Tuesday, November 01, 2005

The True Cost of War

The Huffington Post

The True Cost of War
Cindy Sheehan

This immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost the world so much. George and his reckless war of choice have cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars that could be better spent at home. Judging from Katrina, Iraq has cost our country much of its security. It has cost the US any good standing we enjoyed in the world community.

It cost America the post 9/11 good will from almost the entire world. We Americans are the laughingstock of the world community. Not only is our callous and careless leadership disdained, but we the people are scorned because we "re"-elected George for a 2nd term and not only that, we are allowing him to continue to mis-lead our country into ruin.

The price many of us are paying is so much costlier than the mere monetary expense or loss of reputation. Over 2,000 American families have paid the price of our dear loved ones to the insanity. Over 15,000 of our young people are wounded with 400 of those being amputees. The Veterans Administration estimates that over 1/4 of our children will come home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. I believe that number is higher, because I know of many cases where the military refuses to allow soldiers to seek treatment for PTSD. Many of them are sent back to battle if they even dare suggest they may be suffering from PTSD. Even if they are not wounded emotionally or physically, or killed, our soldiers will not come home entirely whole.

I was standing in front of the White House the other day when the indictments against Scooter were handed down. I was helping to hold a banner that said: Support our Troops: Bring Them Home Now.

When we received word of the indictments, many of us protestors outside the White House were cheering with happiness and relief. At last, someone could be held accountable for the lies that led our country into a disastrous invasion of Iraq. But I wasn't cheering. I put down my end of the banner and sat down on the curb and cried.

Scooter is just a lap dog for Cheney. He and this administration don't do anything unless the dirty deed is analyzed and planned for maximum damage to the offending party and minimum harm to Bush and Co. The criminals in power meant to hurt Joe Wilson and his family because Joe had the temerity and the audacity to call them liars: and to do it with such intelligence and alacrity was too much for the crooks to bear. If this crooked administration let Joe Wilson get away with telling the truth and calling them liars, then who would be next? Colin Powell? Judith Miller? The main stream media? (It could happen).

I cried because there are people in this world who have lied about smaller things and have been punished more harshly. I cried because there was a shill of the right near me holding a sign that read "Put Cindy in Abu Ghraib" when there are war criminals and immoral war profiteers running amok in our country. I cried because George, Dick, Condi, Colin, Alberto, Donald, Scooter, Paul, Karl, Judith, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., lied about the reasons for invading Iraq and because of their lies, my son, who rarely told anything but the truth, is dead.

The liars and lies that led the US to invade Iraq are legion and well documented. (Once, just for giggles, I put George Bush/Lies in a Google search and 272,000 references came up). The lies to maintain the occupation are the same. The liars are now starting to beat the war drum for invading Syria.

A mom whose son committed "accidental" suicide in Iraq about 7 months ago called me this morning. She is beside herself with grief. I remember that the 7th month to the 9th month is the hardest. I think this is true because the profound shock is starting to wear off and the horrendous pain sets in. I so vividly remember the days where I ached so badly I didn't know what to do with my pain. I was afraid if I started screaming, I wouldn't be able to stop until every blood vessel in my brain burst open. I was afraid if I started to hit something, I wouldn't be able to stop until it was completely destroyed. I was afraid that I would have to live every single day with heartbreak so intense and overpowering that I would eventually wear myself out from it.

The ninth month after Casey was killed was the absolute most devastating for me. I remembered the first nine months of his existence in my womb all warm and protected. How his dad and I anticipated his birth with so much joy and expectation. In contrast, the first nine months he was in the cold, cold womb of our mother earth were so joyless, painful, dark and dismal. Having your child murdered for lies, mistakes, and betrayals is so dark and dismal: no one should have to endure what we are enduring.

I was able to reassure the mom in agony somewhat that if she could get through about two more months, she would be able to breathe a little and maybe smile a little and even mean it once in awhile.

We who have made the "ultimate sacrifice" know the true cost of war.

92 families found out in October, one of the bloodiest months of this war. Seven of our brave troops were killed today and their families will soon know how much pain the Bush administration's lies will cause them and how much peace, sleep, and joy these same lies cost.

For everyone else, this is the true cost of war:

Moms and Dads having their hearts and souls violently ripped out. Overwhelming guilt is felt in relentless and pounding waves.

Husbands and wives sorrowfully and prematurely burying their life partners. Days and nights ahead filled with loneliness and pain.

Brothers and sisters having integral parts of their history seized so cruelly from them. Holidays, birthdays, and other celebrations that will never be the same.

Sons and daughters unjustly denied the basic human right to grow up with both of their parents.

Other family members and friends mourning and missing someone too young to be killed in an occupation in which the war dead were sold the bill of goods that they would be greeted with chocolates and flowers from the Iraqi people as liberators.

A sovereign nation which was no threat to the United States of America lies in ruins and tens of thousands of its innocent citizens have been slaughtered just for the hell of it.

When are we going to stand up as a country and yell a collective: "bull-shit?!!" I have been screaming this until my voice is getting hoarse and people are getting sick of hearing it.

How much and how many more are we going to allow the serial liars to rob from us?

I say not one more.

Read More...

Here Comes the Judge -- Beyond Roe v. Wade

The Huffington Post

Here Comes the Judge -- Beyond Roe v. Wade
Larry Beinhart

The first question to ask the new nominee to the Supreme Court is: "Will you be an honest judge?"

This is not a question that is normally asked, straight up, to a Supreme Court nominee. But we are asking about something a little more subtle than "would you take a bribe to throw a case?"

In the year 2000 the Supreme Court of the United States stopped the recount of the Florida vote and threw the election to George Bush. This is old news. But judging from the Roberts' hearings and the punditry, the issues have been forgotten. They've faded into the fog.

Ignoring the fact that the man with fewer votes got to be president, what is most notable about the decision was that Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Conner did not vote according to what they believed the law to be. They voted for Bush because they wanted a Republican president.

We can say that because they have a track record and their votes in Bush v. Gore went against their own established principles. If Gore had been ahead and he asked them to stop the recount, on the very same grounds, it is a virtual certainty that those same five judges would have voted the other way.

The justices violated a judicial principle that is even more profound and runs even deeper than the Constitution itself, that the law will be applied fairly.

Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Rehnquist and O'Connor stopped the recount on the grounds that because different counties would use different standards it would violate equal protection.

But that was already true of the original voting. Machines were different, their maintenance levels were different, the way they were set was different, and ballot designs were different. How could a recount -- a closer examination of flaws -- increase the inequality of protection?

To stop something, the court has to find that there will be harm in letting it go forward. That harm has to be greater than any harm created by stopping the procedure. Preferably, the harm should be otherwise irreparable. In this case the court held that Bush would be harmed because the recount would cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election.

Huh?

Presuming he would have still won after the votes were recounted, that would make the vote seem doubly legitimate, not cast doubts on it. If the recount showed that he lost, surely the harm done to Al Gore, to the voters of Florida, and to the people of the United States -- to be governed by a man who lost the election -- would be greater harm than the doubts that exist anyway about George Bush's election.

It was a laughable decision on the face of it.

But that's not what is important in judging the justices. What is important is that these five had always interpreted the equal protection amendment as narrowly as possible. They were also on record as favoring the power of the individual states rather than extending the power of the federal government. This was a reversal of that stance as well.

As to their attitude about harm, these were justices who had refused to stay the executions of prisoners who had cases on appeal, who were then put to death before their cases could be heard. These are judges who did not consider death a harm irreparable enough to issue a stay.

This was not a situation in which they suddenly woke up and changed judicial philosophies, which might be legitimate. They were changing just for this decision and they intended to change back and they even said the decision was, "limited to the present circumstances ..."

The question to ask the new nominee is if he would give a liberal Democrat equal justice to a conservative Republican?

He will automatically say, "Of course."

The next question is, "The other conservative Republican appointees put party interests ahead of principle, how are you different than they are? Tell us how we are to know that you are better than Scalia?"

This is a very different question than "How will you vote on Roe v. Wade?" A fair portion of the American people -- and possibly even a Republican Senator -- might think fair justice and justice with integrity is more important than any single issue.

The next question is, "Do you believe that the Constitution applies to everyone?"

We now have a class of people -- anyone who is named as an "enemy combatant" or a terrorist -- who can be picked up, carted away, kept in confinement and tortured. They have no right to attorney or to face their accuser or to be a trial. This is fairly extreme given that the constitution says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ..."

"... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

After that, we should ask, "Do you believe that everyone is equal before the law or are there people above the law?"

There is a reason this has to be asked. When this administration decided they wanted to torture people they understood that torture is a crime. It is a common crime and it is a crime in a state of war, both in international law and according to the United States code, specifically sections 2340 and 2340A.

Jay Bybee, when he was at the White House with Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, came up with the theory that when the president is wearing his commander-in-chief outfit, he is above the law. The law against torture doesn't apply to him because it would interfere with his "constitutional power to conduct a military campaign." If anyone committed a war crime under his orders, they too would be protected.

We figure that none of us would ever be called a terrorist or an "enemy combatant" and be stripped of our rights. We're too respectable. We assume that the president would never have one of us, personally, tortured, as he is too respectable. So we don't feel immediately threatened. But there is no technical difference between the way Jose Padilla was treated and the way you and I could be treated tomorrow.

Unless we remember that we had a revolution so that we would not have a king. Then we established a democracy. We wrote a constitution. We put in certain guarantees. We declared ourselves to be a nation of laws. In which no man was above the law. Or beneath it.

It is fair to ask if any judicial nominee understands that and agrees with it.

Read More...

Hutchison, DeLay Cases Have Parallels

Hutchison, DeLay Cases Have Parallels

By JIM VERTUNO
Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The same judge, the same prosecutor, the same defense attorney, the same Republican complaints of political payback, and the same courtroom strategy. The case against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is playing out like a rerun of a Lone Star court drama that unfolded in 1993-94.

Back then, it was Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison fighting for her political life against Democratic District Attorney Ronnie Earle. Ultimately, she was acquitted of misconduct charges with the help of defense attorney Dick DeGuerin.

DeLay, another Texas Republican, has hired DeGuerin to defend him as well, and DeGuerin is employing some of the same legal and media tactics that worked last time - accusing the district attorney of misconduct, branding the case a political vendetta and demanding the removal of a Democratic judge for alleged bias.

The parallels between the cases are striking.

"It's like `Twilight Zone.' You're seeing the same pattern," said Brian Berry, a GOP consultant who was Hutchison's campaign manager when she first ran for Senate.

Delay is under indictment on conspiracy and money-laundering charges for allegedly funneling illegal corporate contributions to GOP candidates for the state Legislature. Texas law generally forbids the use of corporate money for campaigning.

Hutchison was charged with using state dollars, employees and computers for personal and campaign purposes when she was Texas treasurer in 1991 to 1993. She was also accused of tampering with state computer records to cover the alleged abuses.

In both cases, Earle brought charges against a prominent Republican after the GOP won a crucial Texas election. Both times, the district attorney was accused of trying to settle political scores.

When she was indicted, Hutchison had just won a Senate seat long held by Democrats, including Lyndon B. Johnson and Lloyd Bentsen. She joined Phil Gramm in the Senate, giving Texas two Republican senators for the first time since Reconstruction.

DeLay reached the highest levels of power in Congress as majority leader after the 2002 election. With his help, the GOP took control of the state Legislature and then pushed through a congressional redistricting plan that sent more Texas Republicans to Congress in 2004.

"Kay changed the face of politics in Texas by becoming the second Republican senator. ... Tom DeLay changed the face of politics by taking over redistricting. It's not coincidence," DeGuerin said.

In both cases, Earle insisted the charges were not politically motivated; he was just doing his job.

In Hutchison's case, DeGuerin got state District Judge Bob Perkins, a Democrat, removed because Perkins had donated to Hutchison's political opponent. DeGuerin also got the trial moved to Fort Worth.

Now, DeGuerin is asking that Perkins be removed from the DeLay case for contributing to John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, the Democratic Party and the liberal group MoveOn.org.

Perkins has been subpoenaed for a hearing on Tuesday to consider the request. On Monday, the judge filed a motion to throw out the subpoenaed. DeGuerin also wants the trial moved out of Austin.

In addition, DeGeurin has accused of Earle misconduct, arguing among other things that Earle shopped the DeLay case around to grand juries until he found one that would indict the congressman.

In Hutchison's case, the defense attorney contended that a raid by prosecutors in which they seized computer and phone records from her state treasurer office was conducted improperly, and that the evidence was inadmissible.

DeLay supporters say they expect his case will end like Hutchison's.

Hutchison was acquitted in 1994 after Earle decided not to go forward with his case. The district attorney cited the judge's refusal to rule on the admissibility of the evidence before trial. Those close to Hutchison say that was just an excuse.

"The case was shoddily conceived," Berry said. "And he lost it."

---

Associated Press writers Kelley Shannon in Austin and Suzanne Gamboa in Washington contributed to this report.

Read More...

W.House plays down shake-up calls after indictment

Reuters

W.House plays down shake-up calls after indictment

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Monday played down calls for a staff shake-up after the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, Lewis Libby, who will make his first court appearance this week on criminal charges stemming from a CIA-leak probe.

At his arraignment on Thursday, Libby, Cheney's longtime chief of staff, is expected to plead innocent to charges of obstructing justice, perjury and making false statements.

Top White House aide Karl Rove, who remains under investigation in the probe, received a word of confidence from the White House amid Democratic calls for his resignation.

"He continues to do his duties," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of Rove, Bush's top political adviser and deputy chief of staff. When asked if Bush retained confidence in Rove, McClellan said: "People who work here at the White House have the confidence of the president."

Members of both parties have urged Bush to shake up his White House staff.

"There's no discussion of staff changes beyond the usual vacancies that occur, or beyond filling the vacancy that the vice president did," McClellan said. But he added: "It's always the president's prerogative to choose the team that best meets his needs for advancing his agenda."

Cheney on Monday named vice presidential counsel David Addington as his new chief of staff and John Hannah as his national security adviser. Libby held both positions before his indictment and resignation on Friday.

A brief conversation between Addington and Libby in July 2003 is cited as evidence in the indictment.

Libby is the only Cheney aide who has been charged in the two-year probe into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

But Cheney and others in the vice president's office, including Addington, talked with Libby about Plame's job and press strategy, the indictment alleges.

At Libby's arraignment, scheduled at 10:30 a.m. (1530 GMT) on Thursday, federal Judge Reggie Walton could set a schedule for the filing of motions and possibly a trial date.

Libby, who faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison if convicted, has promised a vigorous defense.

Libby is expected to argue that any misinformation he gave investigators or the grand jury was due to memory lapses rather than intentional lies, according to Libby's lawyer and other attorneys involved in the case.

DAMAGING BLOW

Libby's indictment was a damaging blow to the White House, already reeling from the mounting U.S. death toll in Iraq, the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina and the withdrawal of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Plame's identity was leaked to the media in July 2003 after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to support action against Iraq. Wilson called the leak a ploy to erode his credibility.

A public trial could expose the role played by Cheney's secretive office in the leak case, which has put a spotlight on how the administration sold the nation on the war in Iraq and aggressively countered its critics.

Lawyers involved in the case said Cheney himself and other top White House officials named in the indictment could be called as witnesses.

According to the indictment, Libby learned from Cheney himself that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA's counterproliferation division.

Addington is referred to in the indictment only as "Counsel to the Vice President." It says Libby met with Addington on July 8, 2003 and discussed "what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip."

Wilson took a CIA-sponsored mission to Africa in 2002 to check out a claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger. He says Cheney's office sought to discredit Wilson and his findings by suggesting the trip was arranged by his wife at the CIA.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Steve Holland)

Read More...

Monday, October 31, 2005

IRAQ: Two Years Later, U.S. Still Can't Keep the Lights On

ipsnews.net
IRAQ: Two Years Later, U.S. Still Can't Keep the Lights On

Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - The reconstruction of Iraq is failing rapidly despite repeated claims of progress by the George W. Bush administration, according to a number of U.S. officials and reports released here this week.

Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman issued a report that found reconstruction efforts in the occupied Arab country have consistently fallen short of the objectives set by the administration two years ago.

This view was echoed by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, in a congressional hearing Thursday.

Bowen, whose office issued several reports and audits in the past about Iraq, said that the security situation is sapping money and energy out of the reconstruction effort and that much less money than originally envisioned will be spent on Iraqi projects..

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog agency, about 30 billion dollars was authorised through August 2005 to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and train and equip its security forces. But Bowen said Washington will have to be more realistic about what can actually be spent of that amount.

"We are going to provide something less than that," Bowen said pointing to a significant gap between the original plans and what is being achieved on the ground in Iraq.

The GAO itself says that only 13 billion dollars of the 30 billion dollars were actually disbursed so far.

"The existence of this gap may subject the U.S. to criticism for not fulfilling what was perceived as a promised number of projects," Bowen said.

The Waxman report assesses reconstruction work in three key sectors of the Iraqi economy -- oil, electricity and water. It found that the administration's actual results on the ground are far less than what is publicised.

"Oil production remains below pre-war levels, electricity production is unreliable and well below the goal of 6,000 megawatts of peak electricity output, and a third of Iraqis still lack access to potable water," says the report. "Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent, but there is little to show for the expenditures in Iraq."

When the Bush administration asked Congress to appropriate over 20 billion dollars for reconstruction efforts in 2003, it promised to use the money to provide clean drinking water to 90 percent of Iraqis, boost power production significantly above pre-war levels, and restore oil production to pre-war levels.

But oversight agencies like the GAO and Inspectors General (IGs) have published more than 80 reports on Iraq reconstruction and other aspects of U.S. support for post-war Iraq, many of them critical.

This week, the GAO said that even in the case of completed projects, the Washington-backed Iraqi government has been unable to sustain rebuilt infrastructure due to shortages of power, trained staff and supplies.

As of July, water and sanitation projects worth 52 million dollars either were not operating or were operating at low capacity due to these problems, GAO said.

Rep. Christopher Shays, chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security in the U.S. House of Representatives, said that congress is witnessing a rise in the cost of projects even though many of them have not been completed.

"Electric and water projects are being scaled back, while estimates of the costs to complete the same projects continue to escalate," Shays said.

The difficult security situation in Iraq and the rising Iraqi resistance have been cited as the main reasons for the slow progress in the reconstruction efforts. Billions of dollars have been diverted away from rebuilding projects in order to pay private security contractors and to train and equip Iraqi forces more rapidly.

Initial estimates of security costs have nearly tripled from less than 10 percent of total project expenses to almost 30 percent.

A number of U.S. legislators who previously backed the war are now criticising the slow pace of progress in Iraq and have questioned whether it is fueling further discontent among Iraqis and providing more recruits to the Iraqi resistance.

The GAO says that initial estimates of Iraq's needs assumed that reconstruction would take place in a peacetime environment, and therefore did not include additional security costs.

Some of the official reports say that U.S. goals are not being achieved due to poor planning, lack of accurate costs estimates and operational constraints on top of the extra costs imposed by the lack of security.

Waxman also criticised what he called the administration's "flawed contracting approach".

He said that instead of encouraging competition, the administration awarded large no-bid contracts to favoured companies like Halliburton. Then it handed over major oversight responsibilities to private contractors with potential conflicts of interest.

Joseph Christoff of the GAO faulted the initial assessments of the state of Iraq's infrastructure, saying it was more severely degraded than originally estimated, and that widespread looting and sabotage compounded the problem.

But it appears that many U.S. politicians are finally taking note of the slow progress in the reconstruction effort and the political price-tag it may carry both at home and in Iraq.

"That cycle of rosy estimates and stunted outcomes exacts high political costs as well," Shays said. "Limited visible progress in improving basic services frustrates Iraqis, who wonder why a liberating coalition that conquered their nation in less than two months can't keep the lights lit after two years." (END/2005)

Read More...

Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito's America

progressreport.org
SUPREME COURT
Samuel Alito's America

The right wing demanded the withdrawal of Harriet Miers so she could be
replaced with a judge who met their rigid, ideological litmus test.
This morning, the conservatives got what they wanted. President Bush will
nominate Third Circuite Appeal Court Judge Samuel Alito as the
replacement for swing-voter Sandra Day O'Connor. (In contrast, John Roberts
replaced the very conservative William Rehnquist.) On NBC's Today Show,
law professor Jonathan Turley said there "will be no one to the right of
Sam Alito" on the Supreme Court. Alito's record supports Turley's view.
His history of right-wing judicial activism will be a key issue during
his hearings.

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting
the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania
legislature in the late 1980s. Alito went further, however, saying the
majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their
spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected
Alito's view and also voted to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a
decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been
discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito
would have protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing] an employer from
the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected
the 'best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias." [Bray v.
Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v.
Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving
disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito's dissent was so
restrictive that "few if any.cases would survive summary judgment."
Summary judgment allows a case to be dismissed before it goes to trial.
[Nathanson v.Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of
unpaid leave to care for a loved one." The 2003 Supreme Court ruling
upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000
decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the
law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development,
2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito
argued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when
they strip-searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying
out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his
home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation
of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito's disregard of settled
law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito's dissent
"guts the statutory standard" and "ignores our precedent." In Ki Se Lee
v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito's opinion contradicted
"well-recognized rules of statutory construction." [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se
Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]

Read More...

ETHICS: Time To Get Out The Broom

progressreport.org
ETHICS: Time To Get Out The Broom

On Friday, Scooter Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney and
assistant to President Bush, was indicted for one count of obstruction
of justice, two counts of perjury, and two counts of making false
statements. Conservative David Brooks argued this was proof that "there is no
cancer on this presidency" and that people who suggested that the
problems ran deeper were "compulsively overheated." The White House and its
conservative allies need to take the law seriously. American Progress
CEO John Podesta said, "We now know that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald
believes that crimes were committed in an effort to cover up the White
House's involvement in the outing of an undercover CIA officer. ... It's
time to get out the broom at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and clean house."

BUSH PROMISED TO FIRE ANYONE INVOLVED: Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid noted this weekend, "The president said anyone involved would be
gone." Now, "we now know that Official A is Karl Rove. He's still around.
He should be let go." But if Bush sticks to his word, Rove is just the
beginning. Podesta added, "we know that senior Presidential aides
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and White House Press Secretary
Scott McClellan were either complicit in the leak and the cover up, or
grossly negligent in their duties." Also, "Chief of Staff, Andrew Card has
presided over a White House staff that is guilty of a disservice to the
President and the country," and should also resign.

LIBBY OBSTRUCTED PROSECUTION OF UNDERLYING CRIME: The right attempted
to diminish the importance of Libby's indictment by emphasizing that he
was not charged with the underlying crime of outing a CIA agent. On Fox
News Sunday, Brit Hume said Libby was "accused of telling lies that he
apparently didn't need to tell about a crime he didn't commit." Here's
what they don't tell you: Libby's obstruction of the investigation
prevented prosecutors from charging anyone with the outing Valerie Plame.
Statutes like the Intelligence Identities Protection Act require the
prosecutor to prove intent. In his press conference Fitzgerald noted, "As
you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't
tell you; we haven't charged it. ... The harm in an obstruction
investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make."

CHENEY NEEDS TO EXPLAIN OR RESIGN:

A central character in the Libby indictment is Vice President Cheney. According to the indictment, Libby was "advised by" Cheney that "Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison." (Josh Marshall
explains, "The Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's
Directorate of Operations, i.e., not the Directorate of Intelligence, the
branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but the DO, where the
spies, the 'operatives', come from," so Cheney and Libby knew that Plame
was covert.) On a July 12, 2003, flight from Norfolk, VA, Libby discussed
with Cheney and other officials "what Libby should say in response to
certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter
Matthew Cooper." Libby later covered for Cheney, telling investigators
that the source for his information was "a reporter rather than the
Vice-President." Columinst Nick Kristof says, "If Mr. Cheney can't address
the questions about his conduct, if he can't be forthcoming about the
activities in his office that gave rise to the investigation, then he
should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr. Bush should demand his
resignation."

INDICTMENT REVEALED WIDE-RANGING SMEAR CAMPAIGN: The Libby indictment
provided details of an extensive smear campaign against Joe Wilson.
Libby discussed how to discredit Wilson with Vice President Cheney, Karl
Rove, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, Ari Fleisher, and multiple
officials aboard the Vice President's plane. He also discussed Valerie
Wilson with multiple reporters including Matt Cooper and Judy Miller.
On Fox News, Kristol sarcastically argued that there wasn't a smear
campaign because "that's really an effective smear, not to bring it up with
Tim Russert." Of course, the content Libby's conversation with Russert
was invented by Libby to obstruct the investigation. It wasn't part of
the smear campaign, it was the red herring.

ROVE NOT OFF THE HOOK YET: Rove remains under investigation. But you
wouldn't know it from watching Fox News. Bill Kristol said, "Patrick
Fitzgerald investigated a crime, and there was one crime he discovered. ...
No conspiracy. No multiple indictments." Kristol and others are jumping
the gun. The Washington Post reports, "Two legal sources intimately
familiar with Fitzgerald's tactics in this inquiry said they believe Rove
remains in significant danger. They described Fitzgerald as being
relentlessly thorough but also conservative throughout this prosecution --
and his willingness to consider Rove's eleventh-hour pleading of a
memory lapse is merely a sign of Fitzgerald's caution."

Read More...

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Dear Mr. President-

Read More...

"We found the yellowcake"

Read More...

Foreign Policy Goals

Read More...

When "no" is an eloquent word

Read More...

Blind Justice

Read More...

What Halloween Decorations?

Read More...

Good News, Bad News

Read More...

Night of the Living Indictments

Read More...

Recused

Read More...

White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned

washingtonpost.com
White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned
55% in Survey Say Libby Case Signals Broader Problems

By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers

A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey.

The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an "isolated incident." And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.

In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.

The survey also found that nearly seven in 10 Americans consider the charges against Libby to be serious. A majority -- 55 percent -- said the decision of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to bring charges against Libby was based on the facts of the case, while 30 percent said he was motivated by partisan politics.

"One thing you can't ever, ever do even if you're a regular person is lie to a grand jury," said Brad Morris, 48, a registered independent and a field representative for a lumber company who lives in Nashua, N.H. "But multiply that by a thousand times if you have power like [Libby had]. And if anybody wants to know why, ask Scooter. He's financially ruined; he'll be paying lawyers for the rest of his life."

Taken together, the findings represent a serious blow to a White House already reeling from the politically damaging effects of the slow government response to Hurricane Katrina, the continuing bloodshed in Iraq, the ongoing criticism of its since-repudiated claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the bungled nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

The ethics findings may be particularly upsetting to a president who came to office in 2000 vowing to restore integrity and honor to a White House that he said had been tainted by the recurring scandals of the Clinton years.

On Friday, a federal grand jury in Washington indicted Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, on two counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice in the course of Fitzgerald's investigation into the disclosure of the name of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporters. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, has accused the Bush administration of going to war in Iraq based on intelligence officials knew was untrue.

The survey of 600 randomly selected Americans represents a snapshot of initial reactions to the Libby indictment. Those views could quickly change as the public learns more about the charges and as Republicans and Democrats mount competing campaigns to shape public attitudes. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus four percentage points.

Those campaigns may play an influential role in the public's final conclusions about the leak investigation. In the 24 hours after Fitzgerald's news conference, the survey and follow-up interviews found many Americans confused as to what, if anything, to make of the complicated indictment.

Ellen Mulligan, 34, a Republican and part-time art teacher who lives in Hamden, Conn., was one of these. "If I understood what happened, Vice President Cheney's adviser spoke to his wife and then she leaked the secret," Mulligan said.

That is not an allegation in the indictment, but though Mulligan may not know exactly what happened, the scandal for her is both typical Washington and part of a broader pattern of ethical challenges in this administration. "My actual opinion is more, 'Here we go again.' Every administration has their secrets and has some corruption," she said. But she is disappointed with Bush on the ethics front. "I think Bush's actions in certain situations are pretty much unethical, [though] not illegal. . . . He's definitely not his father. His father seemed more wholesome, more down-to-earth."

The survey found some areas of general agreement. Most Republicans, 57 percent, said that the obstruction of justice and perjury charges are serious, compared with 81 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents.

But once past the specifics of the charges against Libby, Republicans and Democrats differed dramatically. While a large majority of Democrats (76 percent) said the case is a sign of broader ethical problems in the administration, an equally large majority of Republicans (69 percent) said it was an isolated matter. Most Republicans continued to give Bush high marks for his handling of ethics in government, while Democrats overwhelmingly graded him poorly.

The survey also suggests the emergence of an appealing fresh face in public life: special prosecutor Fitzgerald. Fifty-five percent said Fitzgerald brought the charges against Libby based on the facts of the case and not for partisan political reasons. Less than a third -- 30 percent -- said Fitzgerald was politically motivated.

"I was very impressed by him," said Dorothy Harper, 56, an immigration lawyer and a St. Louis Democrat, who watched portions of Fitzgerald's news conference. "He was very impressive. He obviously knew what he was doing."

Many Americans believe that others may be involved in the disclosure of Plame's identity to the news media. Nearly half -- 47 percent -- believe that senior White House adviser Karl Rove did something wrong in connection with the case, including nearly a fifth who believe that Rove acted illegally.

On Friday, Rove was not indicted, though Fitzgerald's investigation is continuing.

A smaller but still significant proportion -- 41 percent -- believe Cheney did something wrong, while 44 percent believe he did not.

Most Americans believe Bush had nothing to do with the incidents that resulted in the indictment brought against Libby: 55 percent said the president was not at fault, while 12 percent said he probably did something illegal, and 21 percent said he did something "unethical but not illegal."

Read More...

The week Bush got whacked

timesonline.co.uk
The Sunday Times
Focus: The week Bush got whacked

His second term was already floundering when, on Friday, a top aide was charged with perjury. Sarah Baxter, in Washington, reports on a bad few days for the president

Nerves were jangling at the White House last week. President George W Bush, never the easiest character to work for, was growing tetchy and was lashing out at junior staff. When he was re-elected last November he said that he had political capital and was going to spend it. A year later the coffers of goodwill and trust were near-empty and he was angry.

"This is not some manager at McDonald’s chewing out the staff," said one source. "This is the president of the United States and it is not a pretty sight."

Bush’s mood had already soured during Hurricane Katrina, when he was accused of being indifferent to the misery of New Orleans. It darkened further when Harriet Miers, his White House legal adviser and nominee for the Supreme Court, was scorned by his own conservative supporters as a hapless crony, forcing her to withdraw her candidature last week.

"Why wouldn’t he be irritable?" said Bill Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard. Everything for Bush had gone from bad to worse and, as fate would have it, the number of American deaths in Iraq passed 2,000 on Tuesday, promoting yet another media blitz on his performance in that country.

"He is like the lion in winter," said an ally. "He’s frustrated. He remains quite confident in the decisions he has made, but this is a guy who wanted to do big things in his second term. Given his nature, there is no way he would be happy about the way things have gone."

Things were about to get worse. Having promised to restore "dignity" to the White House after the bimbo eruptions of the Clinton era, on Friday Bush became the first American president in more than 30 years to see one of his most senior aides indicted on criminal charges.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, right-hand man to Dick Cheney — the most powerful vice-president in American history — was charged on five counts of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice.

Patrick Fitzgerald, an apparently fearless and politically independent prosecutor who had earned his spurs taking down Chicago mobsters, had brought the indictment which concerned the unmasking of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative.

Her outing by an as yet unnamed White House official came only months after her husband, a former US ambassador, had embarrassed Bush, Cheney and Libby by accusing them of misrepresenting the intelligence case of the war on Iraq.

After Fitzgerald had served his indictment on Friday, Libby immediately resigned and now has to report to the FBI for arrest and fingerprinting. If convicted, he faces up to 30 years in jail and a fine of up to $1.25m. So much, then, for dignity.

At first glance the Libby affair is a confusing — almost academic — tale of internecine Washington politics with little obvious explosive potential. Yet it is one that has struck at the core of one of Bush’s proudest and most controversial achievements: the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Worse, perhaps, so far as middle America is concerned, it raises a question mark over the one thing that the Bush administration has always been strongest on — its apparently unwavering sense of patriotism.

THE story dates back to the early years of Bush’s presidency and the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. Cheney and Libby were at the vanguard of the hardcore group of "neocon" advisers who believed that Saddam’s regime in Iraq should be toppled in the wake of the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The two men, who were called the "commissars" behind their backs, became obsessed with rooting out evidence that Saddam was still seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In regular meetings with the CIA they would press officials to turn over every scrap of evidence that came their way relating to Iraq.

In February 2002, Cheney was given a CIA briefing which mentioned the curious case of Saddam’s attempted purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger — a crucial ingredient in any nuclear programme. What more could the agency tell him, Cheney demanded.

When vice-presidents bark, officials jump to it and in this case the CIA quickly dispatched Joseph Wilson, a one-time Californian surf dude and diplomat in Baghdad at the time of the first Gulf war, to Niger to find out more. But far from confirming a plot to buy uranium, Wilson reported after an eight-day trip that the allegations were bogus.

The CIA, it seems, did not report this bad news directly back to the vice-president. Cheney claims that he was never told about Wilson’s departure, nor his findings.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the vice-president might well have dismissed Wilson’s report in any event as he had long regarded the CIA with suspicion. He had first clashed with the agency when he was defence secretary under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Then he had accused its risk-averse bureaucrats of failing to foresee the break-up of the Soviet Union.

He also felt that it had not prepared adequately for the possible use of biological weapons by Saddam in the first Gulf war, when Scud missiles were launched at Israel. After the September 11 attacks, the CIA was once again in the doghouse for missing the signs that Al-Qaeda was preparing to crash planes into New York and Washington.

As the build-up to the war in Iraq grew nearer, Cheney and Libby effectively cut the CIA out of the loop, forming their own "Iraq monitoring group" with Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz (Libby’s original mentor) and Douglas Feith, another hawkish defence official. Together they built the case for the invasion and overthrow of Saddam.

For nearly a year Wilson kept quiet about his mission but then — in January 2003 — came the president’s state of the union address and the 16 words that drove the proud, some say vain, man to distraction.

"The British government has learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," the president told the nation and the world.

Not surprisingly perhaps, Wilson felt ignored and started talking quietly to the press about his mission of a year earlier. His frustration turned to outright anger several months later when Condoleezza Rice asserted on television that no senior person in the administration had been told that the documents relating to Saddam’s alleged uranium purchase were forged. "Maybe somebody in the bowels of the agency knew something about this," she said airily, "but nobody in my circles."

Wilson went ballistic and public. In an article in The New York Times in July 2003, he publicly accused the Bush government of "misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war".

As for Rice, "She was saying, ‘F*** you Washington, we don’t care’. Or rather, ‘F*** you, America’," Wilson later added.

Precisely what happened next within the administration is still the subject of conjecture and criminal investigation. What is in no doubt, however, is that the occupation of Plame, Wilson’s wife, was leaked to the press and her identity as an undercover operative in the counter-proliferation division of the CIA was blown.

The story was broken by Robert Novak, the right-wing columnist, and was widely seen as an attempt to discredit Wilson and rubbish his story. By linking him so closely with the CIA, critics said, the Bush administration was letting people know that he was just another tool of a discredited agency that had long been at loggerheads with Cheney and his neocon advisers.

In Wilson’s eyes it was a straightforward case of revenge by the government. It is a criminal offence in America for an official knowingly to leak the identity of an undercover operative. Wilson — with the backing of his wife and the CIA — demanded that a full criminal investigation be launched to establish who in the administration had leaked Plame’s occupation.

It was Fitzgerald, the 44- year-old prosecutor at the heart of the leak inquiry, who was brought in to sift through the evidence of wrongdoing. It should have been immediately obvious to Cheney and friends that the White House could not simply bluff its way out of trouble.

The clean-cut, bright-eyed prosecutor has the incorruptible air of Kevin Costner in the film The Untouchables, based on lawman Eliot Ness’s account of how he brought down Al Capone, Chicago’s most notorious gangster in the 1930s.

Fittingly, Fitzgerald also lives in Chicago where he runs the justice department. He, too, has had run-ins with the mob and secured the convictions of members of the Gambino crime family as well as terrorists such as Omar Abdul Rahman.

Fitzgerald launched his inquiry by demanding the names of all the reporters whom Libby and other senior White House officials had talked to. It was Novak who broke the story but last summer Fitzgerald was ruthless enough to send Judith Miller, a controversial Pulitzer prizewinning reporter for The New York Times, to prison for 85 days until she agreed to reveal the source of her information on the matter.

The fact that Miller never wrote the story — which turned out to have been supplied to her by Libby — did not spare her from incarceration. "If you’re not zealous, you shouldn’t have the job," Fitzgerald once said of his own role in the investigation.

The White House has tried to fight back. Wilson and his wife, insiders like to point out, are no clear-cut heroes. In Washington circles, they say, Wilson was known to introduce Plame proudly at parties as "my CIA wife" and thus could be said to have broken her cover himself.

Unfortunately for the White House, there is no rule against whistleblowers being vain and self-important. Unlike the right, which has eagerly dissected Wilson’s character and motives, Fitzgerald has shown no interest in his alleged defects.

Early on in the inquiry, one White House ally also took a swipe at Fitzgerald himself: "He’s a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he has been tapped by God to do very important things."

That line of attack, too, was dropped — and not only because Bush’s opponents say much the same thing about the president. Fitzgerald, the workaholic, Harvard-educated son of an Irish immigrant New York doorman, is transparently honest and for many Americans represents what is best about their upwardly mobile nation.


YET when Fitzgerald finally served his indictment last week there was no charge levelled for the actual crime of blowing Plame’s identity. Instead Libby was charged with lying. In short he was charged not with the crime but with the cover-up.

Fitzgerald made it plain that he believed that the charges were serious. "When citizens testify before grand juries they are required to tell the truth," he said. "In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer’s testimony, it is especially important."

For a moment it was as if the prosecutor rather than the president was standing up for the integrity of the nation and behaving as a patriot.

Moreover, Fitzgerald made it clear that his inquiry was not yet over. His indictment reveals that it was not Libby — but a mysterious "Official A" — who gave Plame’s name to Novak. Libby, it transpired, had passed it to three other journalists, including Miller who had failed to make use of the information in print.

Official A is widely believed to be Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser and a man widely known as "Bush’s brain". Experts now believe that Fitzgerald, having charged Libby, could push him to expose Rove’s role in exchange for a more lenient sentence. That, say some, could open the door to Cheney being charged.

If Libby comes to trial, Cheney is bound to have to take the stand as a witness. At the very least he will have to answer embarrassing questions about why he let Libby claim throughout the 22- month inquiry that he learnt of Plame’s identity only through reporters when Cheney himself had told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA.

Whatever the deal, Libby now finds himself, at 55, facing serious jail time.

The Democrats, meanwhile, can hardly believe their luck. "This is going to consume the rest of the Bush presidency," said Paul Begala, a former adviser to Bill Clinton.

Wilson has certainly got his own back for the perceived smears against him and his wife. "When an indictment is delivered to the front door of the White House, the office of the president is defiled," Wilson said on Friday.

For defenders of the president, the fact that it is only Libby and not Rove who was charged is important. In Kristol’s view, the charges are "a personal blow for Libby and embarrassing for the White House" but they are focused on only one person: "It’s not so bad for Bush. There was no conspiracy, which limits the damage."

Indeed, Washington conservatives were far less despondent this weekend than might have been expected. Buoyed up by their success in getting Miers to withdraw her nomination for the Supreme Court, many talk as if Bush now has a unprecedented opportunity to move forward.

"We have reached the bottom of the Bush bear market," said Kristol emphatically. Others note that there are still three years to go before the next election.

There are signs that the economy is improving and Ben Bernanke, Bush’s nominee for the chairman of the Federal Reserve last week, has been widely praised.

"What they’ve decided to do is have the world’s worst Thursday and Friday, see if they can get through the weekend and start all over again on Monday," said Byron York, a conservative commentator.

It could work if the public has a short-term memory

Cast list of the CIA scandal

DICK CHENEY

The combative Cheney saw Iraq as a serious threat after 9/11. Learning of documents purporting to show that Iraq was trying to buy uranium “yellow cake” —- a potential ingredient for nuclear weapons — from Niger, he ordered further investigations. He pressed CIA analysts sceptical about Iraq having WMD.

JOSEPH WILSON

Former US ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA to authenticate the claims. He found no evidence and was dismayed when President Bush referred to the claims in a 2003 speech. To the fury of Cheney’s office, Wilson told journalists that the White House had “twisted” evidence on Iraq’s WMD.

VALERIE PLAME

Wilson’s wife, she was a covert CIA operative and WMD expert. According to allegations this week, her identity became known among senior White House figures after Wilson criticised the administration. Her CIA links were revealed by a right-wing newspaper columnist with White House connections. Whoever first “outed” her committed a serious offence.

PATRICK FITZGERALD

A tough prosecutor, Fitzgerald launched an investigation into the Plame leak. He examined the roles of senior White House staff, including Karl Rove, the political adviser known as “Bush’s brain”. Last week Fitzgerald left open the possibility of further investigations into Rove, but did not indict him.

LEWIS ‘SCOOTER’ LIBBY

Arch neoconservative Libby has resigned as Cheney’s chief of staff. Last week he was indicted by Fitzgerald. Although not directly accused of leaking Plame’s name, he was charged with obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI and committing perjury before a grand jury. Libby denies the charges.

The second term curse has hit every two-term president since the second world war. Recent victims include:

Bill Clinton
On January 26, 1998, he denied on national television having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Found to have lied, he was impeached although the Senate did not convict him.

Ronald Reagan
Cursed by the Iran-Contra affair, in which missiles were sold to Iran and Tehran’s money illegally funded Contras fighting Nicaragua’s socialist government.

Richard Nixon
Brought down by Watergate scandal and on August 8, 1974, announced his resignation.

Lyndon Johnson
Despite earnest pledges, in the first year of his second term American troop numbers in Vietnam rose from 15,000 to 200,000.

Dwight Eisenhower
In 1960 he denied Gary Powers’s spy plane had been shot down in Soviet air space. After Powers was jailed in Russia, Eisenhower then denied he had authorised the mission.

Read More...

White House Portrays Libby, Accused of Lying in Leak Probe, as Dedicated Worker With Bad Memory

White House Portrays Libby, Accused of Lying in Leak Probe, as Dedicated Worker With Bad Memory

By LARRY MARGASAK and PETE YOST
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The prosecution's conclusion: Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff zealously pursued information about a critic who said the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to make the case for war. The view of the president and vice president: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is a dedicated public servant who has worked tirelessly on behalf of his country.

Is Libby an influential White House adviser who lied? Or is he a man with a hectic schedule who happens to remember events differently from the reporters and administration figures who will eventually be called to testify against him?

"As lawyers, we recognize that a person's recollection and memory of events will not always match those of other people, particularly when they are asked to testify months after the events occurred," Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, said in a statement.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald drew his detailed portrait of Libby based on a two-year investigation that pulled dozens of witnesses in for questioning, including President Bush and Cheney.

Libby, the indictment against him concludes, received information from Cheney, the State Department and the CIA about covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose husband was attacking an administration unable to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Libby then spread the information to reporters and later concocted a story that his information had come from reporters, the indictment says.

The other portrait of Libby, the favorable version, shows a deeply committed conservative who has been a player on the Washington scene since the early days of the Reagan administration.

Libby left the White House for the last time Friday, departing after seeing some of the ideas he and others championed become administration policy.

In 1992, Libby and former Pentagon deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote a paper favoring the use of pre-emptive force to prevent countries from developing weapons of mass destruction. The paper later won praise from the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, which called it "a blueprint for maintaining U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival."

Notwithstanding Fitzgerald's insistence Friday that the criminal case is not about Iraq, he probably will seek to cast Libby as an architect of the U.S.-led invasion, said Scott Fredericksen, a former prosecutor who now represents white-collar defendants.

The prosecution will call Libby "a very bright guy at the highest levels of government with motivation to prevent Fitzgerald and the grand jury from learning the true source" of Libby's information about administration critic Joseph Wilson.

After the indictment, Cheney issued words of praise in Washington but made no mention of his departing chief of staff on a trip later in the day to Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. Cheney's speech to base personnel was on terrorism, the topic that, along with Iraq, has consumed his and Libby's time and energy.

"This is nothing new for a White House having to counter its critics, particularly when the administration believes the criticism to be false," said Washington lawyer Michael Madigan, a former Republican counsel in the Senate investigation of Clinton-era campaign fund-raising abuses. "The trouble the White House encountered in this case is that some of the information was classified."

If he were representing Libby, lawyer David Schertler said he would present character witnesses to testify about Libby's dedication to public service.

"This guy, every day, deals with some of the most important issues facing the American people," said Schertler, a former federal prosecutor. "You're asking him to recollect conversations, some fairly short, and he's giving his best recollections. Maybe he didn't remember correctly, but he didn't have the intent to deceive the special prosecutor or grand jury."

Fitzgerald's probe initially sought to determine whether anyone in the administration violated the law by knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert CIA employee.

"You didn't have that, so why did you charge him?" Schertler suggested Libby's defense would assert.

Fitzgerald spent 22 months on the investigation at a cost of more than $1 million. In the end, Libby was charged with five felonies alleging obstruction of justice, perjury to a grand jury and making false statements to FBI agents. If convicted, he could face a maximum of 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines.

The starting point was Bush's claim in his State of the Union address in January 2003 that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire uranium from the African nation of Niger as part of an effort to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Bush took the country to war with Iraq in March 2003, saying Saddam's banned weapons program threatened the U.S. When no such weapons turned up, the administration was put on the defensive.

Wilson, a former ambassador, had gone to Niger in 2002 for the CIA to investigate the uranium claim. He found no evidence to back up an allegation of a sales agreement between Iraq and Niger. Wilson's wife, Plame, was the covert CIA officer whose name was leaked in July 2003 as the debate about the war heated up.

The indictment alleges Libby had information from at least seven government officials, including the vice president, about Plame and her CIA status. Libby said he heard it first from reporters. The indictment said Libby spread the information to the media.

Fitzgerald summed up the charges:

"At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true. It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterward, under oath and repeatedly."

Libby's case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, nominated by Bush in 2001.

Read More...

Moving on After 2004, John Edwards Lays Groundwork for Possible Presidential Bid in 2008

Moving on After 2004, John Edwards Lays Groundwork for Possible Presidential Bid in 2008

By GLEN JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) -- John Edwards came downstairs and found 5-year-old son Jack on the floor, arranging toy trucks in a column. "What are you doing?" the former North Carolina senator asked. "Making a motorcade," came the exuberant reply.

A year after Democrats John Kerry and Edwards lost the White House election, young Jack still may think about the heady days of last fall. His father, however, has moved on - without a Secret Service escort.

-He is traveling the country, trying to rally college students to the cause of fighting poverty in the U.S.

-He is presiding over a new poverty center at the University of North Carolina.

-He is laying the groundwork for a possible return to the political spotlight as a presidential candidate in 2008.

A little bit of all three was on his mind when he made a stop at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

"I'm in a very forward-looking, positive state of mind," said Edwards, while hundreds of students began to assemble in a nearby common. "I mean, being able to take on a big cause in a really serious way is an extraordinary thing."

A year ago Tuesday, Edwards and Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, were in Boston, awaiting the general election results. There was uncertainty about the outcome, especially in Ohio. At 2 a.m., Kerry sent his running mate to address the waning crowd in Copley Square.

"John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that in this election, every vote would count and every vote would be counted," Edwards said. "Tonight, we are keeping our word and we will fight for every vote."

Hours later, the senators agreed the cause was lost and conceded defeat. Almost simultaneously, Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

Two months later, Edwards surrendered his Senate seat.

Today, Elizabeth Edwards has successfully completed her cancer treatments and is regaining her strength. The couple sold their Washington town house and built a new home in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Edwards is focused on poverty, a theme that emerged from his childhood as a son of a mill worker. It was the basis for his stump speech about the "two Americas" he saw emerging as the wealthy pulled away from the less fortunate.

"When I saw up close what was happening to them, honestly I remember thinking to myself, man, given my personal background, without a little luck, I could be in the same place a lot of these people are," Edwards said.

Hurricane Katrina, he believes, opened the rest of the country's eyes to the plight of the hidden poor in places such as Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

"The hard question is will that window of opportunity stay open or will it close?" Edwards said. "I think whether it stays open depends on whether we have people like these college students who take it on as a cause."

Altruism aside, the poverty work also provides Edwards a platform to maintain his political viability.

He spoke this year at the annual steak fry organized by Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin in first caucus state Iowa.

Also, Edwards has avoided making the pledge that Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., made after he and presidential nominee Al Gore lost the 2000 race to Republicans George W. Bush and Dick Cheney: Edwards refuses to declare that he will forgo his own White House bid in 2008 if Kerry decides to run again.

There is a simmering rivalry between the two, ignited by Edwards' postelection remarks in which he said he had unsuccessfully urged Kerry to fight back after the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the summer of 2004 challenged Kerry's Vietnam record.

Just last month, Edwards and Kerry competed for media attention on the same day as they delivered dueling speeches decrying the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.

Last week, when Edwards came to Massachusetts, he made a special point to call Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and tell him he was in the state. No such call was made to Kerry, although Edwards said the two are friends and still talk regularly.

"This is my cause now," Edwards declared, dismissing the political talk for another day. "This is what I'm spending my energy and life blood on, and if I can do something serious, I'll be very happy with what I've spent my life on."

Read More...

Gay Rights, Teen Abortion Among Issues Facing Voters in Ballot Measures Throughout Seven States

Gay Rights, Teen Abortion Among Issues Facing Voters in Ballot Measures Throughout Seven States

By DAVID CRARY
AP National Writer

Gay rights, teen abortion, Arnold Schwarzenegger's prestige. These and other volatile topics are adding spice to off-year elections in seven states where voters will be considering statewide ballot measures on Nov. 8.

As is often the case, California has the most intriguing mix of propositions - including four backed by Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor, to curb the power of the Democratic-controlled Legislature and the state's public employee unions. Another measure, notable in a state with liberal leanings, would require parents to be notified when a minor seeks an abortion.

Texas voters are expected to approve a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriages - a step already taken in 18 other states. In Maine, a conservative alliance is urging voters to quash a new law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In Republican-controlled Ohio, site of bitter wrangling in the 2004 presidential election, four election overhaul measures backed by Democratic-leaning groups are on the ballot. Voters will be asked if bipartisan boards, instead of elected officials, should draw lawmakers' districts and oversee elections; whether campaign contribution limits should be lowered; and whether all voters should be allowed to vote early by mail.

Doctors and lawyers in Washington state are spending heavily to support rival measures dealing with medical malpractice. The one backed by doctors would place a cap on certain types of jury awards and limit lawyers' fees. The lawyers' proposal would create a state-run supplemental malpractice insurance program, and allow doctors' licenses to be revoked after three malpractice verdicts against them within 10 years.

Other measures in Washington would ban smoking in public areas and indoor workplaces, and overturn the Legislature's gas-tax hike of 9.5 cents a gallon.

New Jersey voters will decide whether the state should have an elected lieutenant governor to take over if a sitting governor leaves office early. The measure is a response to the sex scandal that drove former Gov. James McGreevey from office and installed Senate President Richard Codey as acting governor even as he retained his Senate duties. New Jersey is one of eight states with no lieutenant governor.

Voters in New York are being asked to approve a $2.9 billion transportation bond and a measure that would give the Legislature, not the governor, the upper hand in writing a budget.

In Texas, the proposed gay-marriage ban is the only high-profile statewide item on the ballot, and both sides are concerned about possible low voter turnout.

"We think the vast majority of people in Texas are with us but that doesn't help if they don't show up," said Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Legal Institute, which supports the ban.

Gay-rights activists opposing the ban have produced television ads featuring direct appeals by same-sex couples for marriage rights.

"We are not second-class citizens, and we need the same resources and rights available to heterosexual couples to protect our families," said the Rev. Carolyn Mobley, an associate pastor at the Resurrection Metropolitan Community Church, appearing with her partner in one of the ads.

Massachusetts is the only state allowing such marriages; Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions. Texas law already prohibits same-sex marriages, but supporters of the amendment say a constitutional ban would guard that law from judicial challenges.

While the Texas amendment was placed on the ballot by the Legislature, the measure dealing with gay rights in Maine resulted from a petition campaign by conservatives upset that lawmakers expanded the state's human rights act to address anti-gay bias.

The act already prohibited discrimination based on race, gender and other factors; it was broadened this year to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education.

California voters face a special election called by Schwarzenegger in hopes of strengthening his hand in confrontations with legislators and civil service unions that have flared since he took office in 2003.

Schwarzenegger is backing proposals - all trailing in the polls - that would cap state spending and give the governor greater authority to make budget cuts; make teachers work five years instead of two to pass probation; strip lawmakers of their power to carry out redistricting, and require public employee unions to get members' permission before dues could be used for political purposes.

Schwarzenegger also supports the abortion measure, which would require doctors to give parents or guardians written notice 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor. Adults would not have to consent, but sponsors hope the requirement would reduce California's teen abortion rate - the nation's fourth-highest - by involving parents in the decision.

More than 30 states have parental notification or consent laws.

Read More...

Italy defends spy chief over Iraq controversy

Reuters

Italy defends spy chief over Iraq controversy
By Phil Stewart

ROME (Reuters) - Italy's government on Sunday rallied to the defense of spy chief Nicolo Pollari, whose agency is accused of passing off bad intelligence to the United States, helping bolster claims about Iraq's pre-war nuclear ambitions.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, on the eve of a meeting on Monday with U.S. President George W. Bush, said he respected Pollari, trusted and appreciated his work and last week approved statements defending his Sismi military intelligence agency.

Pollari, Sismi's director, is due to address a parliamentary committee on November 3 about the allegations by La Repubblica newspaper. La Repubblica says the agency passed off fake documents showing Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Niger.

Bush cited Iraq's attempted purchase of African uranium in a 2003 speech, helping to build support for war.

The Italian government's backing for Pollari was called into question earlier on Sunday by ex-President Francesco Cossiga, who said Pollari lacked support and should resign "in the interest of the country, the (Sismi) service and your own".

"This morning, my friend Nicolo Pollari, who feels, rightly, abandoned by everybody...called me to ask for advice. I did not hesitate and gave him just one piece: quickly resign as director of Sismi," Cossiga was quoted as saying in a letter to La Repubblica.

The office of Defense Minister Antonio Martino also said in statement that he "confirmed his full confidence in Pollari".

PRE-WAR MEETING?

The Niger uranium allegations partly extend to Berlusconi, whom La Repubblica accused of siding with U.S. hawks before the war and possibly pressuring Sismi for evidence against Iraq.

The newspaper has focused much of its attention on a meeting on September 9, 2002, between Pollari and Stephen Hadley, who was at the time deputy White House national security adviser.

Hadley later took the blame for a reference to Iraq seeking uranium in Africa made in Bush's State of the Union address before the invasion of Iraq.

Berlusconi's office tried to quash speculation, saying on Friday there was no mention of the Iraq-Niger affair at Pollari's September 9 meeting in Washington, at which it said Hadley was a just silent guest.

In his State of the Union speech, Bush cited British -- not Italian intelligence -- as the source of the information on the uranium. However, La Repubblica said that an Italian middleman provided Britain with forged Niger documents.

Bush's 2003 uranium claim fueled criticism from the husband of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose identity was later leaked, sparking a U.S. scandal that led to the indictment on Friday of Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Berlusconi's office issued a flurry of statements last week denying any involvement of the government or Sismi in fabricating or transmitting the documents, declared crude forgeries by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Distancing himself from U.S. hawks, Berlusconi, a strong U.S. ally, said in a television interview due to air on Monday that he repeatedly tried to talk Bush out of invading Iraq.

"I tried many times to convince the American president not to go to war," Berlusconi was quoted as saying by La7 television network, which recorded the interview. "I tried to find other avenues and other solutions...But we didn't succeed."

Read More...

Calls for White House shakeup focus on Karl Rove

Reuters

Calls for White House shakeup focus on Karl Rove

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush, whose top adviser Karl Rove remains in jeopardy in a CIA-leak probe, needs to shake up his White House staff if he hopes to revive a presidency reeling from multiple setbacks, Republican and Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday.

The lawmakers also urged Bush to investigate the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, whose chief of staff, Lewis Libby, resigned on Friday and was indicted on perjury and other charges in connection with the probe.

Bush should take Cheney "to the woodshed" if necessary, a Democratic lawmaker said, and the Senate's top Democrat said Rove should be fired or quit.

"I think Karl Rove should step down," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said on ABC's "This Week."

Mississippi Republican Sen. Trent Lott said the Bush administration needed "new blood, new energy, qualified staff," and that he expected the president to address his problems.

"I'm not talking about wholesale changes, but you've got to reach out and bring in more advice and counsel," Lott said on "Fox News Sunday."

Rove remains under investigation in the probe into who leaked the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose diplomat husband is a prominent Iraq war critic. The White House's credibility has been hurt by disclosures that Rove and Libby leaked Plame's identity, despite earlier official denials attributed to the two men.

Reid said Bush and Cheney owed the public an apology. "They should come clean with the American public," he said on ABC.

Rove has been the chief architect of Bush's political career. However, lawmakers questioned whether he is an obstacle to Bush's recovery from problems including growing public opposition to the Iraq war, a botched response to Hurricane Katrina and the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court under fire from both parties.

"(Although) there's no existing evidence here that Karl Rove is about to be indicted ... the president has to make a determination as to whether or not he wants to be preoccupied with legal issues around the White House," Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said on "Fox News Sunday."

CHENEY IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Lott raised similar concerns but said any decision should be left to Rove.

"If he has a problem, I think he's got to step up and ... acknowledge that and deal with it," Lott said. "If he's not going to be indicted ... then, you know, his view of what he does is very different," he said.

Reid previewed the potential for Rove to become a political lightning-rod, seeing his hand in what he said were White House plans to name a right-wing replacement for Miers who would spark an attention-diverting partisan brawl in the Senate.

"The president, I guess, is still being driven by Karl Rove," Reid told ABC's "This Week."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked about Rove's status on Friday, said he still works at the White House and declined to discuss any conversations between Bush and his senior staff.

Lawmakers also kept the spotlight on Cheney, who had told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA's counterproliferation division, according to the indictment.

Plame's husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, contends her identity was leaked to discredit his charges that the administration twisted intelligence on Iraq to justify war.

"The president ought to do his own internal investigation of the vice president's office, see what happened, set some standards and if need be take the vice president to the woodshed," New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham agreed that Bush should probe Cheney's office, but he attributed the White House's involvement in the Plame issue to a lawful desire to "set the record straight" after what he called an inaccuracy in Wilson's charges.

Some Republicans also looked for Bush to try to change momentum by quickly picking a new Supreme Court nominee after Miers' withdrawal.

Read More...

Tug-of-war begins on Bernanke's political voice

Reuters

Tug-of-war begins on Bernanke's political voice

By Tim Ahmann

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A quiet tug-of-war has begun over the role presumptive future Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke will play in Washington budget debates, with both conservatives and liberals hoping he'll be one of their own.

Conservatives express confidence that Bernanke, if confirmed by the Senate to succeed Alan Greenspan next year, will do nothing to upset the Bush administration's apple cart when its comes to its tax-cutting agenda.

Liberals, in contrast, hope Bernanke, who associates say lacks clear ideological stripes, will be a voice of fiscal restraint and a counterweight to Bush's tax-cutting zeal.

Long-time colleagues and past comments from the nominee suggest the politically moderate monetary expert may hew to a middle ground, stopping short of comments that could be seen as advocating particular policies but speaking freely in broad terms when he thinks budgetary discipline is needed.

In essence, supporters say, Bernanke is likely to be more restrained in offering budgetary advice than his predecessor.

Greenspan has often been criticized for stepping outside the Fed's bailiwick in weighing in on contentious fiscal debates -- from advocating tax cuts to arguing the merits of private accounts under the Social Security retirement program.

When Bernanke took his current job as chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers in June, there was speculation the White House wanted to draw him close for scrutiny as a potential Fed candidate out of concern he might prove ideologically out of step.


BUSH LINE

Since landing at the White House, Bernanke has trumpeted the Bush line in a way some analysts think could constrain his ability to take another tack.

Echoing other administration types, he has argued that failure to make the president's first-term tax cuts permanent could sow financial market unease and weigh on economic growth. And he has counseled Congress to take an ax to spending rather than raise taxes to narrow the U.S. budget gap.

"That was sort of his dress rehearsal, so to speak," Wall Street Journal editorial writer and tax-cut advocate Stephen Moore said of Bernanke's tenure at the CEA. "He passed with flying colors. He was very loyal to Bush's agenda."

The one-time Fed governor, however, has kept his own counsel since the president tapped him on Monday to replace Greenspan, who steps down on January 31 after more than 18 years atop the world's most powerful central bank.

The former Fed Governor and Princeton University professor has spoken with a number of members of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, the panel charged with considering his nomination, as he begins to lay the groundwork for his hoped-for confirmation.

FISCAL ADVISER?

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said Bernanke told him by phone on Monday he wanted to steer clear of weighing in on fiscal policy debates.

"I told him he should rethink that," Schumer said, according to the Washington Post. A spokesman for Schumer said Bernanke replied that he would take the suggestion under advisement.

But associates say Bernanke's position may have been misconstrued.

"It's not that he's not going to talk about fiscal issues, but that he's only going to talk about fiscal issues insofar as they affect monetary policy and insofar as they affect price stability and financial stability," said Adam Posen of the Institute for International Economics.

In a June 2004 interview published by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, Bernanke said he believed the Fed should offer advice when the government lost budgetary discipline.

"The central bank has the responsibility to be a nonpartisan adviser on general matters of macroeconomic and financial stability," he said. "So to the extent that deficits and debt are threatening macroeconomic and financial stability, the central bank is one actor that can provide advice and counsel to fiscal policy-makers."

Arthur Laffer, one of a number of supply-side, tax-cutting advocates to whom Bernanke has reached out in recent months, said he would not worry if Bernanke did decide to speak out.

"If he were hostile to tax cuts, obviously that would be a problem for me, but that's not where he's at," Laffer, a professed Bernanke fan, said.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, former Princeton colleague Paul Krugman was also rejoicing. "There's not a hint in his work of support for the right-wing supply-side doctrine," Krugman wrote in Friday's New York Times.

(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan)

Read More...

Luttig, Alito contenders as Bush mulls court pick

Reuters

Luttig, Alito contenders as Bush mulls court pick

By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Saturday was narrowing his choices of Supreme Court nominees to replace Harriet Miers as Republicans said the short list consisted of highly credentialed, solidly conservative judges.

Among the candidates most talked about were appeals court judges Michael Luttig and Samuel Alito. Bush, who is spending the weekend at his Camp David retreat, was expected to unveil his choice within days.

A source close to the selection process who spoke on condition of anonymity said avoiding a battle with Democrats, who have warned Bush about picking a right-wing activist, would not be the president's top priority.

"What we know from the Miers nomination is that people on all sides of the political spectrum wanted the highest quality, and that's what the president will deliver," the source said.

"I think it will be extremely difficult for Senate Democrats to oppose someone who is extraordinarily well qualified and who shares the president's judicial philosophy," the source added.

Conservatives are eager for a conservative in the mold of justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative and often pivotal swing vote on the divided court.

Luttig, 51, a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, worked as a clerk for Scalia when Scalia was an appeals court judge.

He helped in the effort to get Thomas and Supreme Court Justice David Souter -- both nominated to the high court by Bush's father -- confirmed by the Senate. Luttig also has worked in the Justice Department and private practice.

Alito, 55, is sometimes given the nickname "Scalito" -- a comparison to Scalia, who shares his Italian heritage as well as his reputation for conservatism and a strong intellect. He is a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

'A COMPETING HEADLINE'

The decision comes as Bush seeks to embark on a fresh start after a series of problems exposed a lack of sure-footedness by normally disciplined White House aides.

The latest blow to a president whose approval ratings have already fallen to all-time lows was Friday's indictment and resignation of top vice presidential aide Lewis Libby in the CIA leak investigation.

Larry Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia said the president might reach out to his conservative supporters by generating "a competing headline" to get the focus away from the leak investigation.

"He needs to restore his Republican base and this is the way to do it," Sabato said of the court pick.

In addition to Luttig and Alito, Bush is also said to be looking at appeals court judges Michael McConnell, Edith Jones and Alice Batchelder.

Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown are also possibilities, although the two judges -- who were named to the appellate court by Bush -- were initially blocked by Senate Democrats before making it through on a compromise deal.

The list Bush is reviewing is similar to the one he focused on just before the surprise pick of Miers on October 3.

Miers, who withdrew her candidacy on Thursday, is with Bush at Camp David advising him in the deliberations. Her candidacy for the Supreme Court triggered a revolt by conservatives who thought the White House counsel and longtime friend of the president lacked the credentials and clear record needed to move the court firmly to the right.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters on Friday that Bush was already "familiar with a number of potential nominees and so he has a foundation to start with."

The writings and rulings of whomever Bush chooses will be looked at closely for hints on their views of contentious social issues like abortion.

In a letter to Bush, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, urged him not to pick "an activist" with an ideological agenda.

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland)

Read More...

Governor faults White House over rebuilding

Reuters

Governor faults White House over rebuilding

By Michael Depp

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (Reuters) - Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, flanked by veteran Democratic activists and a union leader, criticized the Bush administration on Saturday for allowing hurricane rebuilding contracts to go to out-of-state firms and low-wage workers.

Speaking to a rally of about 1,000 union members and activists from the steps of the state Capitol, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton also charged the White House with using the crisis to remake the state's political map by discouraging the return of displaced blacks.

Jackson urged residents of the overwhelmingly black Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans to return.

"Somebody is accountable," he said. "Don't give up. You have the right to return, the right to reclaim and the right to reconstruct."

Blanco, a Democrat who has faced criticism for her own response to the August 29 hurricane, attempted to deflect widespread anger from local workers who complain they have been shut out of federal contracts in favor of larger, better-connected companies.

Noting some $300 million in unemployment insurance had been paid out in the state since the storm, Blanco said the initial White House decision to suspend wage protections had compounded the Louisiana problems.

"We had already been devastated by a hurricane," she said. "We did not need to be hurt to out-of-state companies giving incredibly low wages to workers outside of Louisiana. I must have said that long enough and hard enough because this week President Bush changed his mind."

Earlier this week, President George W. Bush lifted an emergency order that had allowed federal contractors rebuilding after Katrina to pay less than the area's prevailing wage.

In September, Bush waived provisions of the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act that requires federal contractors to pay, at a minimum, an area's prevailing wage.

The suspension of the prevailing wage protection prompted protests from Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

POLITICAL VICTORY

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney hailed the reversal as a political victory, but said the Bush administration had "broken faith with the God-fearing hard-working families of our country."

"While New Orleans workers and their families were trapped in filthy shelters, they doled out billion of dollars for no-bid contracts so out-of-state companies could import low-wage workers to jack up their profits," Sweeney said.

Some black New Orleans residents, including those from the devastated Lower Ninth Ward, have charged their concerns have been overlooked in a rebuilding effort dominated by business interests, a theme taken up by both Jackson and Sharpton, who also accused the White House of seeking to change the state's political make-up.

"The crisis is not an opportunity to change the character of Louisiana's political order. We must not use the crisis to turn Louisiana into a red state -- this is a rainbow state," Jackson said.

Speaking of Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove, Jackson said, "His agenda is political restructuring."

Sharpton said, "It is hypocritical to mourn the death of Rosa Parks and then try to relocate Rosa Parks' children." Parks, a black seamstress who helped spark the civil rights movement by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white man 50 years ago, died on Monday.

"Just like Rosa Parks wouldn't move, you can't move. Keep your seat. Bechtel's trying to take your seat. Sit in your seat," Sharpton said.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency awarded a unit of San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. a no-bid contract with a $100 million ceiling for rebuilding after Katrina. FEMA said last month the contract would be opened to competition.

Read More...

Democrats criticize oil industry subsidies

Reuters

Democrats criticize oil industry subsidies

By Julie Vorman

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Republicans recently pushed through legislation that would give more federal subsidies to the oil industry instead of trying to help U.S. consumers cope with sharply higher energy prices, the top Democrat on the House Commerce Committee said on Saturday.

Rep. John Dingell of Michigan said Congress should focus on Democratic proposals to punish gasoline profiteering, invest in new energy technology, and encourage more energy efficiency.

"We must respond to the needs of the American consumers who are seeing the prospect of $4 a gallon gas and $1,000 monthly heating bills," he said in the Democrats's weekly radio address.

On October 7, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill that would give federal insurance to oil refiners whose expansion projects are delayed by lawsuits or regulatory snags. It also put the Energy Department in charge of permits for new refinery projects as a way to speed up approvals.

The bill was approved, 212-210, after Republican leaders held a five-minute vote open for more than 40 minutes to persuade some party members to change their votes.

Democrats opposed the bill, saying the industry had plenty of its own money to pay for new refineries and did not deserve a government hand-out.

A similar Senate bill was blocked by Democrats.

"What was the Republican answer to the hurricanes? More subsidies to the oil industry," Dingell said, referring to the bill's sponsors who said the help was needed because of damage to refineries from recent Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Democrats are targeting "the immediate problems of gasoline prices and the anticipated increases in natural gas and home heating oil prices," Dingell said.

Long an ally of the energy industry, senior Republican lawmakers reversed direction during the past week and began calling for possible new controls on oil companies.

Their change in views came the same week that Exxon Mobil reported a $9.9 billion quarterly profit and other major oil companies also saw big increases.

The head of the Senate Budget Committee, Republican Judd Gregg said he look at some kind of windfall profit tax on the oil industry.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist ordered a November 8 hearing for top executives of major oil companies to explain why prices are so high. Frist also said he might endorse a bill banning oil price profiteering -- an approach favored by Democrats -- if evidence of wrongdoing was found.

U.S. President George W. Bush has said he opposed any new tax on the oil industry. But his energy secretary, Sam Bodman, said the energy industry had a "responsibility" to expand refineries to make more U.S. gasoline and heating oil.

Dingell said Democrats were concerned that high crude oil, natural gas, gasoline, and heating oil prices have a ripple effect throughout the U.S. economy.

"To meet our energy needs, we do not need to weaken protections for clean air and clean water, or spend your tax dollars to help out the oil companies," he said.

"We need to start investing more in energy innovation and stop showering tax cuts upon the wealthy. And we must protect consumers against price gouging ... while fully funding the low-income home energy assistance program," he said.

The U.S. government recently forecast that natural gas heating costs in the U.S. Midwest this winter will soar by 61 percent to an average $1,377. Heating oil bills in the Northeast will rise by nearly 30 percent to an average $1,607.

Less than three months ago, the president signed into law a Republican-written energy bill giving $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives to the energy industry.

Read More...