiercest criticism of the Miers nomination is coming from veterans of the first Bush White House.

Peggy Noonan, a speechwriter for both Reagan and the elder Bush, contended that Miers' nomination is a mistake on par with the father's selection of Dan Quayle for vice president.

Quayle should have said, "Thanks, I'm not ready," Noonan wrote in a Wall Street Journal column, and so should Miers now.

Conservative editor and commentator William Kristol, who was Quayle's chief of staff, said recent White House efforts to convince conservatives that Miers really is one of them "hasn't changed anyone's mind."

Bush "has alienated his base without intending to," said political scientist Bruce Buchanan of the University of Texas. "He was feeling his oats a little bit on the (Chief Justice John) Roberts success and didn't anticipate the fury of the reaction on Harriet Miers."

Both Bushes saw their approval ratings soar above 80 percent the elder Bush in 1991 after the first Gulf War, the younger Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 only to see them plummet.

The elder Bush's ratings dipped under 30 percent in late summer 1992. The current president stood at 39 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken two weeks ago, the lowest of his presidency.

The current Bush was criticized that he was slow to recognize the severity of Hurricane Katrina. The first Bush was criticized for being slow to respond to Hurricane Andrew, which slammed into southern Florida on Aug. 24, 1992, and did extensive damage.

The current Bush's White House is distracted by a special prosecutor's inquiry into whether administration officials illegally leaked the name of a CIA operative for political reasons. The investigation appears focused on Bush's top White House adviser, Karl Rove, and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

In the year before the 1992 presidential election, with his poll numbers tumbling, the elder Bush had a staff that also was in turmoil. John Sununu resigned as chief of staff under a cloud and was replaced by former Transportation Secretary Sam Skinner, who in turn was replaced by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III.

Of course, the younger Bush's timing is better. At least his political woes are happening after the election not right before, as was the case with his father.

EDITOR'S NOTE Tom Raum has covered Washington for The Associated Press since 1973, including five presidencies.

Read More...

Legal Problems Dog Bush's Inner Circle

ABC News
Legal Problems Dog Bush's Inner Circle
All the President's Men and Women Are Getting Worn Out by Legal Problems
By DONNA CASSATA
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - It's a nightmare prospect that Republicans have trouble fathoming: legal problems that could drive some of the president's most powerful aides from office.

A special prosecutor and grand jury are closing in on a deadline to decide whether to lodge criminal complaints against presidential adviser Karl Rove and White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.

If it comes to pass, administration officials and GOP consultants expect President Bush to turn to a few individuals to fill any void in his inner circle.

Among the candidates are go-to Republicans whom Bush trusts, including Ed Gillespie, Ken Mehlman and Karen Hughes; former lawmakers Rob Portman and Vin Weber; and those who could be promoted from within, such as Dan Bartlett, Joshua Bolten and Joe Hagin.

It's also possible the president could reach out to others in his Cabinet, among them Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez.

Republicans steadfastly cling to the belief that there will be no indictments, the issue will blow over and the speculation will amount to nothing more than idle chatter.

"I don't think anybody's leaving," said Charles Black, a veteran GOP strategist and close Bush ally.

But one White House official, noting that Bush's senior staff is tired of the long hours and increasing pressure, has told colleagues it might be best if everyone closest to the president resign and clear the way for new blood and fresh perspectives.

White House chief of staff Andrew Card has been on the job since January 2001, a mark of longevity for Bush compared with Presidents Reagan and Clinton, who each had four chiefs of staff through two terms. Even Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, had three chiefs of staff in four years as president.

If the unthinkable happens, Republicans know where Bush will look.

Rove has been labeled "Bush's brain" by administration foes and the "architect" of Bush's rise to power by the president's backers. He is considered a White House adviser without peer. Conservative activist Grover Norquist finds it hard to imagine one person handling Rove's job.

"Karl is sufficiently sui generis (unique), it would take two or three different people to replace him," Norquist said.

Among the possible replacements are Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee; current RNC chief Mehlman, or Hughes, a former White House political adviser to Bush now working in the State Department.

Hughes, whose title is Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, is trying to reverse anti-American sentiment around the world.

Black said he would be surprised if Hughes left that post because Bush "believes he's put Karen in the most important job in the government." Rather, the president would likely promote from within, and White House counselor Bartlett could get the call.

Kevin Spillane, a Republican consultant in California, said Gillespie and Hughes would be the most obvious candidates.

"Hughes is unique in selling policy and has the president's trust," Spillane said. "Gillespie can juggle policy and media."

Although Rove is considered indispensable to Bush, the political landscape has changed with no presidential election for Bush on the horizon. Mehlman can handle the politics of the 2006 midterm elections and beyond, Norquist said.

As for Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and his assistant on national security affairs, his departure would leave Cheney with the option of bringing in a trusted adviser. That could be former aide Mary Matalin or a specialist in national security, such as Eric Edelman, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey.

Edelman was national security assistant to Cheney from February 2001 to June 2003.

Republicans close to senior administration officials say it is unlikely Card would leave, especially if the White House is in a lurch with a Rove indictment. But if Card does exit, Bush could tap Gillespie; turn to Portman, the former Ohio congressman now serving as U.S. trade representative; choose one of his Cabinet secretaries or promote Card's deputy, Joe Hagin, or Bolten, the White House budget chief.

And what if the unthinkable happens and Cheney is indicted?

Cheney has said he is not interested in pursuing the Republican nomination for president in 2008. So Bush's choice to replace his running mate would tip the president's hand on his preference for 2008. Florida governor and first brother, Jeb Bush?

AP Political Writer Ron Fournier contributed to this report.

On the Net:

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

Read More...

Sunni area 'rejects Iraq charter'

BBC NEWS
Sunni area 'rejects Iraq charter'
Partial results of the vote on a new Iraqi constitution suggest at least one Sunni province has rejected it.

The 20% sample said 81.5% had rejected the draft in Salahuddin, but in Diyala - which has a slight Sunni majority - it was approved by just over 50%.

No figures were given for the other two Sunni provinces of Anbar and Ninevah. A two-thirds rejection of the charter in both would torpedo the project.

As expected, the results suggested a very high approval by Shias and Kurds.

The new Iraqi constitution was meant to help unite the country, but it has proved bitterly divisive, says the BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad.

The Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, is on his first visit to Iraq since the US led invasion in a sign of Arab concern over the fragmentation of the country, says our correspondent.

After meeting Shia spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in the holy city of Najaf, Mr Moussa said he had secured his support for a conference aimed at promoting national reconciliation.

No violations

Adil al-Lami of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI) told a news conference he could not give a date for the announcement of final results but said it would take some days.

And he cautioned that the results unveiled on Saturday could not be interpreted either way.


CONSTITUTION'S KEY POINTS
Iraq to be federal, parliamentary democracy
Official languages to be Arabic and Kurdish
Official religion to be Islam but religious freedoms guaranteed
Equal rights for all
Independent judiciary
Elections every four years

"Let's pretend there are 100 ballot boxes in all Iraq. Well, 20 of those boxes have been brought to Baghdad and these results today represent half of those," Mr Lami said.

"These figures do not show anything much yet."

The official said the count was taking longer than expected because - under international standards - it was necessary to recount the ballots in areas where the "Yes" or "No" vote was very high.

The provisional results showed several provinces approving the constitutional draft with more than 90% - including Najaf with 96%, and Karbala with 90%. In Baghad, the approval rate was 78%.

Mr Lami said no "dangerous" violations of the electoral law had been reported by the complaints.

"We have received more than 100 complaints from different parties... but these complaints are very simple, for very simple violations made by those guarding the elections," Mr Lami said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4367356.stm

Read More...

Saturday, October 22, 2005

A Bestiary of Prognosticators

Read More...

Friday, October 21, 2005

Former Powell Aide Says Bush Policy Is Run by 'Cabal'

The New York Times

Former Powell Aide Says Bush Policy Is Run by 'Cabal'
By BRIAN KNOWLTON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff has offered a remarkably blunt criticism of the administration he served, saying that foreign policy had been usurped by a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal," and that President Bush has made the country more vulnerable, not less, to future crises.

The comments came in a speech Wednesday by Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked for Mr. Powell at the State Department from 2001 to early 2005. Speaking to the New America Foundation, an independent public-policy institute in Washington, Mr. Wilkerson suggested that secrecy, arrogance and internal feuding had taken a heavy toll in the Bush administration, skewing its policies and undercutting its ability to handle crises.

"I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita - and I could go on back," he said. "We haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time."

Mr. Wilkerson suggested that the dysfunction within the administration was so grave that "if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence."

Mr. Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel and former director of the Marine Corps War College, said that in his years in or close to government, he had seen its national security apparatus twisted in many ways. But what he saw in Mr. Bush's first term "was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberration, bastardizations" and "perturbations."

"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues," he said.

The former aide referred to Mr. Bush as someone who "is not versed in international relations, and not too much interested in them, either." He was far more admiring of the president's father, whom he called "one of the finest presidents we've ever had."

Mr. Wilkerson has long been considered a close confidant of Mr. Powell, but their relationship has apparently grown strained at times - including over the question of unconventional weapons in Iraq - and the former colonel said Mr. Powell did not approve of his latest public criticisms.

Read More...

Worker Tells of Response by FEMA

The New York Times

The Emergency Agency
Worker Tells of Response by FEMA
By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - It was on the day before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, after thousands of people had packed the Superdome, that the lone FEMA worker in New Orleans sent his first plea for help.

"Issues developing at the Superdome," the official, Marty J. Bahamonde, wrote in an agency e-mail message released Thursday by Congressional investigators. "The medical staff at the dome says they will run out of oxygen in about two hours."

Mr. Bahamonde sent a series of messages as the hours and days passed, desperation growing. Most startling, he told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday, was that his supervisors in Washington did not seem to understand. In a series of e-mail messages in which he warned of worsening problems, he was told that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency needed time to eat dinner at a restaurant in Baton Rouge, La., and to have a television interview.

"It was sad, it was inhumane, it was heartbreaking, and it was so wrong," Mr. Bahamonde said of the conditions and the response. "There was a systematic failure at all levels of government to understand the magnitude of the situation."

A spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, William R. Knocke, said Mr. Bahamonde was a respected official and did not contest his testimony. He said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was also frustrated at the response that Mr. Bahamonde was reporting.

Mr. Bahamonde's being the sole FEMA representative in New Orleans for the storm was unintentional, he said. He drove there on Aug. 27, two days before the storm hit, to introduce himself to City Hall officials. Though instructed by officials in Washington to leave, he stayed behind because of traffic jams.

Mr. Bahamonde stayed near the Superdome, where he had been told that a FEMA medical team, as well as 360,000 ready-to-eat meals and 15 water trucks, were being sent ahead of the storm.

None of that turned out to be true. Five water trucks and 40,000 meals were in place. The medical team did not arrive until Aug. 30, the day after the hurricane hit.

The situation worsened by late morning on Aug. 29, when Mr. Bahamonde learned that the 17th Street Canal levee had failed and that the city was flooding. An e-mail message at 1:38 p.m. to FEMA headquarters described the levee break, as well as reports that an estimated 12,000 people were at the Superdome and that 30,000 tourists were stuck in the city.

"North side of city under est. 11' water in heavy residential area," the message said, attributing the information to Mr. Bahamonde.

Mr. Chertoff has often said he did not know about the levee break and flooding until Aug. 30, explaining in part why he went to a meeting that day in Atlanta on avian flu.

"That is incredible," Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said about the communications delay.

Mr. Levin questioned Mr. Bahamonde about testimony last month by the former director of the emergency agency, Michael D. Brown, that a dozen agency employees were in New Orleans before the storm, including an emergency response team.

"How many FEMA people were pre-positioned at the Superdome or in New Orleans?" Mr. Levin asked.

"One," Mr. Bahamonde said.

"And that was?"

"Me."

On Aug. 31, Mr. Bahamonde decided to send an e-mail message directly to Mr. Brown.

"I know you know, the situation is past critical," Mr. Bahamonde wrote. "Hotels are kicking people out, thousands gathering in the streets with no food or water."'

An aide to Mr. Brown responded hours later that the director would need a restaurant in Baton Rouge that night. "It is very important that time is allowed for Mr. Brown to eat dinner," the message said.

Read More...

Ruling From the Head, Not the Heart

The New York Times

Ruling From the Head, Not the Heart
By MORRIS B. HOFFMAN

Denver

ONE thing can be said of President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers. It has focused the spotlight of the Constitution's "advice and consent" clause on its proper target: the nominee's qualifications and not her politics. But one of the most important "qualifications" is a nominee's overarching view of the role of the judiciary in American life. With straight faces, Senate Democrats demand Supreme Court appointees who will "protect individual rights," except, of course, the wrong kinds of individual rights (like the right to be born, the right to bear arms, or the right to be considered for state jobs, contracts or college admission without regard to race or gender). Republicans demand, with equally straight faces, justices who will "apply the law, not legislate from the bench," despite a tradition of judge-made law that goes back centuries, and despite a written Constitution that even the most ardent textualists must concede contains at least a couple of ambiguous words.

This battle over the meaning, and continued vitality, of judicial restraint has been going on since Marbury v. Madison, when Chief Justice John Marshall, in the epitome of naked judicial activism, seized for the judicial branch the power to interpret a Constitution that itself was utterly silent on the matter.

Today's version of this fundamental philosophical question, on which our two major political parties seem so sharply to disagree, is this: Does a judge's obligation begin and end with the law, or is the law merely an instrument through which judges should strive to achieve greater social good? It would be unfortunate indeed if we lost sight of this important and legitimate question in our ache for moderation and our distaste of political excess.

Several years ago I had lunch with some trial court colleagues from another jurisdiction. I asked one of the newest judges how she liked the job so far, and she said that she enjoyed it immensely and that she "was even able to do some good in a case last week." Never has there been a more succinct confession of the roots of judicial activism. The good news is that even this activist judge admitted she wasn't free to "do good" all the time; she was often constrained by the unavoidable limitations of that nettlesome interloper, the law.

It is this difference over the perceived role of judges, more than any differences in interpretative theories or even political philosophy, that I believe distinguishes restrained judges from unrestrained ones. Those of us who see the judiciary as an essentially conservative institution, who are wary of our own power, and who know that all manner of personal preferences can be hidden in the sheep's clothing of "discretion" or "interpretation," don't try to find ambiguities in the law that we can then replace with our own views of proper public policy.

Truly restrained judges follow the law no matter how politically or socially unpleasant the destination. A week doesn't go by when I am not forced by the law to do something that I would rather not do if I were, say, a philosopher-king unencumbered by the legislation of mere mortals.

In the early 1900's, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was mistaken by many Progressives as one of them, when in a series of dissents he argued that Congress's progressive legislation was not unconstitutional. But in fact Holmes loathed the Progressive agenda and years later described the essentials of judicial restraint with these now famous words in a letter to a friend: "If my fellow citizens want to go to hell I will help them. It's my job."

We need more judges, at all levels, who are not frustrated policymakers, who won't strain to find ambiguity in unambiguous words because they want to "do good," and who won't hesitate to go where their own principled application of the law takes them, even if (and especially if) it is a result they would not freely choose.

As the Senate takes up the nomination of Harriet Miers next month, let us hope the process sheds as much light on her views on the role of judges in the constitutional firmament as it does on her political and personal preferences, or on the value of her other qualifications.

Morris B. Hoffman is a state trial judge in Denver.

Read More...

Deferential Calculus

The New York Times

Deferential Calculus
By DAHLIA LITHWICK

Charlottesville, Va.

OF all the mysteries surrounding President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, possibly the biggest is this: How could a man who got it so right with John Roberts get it so wrong with Ms. Miers?

If the lesson of the Roberts confirmation was to pick someone superbly qualified and watch him whiz through his confirmation, why did President Bush almost deliberately flout that wisdom by nominating an inexperienced crony?

But Chief Justice Roberts and Ms. Miers may have more in common than you think. Both their nominations reflect a deep concern about a too-powerful court and the president's troubling new hostility toward the institution.

Consider this: Chief Justice Roberts's judicial philosophy - to the extent he admits to one - is of "modesty." Throughout his public life, an overwhelming jurisprudential concern has been the constraint of judicial power. He made it clear at his hearings and in rulings from the federal bench that the court exists not to act - not even to react - but chiefly to interpret passively. He has defended court-stripping legislation and argued for limiting judicial remedies.

In Chief Justice Roberts's world view, there are few situations in which the courts ought to be proactive - not when a student is raped by a teacher, and Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in public schools, does not provide her with a meaningful remedy; and not when Virginia Medicaid patients seek reimbursement at reasonable rates, and the Medicaid Act creates no expressly enforceable rights.

John Roberts was unequivocal, at his hearing last month, that if Congress wants to protect the weak, it must write crystal-clear legislation. He would argue that at the end of the day, it's the court's job not to ensure equity or social justice but rather to narrowly construe the law as written regardless of whether the results are fair.

That's a significant departure from the approach taken by the Rehnquist court. Chief Justice Roberts's argument that "if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more," sounds clever. But it substantially constrains the formerly broad reach of the Rehnquist court.

But nowhere is John Roberts more deferential as a judge than when it comes to the executive branch. In his rulings when he sat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, he offered expansive readings of presidential authority. He ruled on that court that the Geneva Conventions do not confer on so-called enemy combatants any individual rights. And he was unwilling to answer at his hearings whether Congress has the power to end a war started by the president.

If you think of John Roberts as the justice who will urge a far more sweeping judicial deference - particularly to the executive branch - the subsequent Miers nomination makes sense. If Mr. Bush wants to refashion the courts into a weaker, passive entity that exists primarily to check its own institutional prerogatives, then a former White House counsel like Ms. Miers is the perfect choice.

For one thing, having been present in the White House boiler room during the discussions of presidential power in wartime, Ms. Miers is primed to rule in President Bush's favor in the executive power cases. But more profoundly, and perhaps more symbolically, the elevation of Ms. Miers - someone with no judicial experience, no body of constitutional thinking or writing, nothing it seems, but her noble heart to recommend her - sends precisely the message that Mr. Bush wants to send to the courts: You don't need the most qualified candidate. You don't even need someone among the top 500 most qualified candidates. Why? Because the Supreme Court doesn't matter.

Justice Roberts and Ms. Miers represent a one-two punch for presidential supremacy: Justice Roberts would turn the Supreme Court into a body of nine constitutional plumbers - tinkerers around the margins with no affirmative place on the national stage. And Ms. Miers is a plumber - a perfectly competent lawyer with no national distinction. Her nomination would be an insult to the court if the court's work still mattered. But President Bush doesn't want it to matter.

The president has long claimed that Congress and the courts were usurping his powers. The hallmark of his presidency has been efforts to reclaim those powers, be it through Patriot Act provisions that curtail judicial oversight, his invention of new courts to deliver justice-lite to Guantánamo detainees or threats to veto legislation that would prohibit torture.

Now he has had two openings to render the court toothless. He has filled those vacancies with a brilliant jurist who apparently believes the court should sit on its hands in perpetuity, and a place-filler - his new judicial ideal.

Dahlia Lithwick is a senior editor at Slate.

Read More...

The New York Times

Hiding Behind Katrina

It takes gall to use Hurricane Katrina as cover to undermine the democratic process, but that's what conservative ideologues are attempting in the House. Among their budget-cutting proposals - being sold as "tough choices" for America to pay for the Gulf Coast recovery - is a startling plan to kill public financing in the presidential election system.

That program, financed by $3 checkoffs volunteered by taxpayers on their returns, has been a bulwark of presidential elections. It was enacted about 30 years ago, after the Watergate scandal exposed the big-money bagmen corrupting the heart of the political process. It makes politics more competitive for underdogs, more involving for the public and less reliant on floods of special-interest campaign money.

Congress should indeed turn its attention to the program - not to end it, but to repair its outdated limits. The primary calendar has become so front-loaded that the candidates with the strongest sources of private donations are now choosing to skip the limitations of public financing so they can spend early and furiously, leaving other challengers at a disadvantage.

The primary subsidy formula needs to be made more realistic to level the field, and the checkoff amount should be increased. Candidates should not be allowed to have it both ways by feeding on private money in the primaries, then switching to public money in the general election, as President Bush and Senator John Kerry did last year.

Under the current system, participating candidates in the primaries receive matching funds for the first $250 of each private contribution. This one-to-one formula should be increased to two-to-one matching or more as a way to invite more of the small donations that began showing up impressively last year from Internet users.

Sponsors of the House proposal must know they are wrong because they are trying to tuck the change into a budget bill without a public hearing and debate. If they want budget cuts, they should focus on government waste, not open elections.

Read More...

The National Parks Under Siege

The New York Times

The National Parks Under Siege

Year after year, Americans express greater satisfaction with the National Park Service than with almost any other aspect of the federal government. From the point of view of most visitors, there is no incentive to revise the basic management policy that guides park superintendents, a policy that was last revised in 2001 and is usually re-examined only every 10 or 15 years. Longtime park service employees feel much the same way. Yet in the past two months we have seen two proposed revisions. The first, written by Paul Hoffman, a deputy assistant secretary in the Interior Department, was a genuinely scandalous rewriting that would have destroyed the national park system.

On Tuesday, the Interior Department released a new draft. The question isn't whether this revision is better than Mr. Hoffman's drastic rewrite. Almost anything would be better than his version, a glaring example of the zeal to dilute conservation with commercialism among political appointees in the Interior Department. But the new draft would still undermine the national parks.

This entire exercise is unnecessary, driven by politics and ideology. The only reason for revisiting and revising the 2001 management policy was Mr. Hoffman's belief, expressed during a press conference earlier this week, that the 2001 policy is "anti-enjoyment." This will surely come as news to the 96 percent of park visitors who year after year express approval of their experiences. The kind of enjoyment Mr. Hoffman has in mind - as clearly evidenced by his draft and by remarks from Interior Secretary Gale Norton - is opening up the parks to off-road vehicles, including snowmobiles. The ongoing effort to revise the 2001 policy betrays a powerful sense, shared by many top interior officials, that the national parks are resources not to be protected but to be exploited.

This new policy document doesn't go as far as the earlier version. But it would eliminate the requirement that only motorized equipment with the least impact should be used in national parks. It would lower air-quality standards and strip away language about preserving the parks' natural soundscape - language that currently makes it hard, for instance, to justify allowing snowmobiles into Yellowstone. It would also refer park superintendents to other management documents that have been revised to weaken fundamental standards and protections for the parks.

Mr. Hoffman and National Park Service officials have tried to argue that this new policy revision offers greater clarity. What it really offers is greater flexibility to interpret the rules the way they want to. The thrust of these changes is to diminish the historical, and legally upheld, premise that preservation is the central mission of the park system.

Here, for instance, is what this proposed policy revision would remove from the very heart of the park system's mission statement: "Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant."

These unambiguous words contain the legal and legislative history that has protected the parks over the years from exactly the kind of change Mr. Hoffman has in mind, allowing all the rest of us to enjoy the national parks in ways that are more respectful of the future and of the parks themselves.

One of the most troubling aspects of this revised policy is how it was produced. Instead of being shaped by park service professionals thinking in a timely way about how to do their jobs better, this is a defensive document that was rushed forward to head off the more sweeping damage that Mr. Hoffman's first draft threatened to do. It is a tribute to the National Park Service veterans who worked on it that they were able to mitigate so much of the harm, even though they, too, were working directly under Mr. Hoffman's eye. They risked their jobs to protect the parks from political appointees in the Interior Department. This is a measure of how distorted the department's policies have become.

There is more potential damage on the way. At least two deeply worrying new directives have been handed down. One allows the National Park Service to solicit contributions from individuals and corporations instead of merely accepting them when they're offered. This is another way to further the privatization of the national parks and edge toward their commercialization. Privatizing the government's core responsibilities - like the national parks - is unacceptable, and so is the prospect of any greater commercial presence in the parks.

More alarming still is a directive released last week that would require park personnel who hope to advance above the middle-manager level to go through what is essentially a political screening. What we are witnessing, in essence, is an effort to politicize the National Park Service - to steer it away from its long-term mission of preserving much-loved national treasures and make it echo the same political mind-set that turned Mr. Hoffman, a former Congressional aide to Dick Cheney and a former head of the Cody, Wyo., chamber of commerce, into an architect of national park policy.

Read More...

Congress Passes New Legal Shield for Gun Industry

The New York Times

Congress Passes New Legal Shield for Gun Industry
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The Republican-controlled Congress delivered a long-sought victory to the gun industry on Thursday when the House voted to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. The bill now goes to President Bush, who has promised to sign it.

The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.

"It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."

The bill, which is identical to one approved in July by the Senate, is aimed at ending a spate of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, including New York City, seeking to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons are used in crimes.

While it bars such suits, the measure contains an exception allowing certain cases involving defective weapons or criminal behavior by a gun maker or dealer, such as knowingly selling a weapon to someone who has failed a criminal background check.

President Bush said in a statement that he looked forward to signing the bill, which he said would "further our efforts to stem frivolous lawsuits, which cause a logjam in America's courts, harm America's small businesses, and benefit a handful of lawyers at the expense of victims and consumers."

Backers of the measure say it is necessary to keep the American arms industry in business, while opponents say the law would deprive gun violence victims of a legitimate right to sue. Dispirited gun-safety advocates said they now expected attempts to dismiss nearly a dozen lawsuits around the country, and they vowed to challenge the constitutionality of the bill in court.

"It's always been a tough fight, let's face that," said Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, who ran for Congress in 1996 after her husband was killed and her son injured by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road. She added, "This is personal for me."

Fifty-nine Democrats joined 223 Republicans and the House's lone independent to pass the bill. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, said the measure received a boost in July, when Pentagon officials wrote a letter saying they supported it as a way to "safeguard our national security" by limiting lawsuits against companies that supply weapons to the military.

"There's a subtle undertow here about buy America," Mr. Stearns said, adding, "This bill has picked up a little bit of steam because of that."

Mr. Stearns said he had been working to pass the legislation for six years. But the turning point came not in the House, which had previously passed a similar bill, but in the Senate, which has 55 Republicans after the 2004 elections. The stronger majority enabled Republicans to beat back Democratic amendments that had doomed the measure in the past.

The bill's passage was a bit of good news for President Bush and Congressional Republicans, who have been consumed by an intraparty budget battle in the House, the criticism over the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, a leak investigation involving the president's senior political adviser and the scheduled arraignment of Representative Tom DeLay, who was recently forced to step aside as majority leader, on charges of money laundering and conspiracy in Texas.

Mr. DeLay issued a statement calling the gun bill an important step toward revamping the nation's tort law system. On Wednesday, the House passed another measure, the so-called cheeseburger bill, which protects the restaurant industry from obesity-related lawsuits. Taken together, Mr. DeLay said, the bills "protect America's legal system for genuine plaintiffs."

There have been dozens of lawsuits against the gun industry in recent years, most of them dismissed by the courts. In response to those suits, Mr. LaPierre said, 33 states have adopted laws similar to the federal bill.

While opponents of the measure said it singles out the gun industry for special protection, Mr. LaPierre said the protection is necessary because, unlike auto manufacturers or pharmaceutical companies, American firearms makers "don't have deep pockets," and the industry would be at risk simply from the cost of fighting the lawsuits.

But opponents called the bill shameful - "bought and paid for by the N.R.A.," in the words of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, whose constituents include victims of the 2002 sniper shootings in Washington and its suburbs, called the measure "a cruel hoax" on victims of gun violence.

"I went to a lot of memorial services during that period of time," Mr. Van Hollen said. "I've met with family members. To tell them that their cases were frivolous is, I think, to add insult to injury."

Eight of the sniper victims or their relatives won a $2.5 million legal settlement from the manufacturer of the gun used in the shootings and the dealer in Washington State who sold it. Mr. LaPierre said that suit would have been permitted under the law passed Thursday. But the lawyer who brought it, Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, disagreed.

Mr. Henigan said that while the dealer had violated federal law, the bill would have prevented the suit nonetheless because the violations did not pertain directly to the weapon used in the sniper shootings. He said he intended to challenge the bill on constitutional grounds, arguing that it deprives states of their right to legislate and deprives victims of their right to sue.

"We're going to argue that this statute is literally unprecedented in American history," Mr. Henigan said, "because it is the first time that the federal government will be stepping in and retroactively depriving injured people of their vested legal rights under state law, without providing them any alternative."

Read More...

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

UK: Flu jab for whole population plan

BBC NEWS
Flu jab for whole population plan

Plans to purchase enough vaccine to cover every person in the UK in the event of a flu pandemic have been announced by the Department of Health.

Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson said 120 million doses would be needed.

But he said it could not be developed until the exact strain of the flu virus causing the pandemic was known.

The ability of EU nations to coordinate their efforts to tackle a pandemic is to be tested in a simulation exercise.

On Wednesday an outbreak of the bird flu virus was reported in poultry in the Russian province of Tula, to the south of Moscow.

China revealed that 2,600 birds have died from the disease in Inner Mongolia.

And Romania has confirmed birds infected a second outbreak in the country did have the deadly H5N1 strain of the virus.

Contracts

Sir Liam Donaldson on Wednesday published updated guidance on how to prepare for a possible pandemic.

The government is inviting manufacturers to tender for a contract to supply the pandemic flu vaccine.

And thousands of information packs are to be sent to GPs.


PANDEMIC PREDICTIONS
25% of the population - 15 million people - may suffer from flu during a pandemic
Out of a population of 100,000 people, local health care organisations should expect to see at least 1,000 new flu patients a week
This figure could rise to 5,000 a week at the virus's peak
Around 25% of the working population may need to take sick leave of between five and eight working days
Source: Department of Health

Sir Liam said: "We cannot prevent a flu pandemic, but we can reduce its impact.

"One of the most effective counter-measures we can take against a flu pandemic is to make sure we develop and manufacture a vaccine as quickly as possible.

"We will use this vaccine to immunise the UK population and reduce the impact of a pandemic on society."

Two doses

Sir Liam said each person in the country would need two doses of vaccine if a mutated form of bird flu affecting humans hit the UK.

However, he admitted that manufacturing the vaccine could take some time - experts have predicted it could take months.

It is thought that there is no direct threat to the public from current outbreaks in other countries.

Sir Liam has predicted that the epicentre of any new strain is likely to be in East Asia, and that a major outbreak is unlikely in the UK this year.

But he has also warned that 50,000 lives could be lost in the event of bird flu taking hold in the UK.

The UK Influenza Pandemic Contingency Plan includes quarantine measures, stockpiling of anti-viral drugs and research into a vaccine as well as arrangements for the emergency services.

Concerts and football matches could both be banned and travel restricted in the event of an outbreak to stop the virus spreading.

The UK has so far stockpiled 2.5 million doses of anti-viral drugs - and may restrict travel if there is an outbreak.

On Monday, Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt told MPs she was confident enough was being done.

European exercise

The European simulation exercise will involve officials in command centres across Europe reacting to imaginary scenarios.

The exercise, called Common Ground, requested by the European Commission, will not involve any "real world" mobilisation of emergency services and healthcare staff. It will be command centre and desk-based.

Other European countries are stepping up measures to prevent the spread of bird flu, following the discovery in Turkey and Romania of the H5N1 strain which is dangerous to humans.

The European Commission has banned bird and poultry imports from the countries.

H5N1 has killed more than 60 people in South-East Asia since 2003.

On Monday, Greece became the first EU member to confirm a case of bird flu.

It is not yet known if the Greek case is H5N1.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4355532.stm

Read More...

Terror threat snarls Baltimore

nydailynews.com
Terror threat snarls Baltimore

BALTIMORE - A sketchy threat to blow up vehicles full of explosives prompted authorities yesterday to close one of the busy tunnels underneath Baltimore's harbor and partially shut down the other.

One person who may have been connected to the threat was arrested on immigration charges, a law enforcement official said.

Traffic was allowed to resume by early afternoon after being diverted for nearly two hours, but the FBI continued to investigate.

The four-lane Baltimore Harbor Tunnel was closed around midday, and the eight-lane Fort McHenry Tunnel was reduced to one lane in each direction. The tunnels, both about 1.4 miles long, carry traffic between Washington and the Philadelphia and New York City areas.

A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a man in custody in the Netherlands was the source of information about the threat.

The Associated Press

Read More...

Hil and Chuck slam tax plan

nydailynews.com
Hil and Chuck slam tax plan
NEWS WIRE SERVICES

WASHINGTON - A proposal to do away with many tax deductions would wallop New Yorkers with an extra $12 billion tax bill, officials warned yesterday.

The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform's offering of a drastically simplified income tax system - one that would no longer allow taxpayers to deduct what they pay in state and local taxes - was denounced by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

"It is a dagger to the heart of the people on New York," said Schumer, who vowed to defeat the "pernicious proposal."

Clinton said 3.2 million families in the state would be affected and demanded Bush immediately dismiss the plan.

Gov. Pataki also vowed to fight the proposal.

Nationally, taxpayers would pay roughly the same amount of tax under the proposed system, and much of the paperwork would be eliminated.

The White House made no commitment to stick to the panel recommendations when forwarding its tax-simplification proposal to Congress next year, Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan said.

More info about the plan is at www.taxreformpanel.gov.


Read More...

Prez Iraq team fought to squelch war critics

nydailynews.com
Prez Iraq team fought to squelch war critics
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK and KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - It was called the White House Iraq Group and its job was to make the case that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and biochemical weapons.

So determined was the ring of top officials to win its argument that it morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at critics who questioned its claims, sources told the Daily News.

One of those critics was ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who debunked a key claim in a speech by President Bush that Iraq sought nuclear materials in Africa. His punishment was the media outing of his wife, CIA spy Valerie Plame, an affair that became a "side show" for the White House Iraq Group, the sources said.

The Plame leak is now the subject of a criminal probe that has seen presidential political guru Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, hauled before a grand jury.

Both men were members of the group, also known as WHIG. From late 2002 through mid 2003, it was locked in a feud with officials inside the CIA and State Department over claims Saddam tried to buy "yellow cake" uranium in Niger to build nukes, a former Bush administration and intelligence sources told The News.

"There were a number of occasions when White House officials or Vice President [Cheney's] staffers, or others, wanted to push the envelope on things," an ex-intelligence official said. "The agency would say, 'We just don't have the intelligence to substantiate that.'" When Wilson was sent by his wife to Africa to research the claims, he showed the documents claiming Saddam tried to buy the uranium were forgeries.

[NOTE: Wilson was NOT sent by his wife. That is an extremely inaccurate statement.]

"People in the Iraq group then got very frustrated. It was a side show," said a source familiar with WHIG.

Besides Rove and Libby, the group included senior White House aides Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, James Wilkinson, Nicholas Calio, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley. WHIG also was doing more than just public relations, said a second former intel officer.

"They were funneling information to [New York Times reporter] Judy Miller. Judy was a charter member," the source said.

Read More...

Bush whacked Rove on CIA leak

nydailynews.com
Bush whacked Rove on CIA leak
BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

WASHINGTON - An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President's rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.

As special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald nears a decision, perhaps as early as today, on whether to issue indictments in his two-year probe, Bush has already circled the wagons around Rove, whose departure would be a grievous blow to an already shell-shocked White House staff and a President in deep political trouble.

Asked if he believed indictments were forthcoming, a key Bush official said he did not know, then added: "I'm very concerned it could go very, very badly."

"Karl is fighting for his life," the official added, "but anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that."

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

Bush has always known that Rove often talks with reporters anonymously and he generally approved of such contacts, one source said.

But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush's claim that Saddam Hussen tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

None of these sources offered additional specifics of what Bush and Rove discussed in conversations beginning shortly after the Justice Department informed the White House in September 2003 that a criminal investigation had been launched into the leak of CIA agent Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.

A White House spokesman declined to comment, citing the ongoing nature of Fitzgerald's investigation.

Read More...

GOP Is Caught Between Alliances

Yahoo! News
GOP Is Caught Between Alliances

By Ronald Brownstein Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — As they navigate turbulent political seas, President Bush and congressional Republicans find themselves in a boat leaking from both ends.

Amid public discontent over the war in Iraq, high gas prices, the response to Hurricane Katrina and ethical controversies in Washington, approval ratings for Bush and the GOP-led Congress have tumbled to ominously low levels among independent and moderate voters.

But the White House and congressional leaders also are facing widespread dissatisfaction among conservative leaders antagonized by Bush's spending policies and his nomination of White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court.

This two-front war complicates the challenge for the GOP as Bush tries to regain the initiative in Washington and the party prepares for the 2006 midterm elections.

Many of the actions Bush could take to reassure conservative leaders — such as replacing Miers with a more identifiably conservative nominee — might alienate voters in the center. On immigration, Bush confronts the opposite problem: pushing for changes that might broaden the party's appeal, especially among Latinos, would further fracture his base.

Across a range of issues, said veteran GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio, Bush and Republican congressional leaders "are going to have a very tough time moving forward" in a way that pleases conservatives and moderates.

In the near term, Bush and GOP congressional leaders seem focused on quelling the uprising among conservatives. "The common theme is, 'We have to get back to the base,' " said one prominent lobbyist who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was involved in strategy discussions with Capitol Hill Republicans and the White House.

One measure of that focus is the effort by House Republican leaders to impose additional spending cuts on next year's federal budget — a response to demands from House conservatives uneasy with new federal spending Bush has promised after Hurricane Katrina.

On immigration, congressional Republicans may be executing a similar shift. In recent weeks, House and Senate leaders have said they intend to advance legislation that emphasizes the increased border security favored by conservatives, rather than the more comprehensive approach — including a guest worker program — that Bush and most Democrats prefer.

The revelation Tuesday that Miers indicated support for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion during her 1989 race for the Dallas City Council also seems likely to soothe some conservatives.

Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, said that stabilizing the president's base was more important for the GOP over the next year than wooing independents disaffected from the administration.

Those independent voters, Dowd predicted, will "shift rather quickly based on current events" in the coming months. But, he maintained, "the more important question for 2006 is: How motivated is each side's base? That's more important than the vicissitudes of swing voters."

Democrats say that calculation underestimates the difficulty Republicans could face in regaining the allegiance of independent voters who have soured on Bush and Congress, according to recent surveys.

Stanley B. Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster, said that independents appeared increasingly "alienated by the base-oriented Bush presidency," and that the White House and GOP congressional leaders could compound their problems if they tilted right to satisfy conservatives.

"He could lose all the independents in the process," Greenberg said.

According to polls, voters who describe themselves as independents made up about a quarter of the electorate in 2002 and 2004. But Dowd and other strategists close to the White House contend the share of voters entirely unattached to either party is much smaller.

Dowd's focus on voters from the party's base, and the recent moves by congressional Republicans, fit with the political strategy the party has generally followed under Bush.

From the outset of his presidency, Bush has consistently pursued policies that excite grass-roots conservatives and unify congressional Republicans but alienate Democrats and unsettle many independents.

In the 2002 and 2004 elections, that approach benefited the GOP. In each contest, Bush inspired a huge Republican turnout. And although he didn't run as well with independents as his father, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, his image as a strong leader helped the GOP roughly break even with that group in the 2002 and 2004 campaigns, polls found.

Now, both ends of that formula are under pressure.

In recent national surveys, Bush's standing among independents has dropped to its lowest point during his White House tenure. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey released Monday, 32% of independents said they approved of his performance as president, whereas twice as many — 64% — said they disapproved.

Attitudes toward Congress are even more negative. In the new poll, 1 in 4 independents said they approved of Congress' performance, whereas about 7 in 10 said they disapproved. Among all Americans, the approval rating for Congress in the survey was 29% — its lowest level since 1994, the year Democrats lost their majorities in both chambers.

If the poll numbers among independents toward Bush and Congress do not improve, many party analysts fear it would create a political problem too large for Republicans to overcome simply with high turnout from their base in next year's elections.

"The Republican base can be as intense as it wants, but if you are going to lose independents nationally by 15 [percentage] points, it doesn't matter," said Fabrizio, the pollster for GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole in 1996.

Adding to the challenge, Republicans are being warned by conservative leaders that their followers might not turn out in full force at the next election.

"From now on, this administration will find it difficult to muster support on the right without explaining why it should be forthcoming," David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, wrote this week in the Hill, a newspaper covering Congress. "The days of the blank check have ended."

Polls don't show the discontent among conservative leaders yet trickling down much to the rank and file. Although down from his high point of 90% or more, Bush still attracted approval ratings of about 80% from Republicans, according to the new poll.

But Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said that if conservative leaders were "continually negative, we would expect that rank and file conservatives would eventually follow."

Read More...

CIA leak case spotlights Bush tactics

USA TODAY

Analysis: CIA leak case spotlights Bush tactics
By Tom Raum, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's CIA-leak inquiry is focusing attention on what long has been a Bush White House tactic: slash-and-burn assaults on its critics, particularly those opposed to the president's Iraq war policies.

If top officials are indicted, it could seriously erode the administration's credibility and prove yet another embarrassment to President Bush on the larger issue of how he and his national security team marshaled information — much of it later shown to be inaccurate — to support their case for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The grand jury is concluding a 22-month investigation of whether administration officials illegally leaked information disclosing the identity of an undercover CIA officer, Valerie Plame, in an effort to discredit her husband, former diplomat and war critic Joseph Wilson.

Anxiety at the White House increased after Bush adviser Karl Rove's fourth appearance last week before Fitzgerald's grand jury, and with a New York Times reporter's firsthand account of her dealings with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide.

Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, the Bush administration's public diplomacy chief and a longtime Bush confidante, said, however, that the White House was not distracted by the investigation. "It's not something that's affecting the daily business of the White House," Hughes said in a taped interview aired Tuesday on NBC's Today show. "It's business as usual."

The piece by reporter Judith Miller also fueled speculation that Fitzgerald was seeking to determine whether Cheney played a role in a campaign to discredit Wilson.

"The grand jury investigation has the possibility of really shining a light on the credibility of the administration, how officials tried to undermine those who were criticizing them and how they then covered up that attempt," said American University political scientist James Thurber.

"The question of whether the vice president was involved, we'll probably never know. But it was pretty close to him," said Thurber. He questioned whether Rove and Libby would have operated "on their own" in discussing Wilson's wife with reporters.

White House officials have had quiet discussions about what to do if any Bush aides are charged. There is a general expectation that a staffer would resign if indicted.

Wilson had written a newspaper essay, published July 6, 2003, that sought to undermine the administration's earlier claims that Iraq had sought to buy uranium "yellowcake" from Niger to help it build nuclear bombs.

It came at a particularly difficult time for the president and his aides. The war clearly was not going well, despite Bush's "mission accomplished" speech two months earlier. And Bush was already reeling from criticism over mentioning the African yellowcake connection — which turned out to be based on faulty British intelligence — in his State of the Union address.

While the president and his top aides refuse to comment now on the investigation, or on any issues surrounding the unfounded Iraq-African uranium claim, they weren't so tightlipped in July 2003.

During a presidential trip to Africa just days after Wilson's article appeared, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice — now the secretary of state — spent nearly an hour with reporters on Air Force One trying to put blame for the faulty State of the Union conclusions on the CIA and its then-director, George Tenet.

Bush was also talkative then. "I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services," he told reporters during a stop in Uganda.

Some analysts suggest that any administration plot to undermine Wilson privately only mirrored Bush and Rice's open efforts to undermine Tenet on the same subject.

"This is an administration that was trying to play hardball at every level," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution. "And that's what they were doing with Wilson. And he of course was playing hardball, too. It was an ugly back and forth."

Plame was named by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003, as a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction. Novak wrote that "two senior administration officials" had told him that Plame had suggested her husband, a former ambassador, be sent to Niger in 2002 to check out reports that Saddam Hussein was shopping for uranium.

The reports had no basis in fact, something Wilson reported back to a Bush administration that ignored his conclusions, Wilson later wrote.

In her account in Sunday editions of The New York Times, Miller, who spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to speak to the grand jury, wrote that Fitzgerald asked her questions about Cheney. "He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them," she wrote.

Such a question could suggest the prosecutor was investigating whether Cheney was part of a conspiracy to discredit Plame and Wilson.

"The answer was no," Miller wrote.

While Bush vowed as recently as July to fire anyone on his staff found to have committed a crime in the CIA-leak matter, he has since completely clammed up.

"I've made it very clear to the press that I'm not going to discuss the investigation," Bush said Monday when asked by a reporter whether he would remove an aide under indictment. "There's a serious investigation. I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of the investigation."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-18-analysis-cia-leak_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Repeat of Past Mistakes Mars Government's Disaster Response

washingtonpost.com
Repeat of Past Mistakes Mars Government's Disaster Response

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer

On Sept. 25, White House press secretary Scott McClellan defended the tumultuous evacuation of 3 million Texans from the path of Hurricane Rita. "This was an unprecedented number of people who were being evacuated," he said. His comments echoed sentiments offered by Texas's governor, a senator and several mayors.

In fact, the evacuation was the largest in U.S. history -- at least since 1999.

Barely six years ago, in a lesson seemingly forgotten by U.S. authorities, Hurricane Floyd prompted the headlong flight of more than 3 million people from coastal Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas.

The result, as summarized in a 240-page report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, foreshadowed the anarchy on freeways leading away from Houston last month: 18-hour traffic jams outside Charleston, S.C.; complaints that highways were not quickly converted into one-way exit routes; and shortages of supplies for hundreds of thousands of evacuees.

The repeated cycle of calamity, response and criticism highlights a persistent flaw in the nation's disaster preparedness four years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: the inability of emergency agencies to learn from past mistakes, even those committed in recent years, say current and former government officials involved in homeland security.

Instead, personnel turnover, constantly changing priorities and split responsibilities among federal agencies and state and local governments sap the nation's ability to break patterns of bureaucratic failure, experts say. From establishing compatible communications systems for first responders to enforcing baseline preparedness standards for cities and states, goals set in 2001 remain frustratingly out of reach.

Heightened debate over the military's role in domestic preparedness is also familiar ground. On Sept. 3, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff declared that the sluggish response to the "ultra-catastrophe" wrought by Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast required officials to "break the mold" of disaster response and improve on an eight-month-old National Response Plan. On Sept. 25, President Bush proposed enabling "the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort."

But 13 years earlier, authorities said that Hurricane Andrew had delivered a "mega-catastrophe" to South Florida. Then-Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) called for an expanded domestic role for the military; others called for improvements to a 1-year-old Federal Response Plan, the NRP's precursor.

Within five months, the Pentagon retooled its response to domestic disasters, issuing its first directive to speed "military support to civil authorities."

Yet the changes did not take root in time to help Katrina's victims.

"We shouldn't be in the same situation, especially now that we have a department whose mission is to increase our preparedness," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and head of the Senate investigation into the Katrina response.

Arnold Punaro, an aide to Nunn for 24 years and a major general in the Marine Corps Reserve, said the problem is not a shortage of plans or policies, but a failure to practice and execute existing powers. "The problem with lessons learned is people unlearn them and make the same mistakes," he said.

John A. Koskinen, the federal official in charge of preparing for the year 2000 software flaw, said a deeper concern is the assumption that disaster preparedness is someone else's problem -- state and local government's or the military's.

The weaknesses in federal disaster management exposed by Katrina are not new. Catastrophic events by their nature overwhelm emergency agencies' ability to respond, communicate and coordinate with one another. Likewise, human nature often places rare threats, no matter how awful, behind smaller, more routine problems in the battle for time and money.

But natural disasters are a predictable matter of actuarial certainty, said Peter Senge, a senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When the complexity of a mission such as preparedness spreads responsibility so widely across governments, the challenge is to force a "cultural change" at all levels, he said.

The recent history of evacuation planning and military involvement in disaster response plans shows that need. Nine months after Floyd rolled up the Southeast's coastline and struck North Carolina as a Category 3 storm, consultants PBS&J of Tallahassee prepared a detailed evacuation assessment for FEMA and the Army Corps.

"Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina experienced the largest evacuation effort in American history," FEMA said in a Sept. 14, 2000, news release. "Traffic engineers estimated that 3 million people took to the highways in what was to become a frustrating effort. Instead, they created the largest, longest and most incredibly snarled traffic jam ever known."

Floyd's large size and "uncertain path" created "unanticipated volumes of evacuees," who fled areas not considered unsafe, the PBS&J report stated, circumstances shared with Rita last month.

Although the four Southeastern states updated their evacuation models and rebuilt some highways, the message never reached the other side of the Gulf, said PBS&J vice president Donald Lewis. PBS&J was hired to produce an evacuation study last year for the Houston-Galveston area.

The Floyd-affected states updated computer population and evacuation models to track vehicle movements. The improvement would have cost Texas "$100,000 at the most," Lewis said, but it was not done.

About $2 million a year goes to FEMA's hurricane evacuation study program, Lewis said, and the money is split among 24 states. It can take five to seven years for a state such as Virginia to accumulate the money for a full evacuation study of, say, Hampton Roads, Lewis said.

Gas shortages and traffic jams are also long predicted, but education campaigns to shape public expectations have never been undertaken. Lewis's colleague Bob Collins, hurricane program manager for Florida from 1994 to 2004, blamed a failure by government to share information with states and teach the public to prevent panicky overreactions.

"There truly is no overriding coordination, no guidance from the federal government," Collins said.

The debate over the Defense Department's role in disasters raises a different question, of whether the best plans can be stymied by poor execution, experts said. Bush's push for the military to play an expanded role in the worst natural disasters follows lengthy discussions in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Reviews and the post-Sept. 11 creation of the U.S.-based Northern Command to assume greater homeland security functions.

A 2004 Rand Corp. study proposes a strategy that might permit the Army Reserve to conduct domestic homeland security missions, dedicate some active-duty forces for rapid deployment and training, and develop regional National Guard task forces with special law enforcement units.

Such discussion, joined by the White House, the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and senior members of Congress, echoes debate in 1992, said Col. Mark Eshelman, director of defense support to civil authorities at the Army War College.

A January 1993 Defense Department directive reflected that Andrew "was a formative event for the military," Eshelman said, and laid out the military's construction of "a single system . . . to plan for, and respond to requests from civil government agencies for military support" and respond to "major disasters or emergencies" in cooperation with FEMA.

Lynn Davis, author of the Rand report, said the current debate should not focus so much on new legal authorities or powers, which already exist, but on what the public and leaders are prepared to do in an emergency. "The way you want to use your forces is really the issue," Davis said.

After reports that civilian authorities were slow to request or order military assets for Katrina on Aug. 29, the United States was able to muster what became a force of about 70,000 troops, 21 ships and 215 aircraft in the region for Rita about three weeks later.

Staff writer Josh White contributed to this report.

Read More...