Senate Republicans Block Iraq Timetable

Yahoo! News
Senate Republicans Block Iraq Timetable

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

The Republican-controlled Senate on Tuesday easily defeated a Democratic effort to pressure President Bush to outline a timetable for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It then overwhelmingly endorsed a weaker statement calling on the administration to explain its Iraq policy.

Senators also overwhelmingly voted to endorse the Bush administration's military tribunals for prosecuting suspected foreign terrorists held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but to allow detainees to appeal their status and punishments to a federal court.

On the question of a timetable for troop withdrawal, senators rejected the Democrats' measure by 58-40. Democratic leaders had advanced the timetable measure in the wake of declining public support for a conflict that has claimed more than 2,000 U.S. lives and cost more than $200 billion.

Republicans countered with their own non-binding alternative. It urged that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security to create the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces.

On a 79-19 vote, the Senate approved that GOP-sponsored proposal, which did not call for the president to put forth a withdrawal timetable unlike the Democratic proposal.

"They want an exit strategy, a cut-and-run exit strategy. What we are for is a successful strategy," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said: "We want to change the course. We can't stay the course."

Tuesday's fast-paced developments underscored the political significance of the war as the U.S. death toll climbs, public support plummets, the insurgency continues and the price tag soars with no end in sight.

The Senate added the GOP Iraq policy to a defense bill the Senate was completing work on Tuesday.

Overall, the bill includes provisions that, taken together, mark an effort by the Senate to rein in some of the wide authority lawmakers gave the president following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The measure includes White House-opposed language that would prohibit the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees and standardize interrogation procedures used by U.S. troops. The Bush administration has threatened to veto any bill that includes language about the treatment of detainees, arguing it would limit the president's ability to prevent terrorist attacks.

Senators also added language Tuesday that would allow Guantanamo detainees to appeal their status as "enemy combatants" and the rulings of U.S. military tribunals to a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. That avenue would take the place of the one tool the Supreme Court gave detainees in 2004 to fight the legality of their detentions — the right to file habeas corpus petitions in any federal court.

Senators approved the measure on tribunals by an 84-14 vote.

Senators defeated a Democratic proposal that would have reinstated the right to file habeas corpus lawsuits, but limited the challenges to one court.

Reflecting senators' anger over recent leaks of classified information to the public, the bill also includes provisions requiring the Bush administration to provide Congress with details on purportedly secret CIA prisons overseas and stripping of security clearances of any federal government official who knowingly discloses national security secrets.

The House version of the defense bill doesn't include those provisions, nor does it include the language on the detention, interrogation or prosecution of detainees. As a result, it's unclear whether any of those provisions will survive House and Senate negotiations and actually end up in the final defense bill.

However, House GOP leaders will be under pressure to adopt parts of the Senate bill, particularly the statement of U.S. policy in Iraq. That's because public support for the war has fallen and lawmakers are feeling the heat from frustrated constituents heading into a congressional election year in which a third of the Senate and all House members are up for re-election.

The Senate-approved Iraq policy calls for — but does not require — the Bush administration to "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq" and to provide reports on U.S. foreign policy and military operations in Iraq every three months until all U.S. combat brigades have been withdrawn.

The policy calls 2006 a transition year in which Iraqi forces take over security of their country from U.S. forces to a far greater extent so the Americans can begin returning home.

Republicans largely adopted the Democratic proposal as their own, but they omitted one paragraph calling for the president to offer a plan for a phased withdrawal of the roughly 160,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq. The administration has refused to set a timetable for withdrawal, saying insurgents simply would wait to strike until after U.S. forces departed.

___

On the Net:

Senate: http://www.senate.gov

Read More...

Summary only...

We Do Not Torture . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

How To Explain Obscene Windfall Profits

Read More...

Summary only...

No Sex Please, We're American Voters

The New York Times

No Sex Please, We're American Voters
By GAIL COLLINS

Another election has come and gone, and with it yet another demonstration of American voters' fascinating indifference to the sexual behavior of their public officials.

This year's prime exhibit was New Jersey, where Senator Jon Corzine scored a decisive win against his Republican opponent in the governor's race, Douglas Forrester, despite a last-minute barrage of attack ads in which Mr. Corzine's ex-wife was quoted as declaring that unlike Mr. Forrester, "Jon did let his family down, and he'll probably let New Jersey down, too."

That is not a connection most voters tend to make. The terrible truth is that great public leadership and domestic fidelity do not really go hand in hand. Some of our favorite national leaders were unreliable on the domestic front. Franklin Roosevelt comes to mind, as does John F. Kennedy. And the current mood of the electorate seems to clearly favor the argument that things were better when the worst thing the president did wrong was have sex with an intern in the Oval Office.

The idea that private sexual misconduct is beside the point for an elected official goes way back to the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton famously, and rather hysterically, published a pamphlet detailing his affair with a married woman named Maria Reynolds. He wanted to make it clear that the mysterious payments he had been making to Mr. Reynolds were not part of an embezzlement scheme, but simply a result of good old all-American blackmail. The delegation of congressmen who had been assigned to investigate Hamilton's financial transactions regarded this as way too much information.

The Maria Reynolds affair did produce an outcry among Hamilton's political opponents - one newspaper thundered that "even the frosts of America are incapable of cooling your blood and the eternal snow of Nova Zembla would hardly reduce you to common propriety," which perhaps goes to show that they don't make editorial page editors like they used to. But Hamilton shared the standards of his political peers when it came to morality - if not discretion. And the public went on to elect Thomas Jefferson as president, despite the tavern songs about his relationship with the slave "Monticello Sally" Hemings, and to fall madly in love with Andrew Jackson, who they very well knew had lived with his wife, Rachel, when she was still married to another man.

Mr. Corzine, however, broke the rule that says the affair has to stay in the bedroom. All bets are off when adultery leaches into the public sphere (or the White House pantry). His affair - which Joanne Corzine claimed broke up her marriage - was with a woman who serves as president of a state workers' union. And when it ended, Mr. Corzine forgave a $470,000 loan he had made to her when she bought her house. (His supporters argued that the multimillionaire candidate was so rich that it would have been unseemly for him to dun his ex-girlfriend for such a paltry sum, thus unveiling a hitherto unnoticed downside to the trend toward fabulously rich political candidates.)

This was not as severe a mixing of sex and policy as occurred with New Jersey's last elected governor, James McGreevey. The nation missed a chance to see what happens when an already elected (and already married) chief executive suddenly announces he is gay, because of the deeply complicating fact that Mr. McGreevey had given the job of special assistant to the governor for homeland security to the object of his affections, an Israeli poet.

Nevertheless it's interesting that the adultery-doesn't-matter rule still seems so strong at a time when Americans have been mixing religion and politics so enthusiastically. (Just last week the increasingly nutty Pat Robertson suggested that God would no longer be answering any prayers in Dover, Pa., since the voters tossed out the intelligent-design team on the local school board.) It would be interesting to see if the voters in very red states were as impervious to these issues as New Jersey - or as California was back when it was ignoring all those fondling allegations and electing Arnold Schwarzenegger governor. (Arizona voters seemed to react calmly when a Republican congressman, Jim Kolbe, announced he was gay - although gay-rights advocates were not nearly as serene when Mr. Kolbe voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.)

An even more interesting question is whether the public will separate sex from politics when it comes to female candidates. When the issue has come up in the past, it usually involved spectacularly messy marital meltdowns in which the woman was more sinned against than sinning. Even then, voters have shown little enthusiasm about untangling the domestic mess. Coya Knutson, one of the earliest women to win a Congressional seat completely in her own right, was undone when newspapers published an open "Coya Come Home" letter signed by her alcoholic husband. More recently, Enid Greene Waldholtz of Utah lost her office after it turned out that her husband had broken just about every campaign finance law written since the dawn of time. New York voters didn't have much trouble in the end with Hillary Clinton's problematic marriage - but then New York is deep in the at-least-he-never-invaded-Iraq territory.

What would happen if a woman was running for governor and the voters discovered she had had an extramarital affair with a union leader, and her ex-husband told the media she'd probably betray the voters the way she betrayed him? Would the voters shrug it off so casually, and tell each other that at least she never put her inamorato in charge of fighting terrorism?

Two good bets: 1) Sooner or later we'll find out. 2) Probably not.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ellsberg Warns Iraq Is Similar to Vietnam

ABC News
Ellsberg Warns Iraq Is Similar to Vietnam
Daniel Ellsberg, Gov't Official Who Leaked Pentagon Papers, Warns Iraq War Is Similar to Vietnam
By ROSA CIRIANNI
The Associated Press

MAPLEWOOD, N.J. - The former Defense Department official who leaked secret documents about the Vietnam War said Saturday that he sees many similarities between that conflict and the one in Iraq.

Daniel Ellsberg, 74, became famous for his release of the Pentagon Papers, which indicated the government had deceived the public about whether the war could be won and the extent of casualties.

He spoke to a crowd of more than 400 people at a New Jersey high school, telling them that the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq were both based on lies, referring to the such as the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Ellsberg, who has praised government whistleblowers who leak information about the Iraq war, said he wishes he had leaked the Pentagon Papers earlier so the release could possibly have lead to the war ending sooner.

He urged government workers to speak up about possible misconduct related to the war.

He also criticized the news media for not keeping tabs on Iraqi casualties. Just focusing on lost American lives is not enough, he said, pointing to a headline in a newspaper about four U.S. soldiers who died.

In 1971, Ellsberg, who had worked at both the State Department and the Pentagon, leaked 7,000 pages of classified documents to the press. He was put on trial on 12 felony counts punishable by up to 115 years in prison, but the charges were dismissed in 1973 because of government misconduct against him.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraqi Woman Confesses on Jordan TV

ABC News
Iraqi Woman Confesses on Jordan TV
On Jordan TV, Iraqi Woman Says She Tried to Blow Herself Up at Amman Hotel Along With Husband
By JAMAL HALABY
The Associated Press

AMMAN, Jordan - An Iraqi woman confessed on Jordanian state television Sunday that she tried to blow herself up along with her husband during a hotel wedding reception last week, saying that the explosives concealed under her denim dress failed to detonate.

Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, 35, made her statement hours after being arrested by authorities tipped off by an al-Qaida in Iraq claim that a husband-and-wife team participated in Wednesday's bombings at three U.S.-based hotels. The attackers killed 57 other people at the Radisson SAS, Grand Hyatt and Days Inn hotels.

Al-Rishawi's brother was once the right-hand man to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, said deputy premier Marwan Muasher. He said the brother, Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, was killed in the former terrorist stronghold of Fallujah, Iraq.

Officials believe al-Rishawi, who entered Jordan from Iraq on Nov. 5, may provide significant information about the operations of al-Zarqawi's group, which claimed responsibility for the hotel bombings, Jordan's deadliest terrorist attacks. The group said the attacks were retaliation for Jordan supporting the United States and other Western powers.

Al-Rishawi was shown on state television wearing a white head scarf, a buttoned, body-length dark denim dress, and belts packed with TNT and ball bearings. Muasher told CNN the belts were captured with her.

Al-Rishawi said she and her husband, Ali Hussein Ali al-Shamari, 35, were wearing explosive-laden belts when they strolled into a Radisson ballroom where hundreds of guests, including children, were attending a Jordanian-Palestinian wedding reception.

"My husband wore a belt and put one on me. He taught me how to use it, how to pull the (primer cord) and operate it," she said, wringing her hands.

"My husband detonated (his bomb). I tried to explode (my belt) but it wouldn't. I left, people fled running and I left running with them."

Muasher said al-Rishawi's husband noticed her struggle and pushed her out of the ballroom in order not to attract attention before blowing himself up.

After a second showing of the tape, a TV announcer cited security officials as saying the woman gave no further details because "she was still suffering from the shock of the blasts and her subsequent arrest."

Al-Rishawi was arrested Sunday morning at a "safe house" in the same Amman suburb where her husband and the other two bombers rented a furnished apartment, a top Jordanian security official said.

Jordanian security was tipped off to her presence by al-Qaida in Iraq's claim of a female bomber, the official added, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to journalists. The group apparently assumed she was killed in the blasts.

"There were leads that more people had been involved, but it was not clear that it was a woman and we had no idea on her nationality," the official said.

Al-Rishawi, who is from the volatile Anbar province town of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, said on state TV that she entered Jordan from Iraq four days before the attacks with her husband and two other men using fake passports. She said they rode across the border in a white car with a driver and another passenger.

"My husband arranged our trip from there, I don't know," she said, adding that they rented a furnished apartment in a middle-class suburb of western Amman. She said bombers took taxis to the hotels.

Jordan officials confirmed the three bombers were Iraqis. Al-Rishawi did not name the other two, but Jordanian authorities identified them as Rawad Jassem Mohammed Abed and Safaa Mohammed Ali, both 23.

Muasher said investigations showed no Jordanians were involved, but several local followers of al-Zarqawi have been arrested.

King Abdullah II told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "all Jordanians are unified, in that they want the people who are responsible for these crimes to be brought to justice."

"If we know where they are, even if it's beyond the borders of Jordan, we will give it the best shot possible to bring these people to justice," he said.

Jordanian counterterrorism officials believe al-Rishawi could provide significant leads into al-Zarqawi's whereabouts and his terrorist operations in Iraq.

But the officials, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of their positions, also fear her capture may spur al-Zarqawi to avenge the arrest with more attacks in Jordan or against Jordanian interests abroad.

Al-Zarqawi, who traveled from militant training grounds in Afghanistan to Iraq before the U.S.-led 2003 war, has been sentenced to death in absentia here for terrorism-related crimes. He has vowed to topple the kingdom's moderate Hashemite rulers. The U.S. government is offering a $25 million bounty for information leading to his capture.

Residents of Iraq's Anbar province said al-Rishawi comes from a clan living mostly in Ramadi, an insurgent stronghold about 70 miles west of Baghdad.

Ironically, the clan, known variously as the Burishas and the Rishawis, is known for its good ties with the Americans. Its members include Iraq's defense minister, Saadoun al-Dulaimi, who visited Jordan on Sunday.

Al-Dulaimi offered Jordan his government's support in the bombing probe and warned that unchecked violence in Iraq will spread terrorism across the region.

He also accused Syria of letting Islamic extremists train on its soil and enter Iraq to carry out terrorist attacks. The United States and Iraq have repeatedly called on Syria to lock down its borders and stop al-Qaida extremists from entering Iraq.

During a tour of the Radisson on Sunday, former President Clinton offered his support to "defeat this kind of destructive terror that murdered children and other innocents."

Muasher said the hotels were chosen because they were "easy targets," referring to the lax security before the attacks. Security measures have been increased.

The wedding was targeted because the bombers wanted to "inflict the biggest number of casualties and victims," Muasher said. The security official said the Radisson also was targeted is because it is a favorite for Israeli tourists.

The bomb strapped to al-Rishawi's husband was packed with the powerful explosive RDX and ball bearings and designed to kill as many people as possible, Muasher said.

The bombing has raised fears that al-Zarqawi's terror campaign has gained enough momentum to spread throughout the region.

Despite the Iraqi involvement, Muasher insisted relations with its eastern neighbor are unlikely to suffer.

"It's true that the terrorists are Iraqis, but this doesn't mean that the Iraqi government is involved or condones such actions," he said. "We all know that the (Iraqi) government suffers from this group."

Read More...

Summary only...

The Democrats and Judge Alito

The New York Times

The Democrats and Judge Alito

Judge Samuel Alito has been working hard to win over moderate Democratic senators. But just as it would be irresponsible to reject his nomination to the Supreme Court without giving him a full hearing, it is unwise to embrace it - or rule out the possibility of a filibuster - until more is known.

The Alito nomination is a defining moment for the country, and for the Democratic Party. Given the sharp divisions on the court, the next justice could decide the scope of reproductive freedom, civil rights and civil liberties, and environmental and workplace protections that Americans will live with for years. Although many questions remain to be answered, there is reason to believe that Judge Alito could do significant damage to values Democrats have long stood for.

Conservative Republicans demonstrated that they have a clear idea of what they want for the Supreme Court. They proved that once again with their insurrection against Harriet Miers. Now Democratic senators have to show their supporters that they are no less willing to fight for their vision.

Judge Alito has tried to reassure Democratic senators by talking about his respect for Supreme Court precedents, including Roe v. Wade. It would be unwise to put too much stock in such reassurances. Even justices who value precedent, as most do, sometimes overturn existing case law with which they disagree. It should give Democrats pause that after Judge Alito's meetings with senators, both sworn opponents of Roe and fervent supporters have emerged reassured.

Even if Judge Alito does stand by important precedents, there is still reason for concern. Under Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court perfected the art of reaffirming precedents in areas like criminal procedure while poking enough holes in them to render them almost unrecognizable. Judge Alito showed as a federal appeals court judge - when he voted to uphold a Pennsylvania law requiring women to inform their husbands before getting an abortion - that abortion rights can be severely diminished even within the framework of Roe. The same thing could be true in other areas.

One group that clearly does not believe that Judge Alito will be a slave to existing Supreme Court precedents is the far right. Many of the same groups and individuals who waged a fierce campaign against Ms. Miers, President Bush's previous nominee for this seat, appear to be lining up in support of Judge Alito. Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who strongly opposes abortion, and other rights the court has recognized over the years, declared after meeting with Judge Alito, "This is the type of nominee I've been asking for."

The confirmation hearings, which are scheduled to start in early January, should shed light on whether he is in the mainstream of the law or outside it. Democrats should put a heavy burden on Judge Alito to show that he would not do damage to the Constitution, and to Americans' cherished rights.

The Alito nomination comes at a critical moment for the Democratic Party. With President Bush's poll numbers plummeting, Democrats are finding a new optimism about their chances in 2006 and 2008. But to capitalize on the Republicans' weakness, the party needs to show that it has an alternative vision for the country. As the Democrats refine their message for next year's elections, the first thing they need to be able to say to the American people is that they did not sit by idly while the far right took over the Supreme Court and began dismantling fundamental rights and freedoms.

Read More...

Summary only...

Civil Rights Focus Shift Roils Staff At Justice

washingtonpost.com
Civil Rights Focus Shift Roils Staff At Justice
Veterans Exit Division as Traditional Cases Decline

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which has enforced the nation's anti-discrimination laws for nearly half a century, is in the midst of an upheaval that has driven away dozens of veteran lawyers and has damaged morale for many of those who remain, according to former and current career employees.

Nearly 20 percent of the division's lawyers left in fiscal 2005, in part because of a buyout program that some lawyers believe was aimed at pushing out those who did not share the administration's conservative views on civil rights laws. Longtime litigators complain that political appointees have cut them out of hiring and major policy decisions, including approvals of controversial GOP redistricting plans in Mississippi and Texas.

At the same time, prosecutions for the kinds of racial and gender discrimination crimes traditionally handled by the division have declined 40 percent over the past five years, according to department statistics. Dozens of lawyers find themselves handling appeals of deportation orders and other immigration matters instead of civil rights cases.

The division has also come under criticism from the courts and some Democratsfor its decision in August to approve a Georgia program requiring voters to present government-issued identification cards at the polls. The program was halted by an appellate court panel and a district court judge, who likened it to a poll tax from the Jim Crow era.

"Most everyone in the Civil Rights Division realized that with the change of administration, there would be some cutting back of some cases," said Richard Ugelow, who left the division in 2004 and now teaches law at American University. "But I don't think people anticipated that it would go this far, that enforcement would be cut back to the point that people felt like they were spinning their wheels."

The Justice Department and its supporters strongly dispute the complaints. Justice spokesman Eric Holland noted that the overall attrition rate during the Bush administration, about 13 percent, is not significantly higher than the 11 percent average during the last five years under President Bill Clinton.

Holland also said that the division filed a record number of criminal prosecutions in 2004. A quarter of those cases were related tohuman-trafficking crimes, which were made easier to prosecute under legislation passed at the end of the Clinton administration and which account for a growing proportion of the division's caseload.

In addition, Holland defended the department's decision to approve the Georgia voter law, saying that "career and political attorneys together concluded" that the measure would have no negative effect on minorities.

"This administration has continued the robust and vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws," Holland wrote in an e-mail statement, adding later: "These accomplishments could not have been achieved without teamwork between career attorneys and political appointees."

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the first Hispanic to hold the job, named civil rights enforcement as one of his priorities after taking office earlier this year and supports reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

Although relations between the career and political ranks have been strained throughout the Justice Department over the past five years, the level of conflict has been particularly high in civil rights, according to current and former staffers. The debate over civil rights flared in the Senate in recent weeks after the nomination of Wan J. Kim, who was confirmed on Nov. 4 as the assistant attorney general for the division and is the third person to hold that job during the Bush administration. Kim has been the civil rights deputy for the past two years.

There were no serious objections to Kim's nomination, but Democrats including Sens. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said they were concerned about serious problems with morale and enforcement within the division.

"Its enforcement of civil rights over the past five years has been negligent," Kennedy said in a statement. "Mr. Kim has promised to look closely at these issues and to increase the division's enforcement, and I believed he should be given a chance to turn the division around."

Critics point to several key statistics in arguing that Gonzales and the previous attorney general, John D. Ashcroft, have charted a dramatically different course for civil rights enforcement than previous administrations of both parties.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which includes a number of former Justice lawyers, noted in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the division has filed only a handful of cases in recent years dealing with employment discrimination or discrimination based on the statistical impact on women or minority groups.

The total number of criminal prosecutions is within the range of the Clinton administration, but a growing percentage of those cases involve prosecuting human smugglers, which have become a priority for the division only in recent years. Other types of civil rights prosecutions are down, from 83 in fiscal 2001 to 49 in 2005.

The Bush administration has filed only three lawsuits -- all of them this year -- under the section of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits discrimination against minority voters, and none of them involves discrimination against blacks. The initial case was the Justice Department's first reverse-discrimination lawsuit, accusing a majority-black county in Mississippi of discriminating against white voters.

The change in emphasis is perhaps most stark in the division's appellate section, which has historically played a prominent role intervening in key discrimination cases. The section filed only three friend-of-the-court briefs last year -- compared with 22 in 1999 -- and now spends nearly half its time defendingdeportation orders rather than pursuing civil rights litigation. Last year, six of 10 briefs filed by the section were related to immigration cases.

William R. Yeomans, a 24-year division veteran who took a buyout offer earlier this year, wrote in an essay in Legal Affairs magazine that "morale among career attorneys has plummeted, the division's productivity has suffered and the pace of civil rights enforcement has slowed."

In an interview, Yeomans said some of the problems stem from the way the "front office" at Justice has treated career employees, many of whom have been forced to move to other divisions or to handle cases unconnected to civil rights. As an example of the strained relations, Yeomans points to the recent retirement party held for a widely admired 37-year veteran: Not one political appointee showed up.

At the same time, Ashcroft implemented procedures throughout Justice that limited the input of career lawyers in employment decisions, resulting in the hiring of many young conservatives in civil rights and elsewhere in the department, former and current lawyers have said.

"The more slots you open, the more you can populate them with people you like," said Stephen B. Pershing, who left the division in May and is now senior counsel at the Center for Constitutional Litigation, a Washington law firm that handles civil rights cases. "It's pretty simple really."

To Roger Clegg, the situation is also perfectly understandable. A former civil rights deputy in the Reagan administration who is now general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity, Clegg said the civil rights area tends to attract activist liberal lawyers who are philosophically opposed to a more conservative approach.

"If the career people are not reflecting the policy priorities of the political appointees, then there's a problem," Clegg said. "Elections have consequences in a democracy."

Holland, the Justice spokesman, said critics are selectively citing statistics. For example, he said, the department is on the winning side of court rulings 90 percent of the time compared with 60 percent during the Clinton years. Federal courts are "less likely to reject our legal arguments than the ones filed in the previous administration," he said.

Ralph F. Boyd Jr., the civil rights chief from 2001 to 2003, agreed: "It's not a prosecutor's job to bring lots of cases; it's a prosecutor's job to bring the right cases. If it means fewer cases overall, then that's what you do."

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush National Security Adviser Says President Did Not Mislead People on Iraq War Intelligence

ABC News
Bush Didn't Mislead on War, Adviser Says
Bush National Security Adviser Says President Did Not Mislead People on Iraq War Intelligence
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - While admitting "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's national security adviser on Sunday rejected assertions that the president manipulated intelligence and misled the American people.

Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

"Turns out, we were wrong," Hadley told "Late Edition" on CNN. "But I think the point that needs to be emphasized ... allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people, are flat wrong."

Republican lawmakers and other officials who appeared on Sunday news shows echoed Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush said Democrats in Congress had the same intelligence about Iraq, and he argued that many now claiming that the information had been manipulated had supported going to war. The president also accused his critics of making false charges and playing politics with the war.

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean rejected the criticism on Sunday and said, "The truth is, the president misled America when he sent us to war."

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," the party chairman disputed Bush's claim that Congress had the same information the president withheld some intelligence and some caveats about it, Dean said and that two commissions had found no evidence of pressure being placed on those within the intelligence community .

In fact, Dean said, how the administration handled the intelligence it received has yet to be determined by a Senate committee.

Contending that the president has not been honest about the size of the deficit as well as the war, Dean said, "This is an administration that has a fundamental problem telling the truth."

Hadley said Bush received dissenting views about the accuracy of intelligence and relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community as conveyed by the CIA director. The national security adviser criticized those who continue to claim that Bush manipulated the intelligence and made misleading statements.

"It is unworthy and unfair and ill-advised, when our men and women in combat are putting their lives on the line, to relitigate an issue which was looked at by two authoritative sources and deemed closed," he said. "We need to put this debate behind us."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

In a column for The Washington Post, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said he was wrong to have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war and called the intelligence on which he made that decision "deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."

"The information the American people were hearing from the president and that I was being given by our intelligence community wasn't the whole story," wrote Edwards, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004. "Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."

Hadley said issues about the accuracy of U.S. intelligence have not impaired the administration's ability to pursue its policies regarding the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

"We've been able to move our diplomacy forward at the same time we're taking the steps we need to do to improve our intelligence," he said.

Asked why people should believe U.S. claims about the nuclear plans of Iran given the failure of intelligence about Iraq, Hadley said there has been international consensus about Iran.

Read More...

Summary only...

Battle of the Wal-Mart Documentaries

ABC News
Battle of the Wal-Mart Documentaries
One New Film Attacks the Retail Giant, While the Other Film Defends It

BELMONT, N.C., Nov. 13, 2005 — - After 25 years as mayor of Belmont, N.C., Billy Joye was voted out of office because he campaigned hard to bring Wal-Mart to town.

"I made up my mind," Joye said. "I was doing all I can do to keep this city afloat and we needed the revenues of the development badly."

Once home to thriving textile mills, Belmont has been struggling for years. Wal-Mart, the mayor argued, is needed to revive the economy. But many residents fear it will destroy their small town.

But though Wal-Mart won the battle in Belmont, where a nearly 200,000-square-foot SuperCenter is due to open in March, the retailing giant faces similar fights in nearly 50 communities across the country.

Anti-Wal-Mart Effort

Today many of those communities are screening a scathing new documentary called "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price."

"The ultimate aim of the movie," said it's producer, Robert Greenwald, "is to get thousands of people across the United States, and the world ultimately, aware of what's going on and turn them into agents to change Wal-Mart."

The film alleges Wal-Mart destroys mom-and-pop businesses, pays so poorly many employees rely on public assistance, and discriminates against women working there.

The film is part of a wider anti-Wal-Mart movement. Backed by big labor, opponents use rallies and Web sites to illustrate how they believe the company treats workers unfairly.

Despite increasing attacks, sales remain strong, but all this negative publicity is hurting the stock price, down 16 percent this year.

"They've sat back they've taken their lumps," said Brian Hindo of Business Week, "and they've found out it really has hurt them."

Wal-Mart Fights Back

Fed up, Wal-Mart is fighting back, pushing for a higher minimum wage, introducing a new health care plan -- and promoting another new documentary entitled, "Why Wal-Mart Works & Why That Makes Some People Crazy."

Trailers of the two competing Wal-Mart films are available on the Web.

To find a preview of "Wal-mart: The High Cost of Low Price," go to http://www.walmartmovie.com/.

To find a preview of "Why Wal-Wart Works & Why That Makes Some People Crazy," go to http://www.galloway.tv/.

"I personally think that Wal-Mart, more than any special interest group, has benefited more poor and working-class Americans more than any other institution I can think of," said Ron Galloway, the pro-Wal-Mart film's producer.

That may be why nearly 140 million people shop there each week.

"The price is very good on items in Wal-Mart," said one customer, "and you have a variety of things to choose from."

It seems so long as prices remain low, Wal-Mart is winning this debate.

ABC News' Geoff Morrell and Suzanne Yeo originally reported this story for "World News Tonight" on Nov. 13, 2005.

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain: Torture Ban Needed for U.S. Image

ABC News
McCain: Torture Ban Needed for U.S. Image
America's Image Abroad Could Be Ruined if Congress Doesn't Ban Torture of Prisoners, McCain Says
By FOSTER KLUG
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain argued Sunday that America's image abroad could be ruined if Congress doesn't ban the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.

McCain, who was tortured during the Vietnam War, is the leading supporter of a provision banning such inhumane treatment.

White House officials, however, have threatened a presidential veto of any bill with restrictions on handling detainees, saying it would limit the president's ability to protect Americans and prevent a terrorist attack.

"If we are viewed as a country that engages in torture ... any possible information we might be able to gain is far counterbalanced by (the negative) effect of public opinion," McCain, R-Ariz., said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Terrorists are "the quintessence of evil," he said. "But it's not about them; it's about us. This battle we're in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be."

The Republican-led Senate has approved McCain's provision an instance of rare defiance of President Bush's wartime authority.

But prospects of the bill clearing the House of Representatives are uncertain. Vice President Dick Cheney has vigorously lobbied Congress to drop or modify the detainee provisions, and wants to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from the proposed torture ban.

McCain said he hopes to reach a compromise with the White House. But he said that after the discovery of widespread prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib facility in Iraq, public opinion about the United States has plummeted worldwide.

"We've got two wars going on: one a military one in Iraq, and then we've got a war for public opinion, for the hearts and minds of all the people in the world," McCain said. "We've got to make sure that we don't torture people."

Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, said on CNN's "Late Edition" that the White House was working with McCain and other lawmakers to "come up with an approach that both allows us to do what we need to do to defend the country against terrorist attack and, at the same time, make good on the president's commitment that we will not torture and we will act within the bounds of law."

Hadley went on to describe a hypothetical situation that imagined one of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists had been arrested a few days before the attacks.

"It's a difficult dilemma to know what to do in that circumstance to both discharge our responsibility to protect the American people from terrorist attack and follow the president's guidance of staying within the confines of law," he said. "These are difficult issues."

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, however, said it's "unthinkable that the vice president of the United States continues to insist upon an exception for the CIA, saying they should not be bound by our torture policy."

"Torture can't be justified," he told CNN.

Read More...

Summary only...

Carter Says He Is 'Disturbed and Angry' About Changes in U.S. Caused by Bush Leadership

ABC News
Carter 'Disturbed' by Direction of U.S.
Carter Says He Is 'Disturbed and Angry' About Changes in U.S. Caused by Bush Leadership
The Associated Press

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Former President Jimmy Carter, on a tour to promote his latest book, is sharply questioning the direction the Bush administration has taken the country.

"Everywhere you go, you hear, 'What has happened to the United States of America? We thought you used to be the champion of human rights. We thought you used to protect the environment. We thought you used to believe in the separation of church and state,'" Carter said Friday at Unity Temple.

"I felt so disturbed and angry about this radical change in America," he said.

Carter is promoting his 20th book, "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," which he describes as his first political book.

He placed responsibility for that moral crisis largely on the Bush administration, citing a pre-emptive war policy, inadequate attention to the environment, and the use of torture against some prisoners.

About 1,200 people waited to have books signed by the 39th president.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate demands report on "CIA prisons"

USA Today

Senate demands report on "CIA prisons"

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate demanded a classified account on Thursday of whether the CIA was running a secret prison system as it debated a bill that would regulate the Bush administration's treatment of military detainees.

The call was made following a newspaper report of such a prison network abroad, including facilities in Eastern Europe, that added to concerns in America and overseas about the fate of those held in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism.

Senators also moved to deny detainees at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison the right to challenge their detentions with habeas corpus petitions in federal court, a step critics said could undermine efforts to secure their humane treatment.

Lawmakers said they could revisit the Guantanamo issue next week when they hope to complete a $491.6 billion package of defense and nuclear weapons programs.

The White House has threatened to veto the legislation because of an attached measure requiring humane treatment of terrorism suspects and setting rules for their interrogation.

The Senate voted 82-9 for director of National Intelligence John Negroponte to provide Congress' intelligence committees with a classified "full accounting" on any clandestine prison or detention facility run by the U.S. government at any location where terrorism suspects were being held.

The Washington Post reported last week that the CIA had been holding and interrogating al Qaeda captives at secret facilities in Eastern Europe, part of a global covert prison system established after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said most lawmakers learned about the covert prisons from the newspaper and said his amendment was to "reassert congressional oversight."

The administration has not publicly confirmed or denied the newspaper's account and the House of Representatives said on Thursday it would investigate that disclosure and a number of other recent leaks of national security information.

Voting 49-42, senators backed an amendment to stem the court challenges from terrorism suspects at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham argued that prisoners of war "have never had access to federal courts before." He said the detainees mostly picked up in Afghanistan were clogging courts with challenges ranging from disputing the legality of their detention to the quality of their food.

The vote came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would decide whether Bush has the power to create military tribunals to put Guantanamo prisoners on trial for war crimes.

Several senators, including Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, argued that the habeas corpus change should be weighed more carefully.

Christopher Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union said with the amendment, "persons held at Guantanamo Bay would have no access to the courts to seek protection against government-funded torture, abuse or due-process violations."

Defying the White House, the Senate has included regulations for treatment of military detainees in both this bill authorizing defense programs and a must-pass bill to fund the Pentagon and provide another $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The House of Representatives did not include the detainee rules in their versions of the bills, and the issue is expected to be fought out in House-Senate conferences.

Vice President Dick Cheney has worked behind the scenes to press Congress to exempt the CIA if it imposes detainee rules, arguing restrictions would impede efforts to get information to block acts of terrorism.

Democrats and a number of Republicans have rejected Cheney's plan, saying it would be seen as a license for the CIA to engage in torture.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate votes to strip leakers' security clearances

USA Today

Senate votes to strip leakers' security clearances

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has signed off on a provision that would strip the security clearances of any government official who knowingly discloses national security secrets, reflecting lawmakers' anger over recent leaks of classified information to the public.

The GOP-run Senate added the Democratic-sponsored provision to a broad defense policy bill expected to be approved next week. The House version does not include that provision.

"I served in World War II. We had an expression then. It said, 'Loose lips sink ships,'" said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who sponsored the provision. "Exposing our secrets was a grave offense then and it is a grave offense now."

Under current law, officials do not automatically lose their security clearance if they intentionally reveal classified information.

The provision, approved by the Senate on Thursday, would apply to anyone in the federal government, including those in Congress and on House and Senate staffs who have clearances and who intentionally disclose classified information, including details of a covert agent's identity or a secret operation.

Lautenberg told his colleagues the provision was necessary "given recent developments of which we are all aware."

Last month, I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's now former chief of staff, was indicted on charges that included perjury in a two-year federal probe over who leaked the identity of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame to reporters.

On Nov. 2, a story in The Washington Post discussed the existence of secret CIA detention centers for suspected terrorists in Eastern European democracies and other countries. That triggered calls by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill for a congressional investigation into the purported leak of potentially classified information. The Justice Department also is weighing whether to open a criminal investigation, at the request of the CIA.

And at a conference in San Antonio last week, the top U.S. official for intelligence collection, Mary Margaret Graham, disclosed the closely held total U.S. intelligence budget. She said it is $44 billion.

The Senate implemented an unusual parliamentary procedure called a "standing division" to add the provision to the defense bill without a roll call vote. Under that procedure, approval is granted if enough senators in the chamber at the time rise.

Democrats accused Republicans of denying a request for a roll call vote because they did not want to put their names on record in favor of such a provision. Republicans blamed a time crunch and said they did not want to inconvenience senators wanting to leave Washington for the Veterans Day holiday.

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had offered a similar proposal in the summer, but some senators were wary of it because it wouldn't have precluded people who mistakenly disclosed classified information from losing their clearance. By adding the word "knowingly," the Senate-passed provision sets a higher bar.

Read More...

Summary only...

Poll: Majority questions Bush administration ethics

USA Today

Poll: Majority questions Bush administration ethics

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two crucial pillars of President Bush's public support — perceptions of his honesty and faith in his ability to fight terrorism — have slipped to their lowest point in the AP-Ipsos poll.

While the CIA leak investigation, the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina and high energy costs have all taken their toll, the polling found the Iraq war at the core of Americans' displeasure with the president.

All of those concerns are cutting into traditional Bush strengths.

Almost six in 10 now say Bush is not honest, and a similar number say his administration does not have high ethical standards.

During his re-election bid in 2004, Bush skillfully wove the public's trust of him and faith in his handling of the terror threat into a winning campaign over Democrat John Kerry.

Now, 56% disapprove of the way Bush is handling foreign policy and the war on terrorism, the poll found. Overall, 37% approve of the job Bush is doing as president.

An AP-Ipsos poll last week asked people to state in their own words why they approve or disapprove of the way Bush was doing his job. Almost six in 10 disapproved, and they most frequently mentioned the war in Iraq — far ahead of the second issue, the economy.

"To use an unfortunate metaphor, Iraq is a roadside bomb in American politics," said Rich Bond, a former national Republican chairman.

Iraq has cast a cloud over Bush's public standing in general. The public's view of the likeability of the affable president has dropped from 63% in August to 52% now.

"The war is an overriding issue. Look at the body count on a daily basis," said Tom Rector, a Democrat from Spokane, Wash.

The president has vowed to stay the course in Iraq, bringing democracy to a country infested with terrorists and rocked by explosions almost daily.

The president gets credit from a majority of Americans for being strong and decisive, but he's also seen by an overwhelming number of people as "stubborn," a perception reinforced by his refusal to yield on issues like the Iraq war, tax cuts and support for staffers under intense pressure.

Eighty-two percent of those polled describe Bush as "stubborn," with seven of every 10 Republicans agreeing with that description.

Concern about the administration's ethics has been fueled by the controversy over flawed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and the recent indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame, a scandal that touched other top officials in the administration.

That loss of trust complicates Bush's efforts to rebuild his standing with the public.

"Honesty is a huge issue because even people who disagreed with his policies respected his integrity," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist from the University of Texas.

Bush, who promised in the 2000 campaign to uphold "honor and integrity" in the White House, last week ordered White House workers, from presidential advisers to low-ranking aides, to attend ethics classes.

Some observers say they aren't impressed.

"It's like shutting the barn door after the horse escaped," said John Morrison, a Democrat who lives near Scranton, Pa.

Some Republicans are nervous about the GOP's political position.

"A lot of elected Republicans are running for the hills in the Northeast," Connecticut GOP strategist Chris DePino said after citing "a waterfall of missteps" by Republicans. Bush and the GOP must return to their message that the United States has been safe from terrorism during his administration, DePino said.

GOP pollster David Winston said Republicans are hoping the strength of the economy and the upcoming elections in Iraq can improve the public's mood about the administration.

Many of those who approve of Bush's job performance pointed to his Christian beliefs and strong values, the second biggest reason given for supporting him — after agreeing with his policies.

"I know he is a man of integrity and strong faith," said Fran Blaney, a Republican and an evangelical who lives near Hartford, Conn. "I've read that he prays every morning asking for God's guidance. He certainly is trying to do what he thinks he is supposed to do."

The poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Nov. 7-9 by Ipsos, an international polling firm, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read More...

Summary only...

A month after pledge, FEMA hasn't reopened contracts

USA Today
A month after pledge, FEMA hasn't reopened contracts

WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite a month-old pledge, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has yet to reopen four of its biggest no-bid contracts for Hurricane Katrina work and won't do so until the contracts are virtually complete. A promise to hire more minority-owned firms also is largely unfulfilled.

The no-bid contracts for temporary housing, worth up to $100 million each, were given to Shaw Group Inc., Bechtel Corp., CH2M Hill Inc. and Fluor Corp. right after Katrina struck. Charges of favoritism helped prompt last month's pledge by FEMA acting director R. David Paulison, but now officials with the Homeland Security Department, which oversees FEMA, say the contracts won't be awarded again until February.

The disclosure dismayed some lawmakers and business groups that believe the Bush administration has not done enough to ensure Katrina contracts are spread around. In particular, they say small and minority-owned businesses in the Gulf Coast have been shortchanged.

FEMA promised to boost the number of contracts given to minority-owned businesses but in the last month the percentage has increased only slightly, from 1.5% to 1.8% of the $3.1 billion awarded. That's still well below the 5% of federal contracts normally set aside for minority-owned firms.

"FEMA's performance falls far short," said Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee. "The federal government must make a major shift in both policy and implementation if the lives of the people of the Gulf Coast are to be effectively rebuilt and restored."

Thompson said he would introduce legislation to require the Homeland Security Department to maintain a permanent database for small and minority-owned businesses to be hired as prime contractors, rather than lower-paid subcontractors.

"I am from Mississippi, and I know sharecropping when I see it," Thompson said.

Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, decried the dearth of small and minority Katrina contracts as "shameful." But he's hopeful, noting that President Bush met with him and other minority leaders Thursday to discuss how to improve business opportunities.

"Less than 2% of contracts going to minority-owned businesses is totally unacceptable," Alford said. "Now is show time. We've been hurt. I think our concerns have been taken seriously, and I believe we're going to work it out."

FEMA also has been criticized for the no-bid contracts. Officials said they awarded those contracts to speed recovery efforts that might have been slowed by competitive bidding, but critics saw it as a way to reward politically connected firms.

Bechtel CEO Riley Bechtel served on Bush's Export Council from 2003-2004, and the Shaw Group's lobbyist, Joe Allbaugh, is a former FEMA director and friend of Bush. Both companies have denied political connections played a factor.

On Oct. 6, acting FEMA chief Paulison declared he was "no fan of no-bid contracts" and pledged to reopen the four deals. But in testimony to Congress on Tuesday, Greg Rothwell, Homeland Security's chief procurement officer, said rebidding won't be done until February.

"Until then, the four companies will continue their work," he told a Senate hearing chaired by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whose panel is reviewing government efforts to help small businesses rebuild.

FEMA will post advertisements for the work sometime this month. The work will not be prioritized for small or minority-owned businesses, but winners of the deals must submit written plans to DHS detailing efforts to award 40% of their subcontracts to small businesses.

Separately, FEMA will set aside up to $1.5 billion worth of work for small companies to maintain trailers housing Hurricane Katrina evacuees. The 15 contracts worth up to $100 million each will be awarded by Feb. 1, with eight of them specifically designated for minority-owned businesses.

Larry Orluskie, a Homeland Security spokesman, said FEMA had not reopened the contracts yet because it had to process paperwork. Meanwhile, officials are actively seeking to recruit smaller companies by holding workshops and through its website at www.dhs.gov/openforbusiness.

"It's a process," Orluskie said. "We can't have a change with the push of a button. Statements of work have to be cleared."

But the four major firms said this week they had not been notified of the rebidding other than from news reports following Paulison's announcement. Two of them — CH2M Hill and Fluor — said their contract terms already had established that FEMA had an option to end the work in January.

"The February timeframe is news to me," said John Corsi, spokesman for CH2M Hill, based in Englewood, Colo. He said the company had not decided whether it would submit a new bid if FEMA does not extend its contract. "We've been performing the work well, and we stand behind the job."

Brenda Thompson, a spokeswoman for San Francisco-based Bechtel Group Inc., said by February "we expect to have hauled and installed all temporary housing units in our scope of work for FEMA."

Shaw officials have said they intend to compete for the Katrina work once FEMA solicits new bids, saying they are confident they will win based on a strong track record in disaster relief.

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats frown on Massachusetts 'KKK' joke

USA TODAY

Democrats frown on Massachusetts 'KKK' joke

BOSTON (AP) — Gov. Mitt Romney was introduced at a Washington luncheon as the head of a state run by the "modern-day KKK ... the Kennedy-Kerry Klan," drawing rebukes from Democrats and Romney himself.

The comment was made by Gerald Walpin, a New Yorker who is a board member at the conservative law group the Federalist Society, where Romney spoke Thursday.

"Today when most of the country thinks of who controls Massachusetts, I think the modern-day KKK comes to mind — the Kennedy-Kerry Klan," Walpin said, according to Keith Appell, a GOP consultant who works for the Federalist Society.

Later, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, Romney branded the remarks "ill-advised."

"It's not appropriate to joke about the Ku Klux Klan," Romney said.

The Boston Globe reported in Friday's editions that Romney laughed along with the audience and thanked Walpin for "a very generous introduction." But the Republican governor said he wasn't really paying attention.

"I was looking at my notes and preparing for my speech at the time," he said. "There's not much I can do about speakers who introduce me."

State party Chairman Phil Johnston said he was outraged that Romney could find humor in the remarks about Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry and the Ku Klux Klan.

"It is embarrassing that Gov. Mitt Romney would laugh at any joke that disparages Catholics, African-Americans, and Jews," he said.

Walpin said Friday he had no regrets about the comment.

"Certain people in Massachusetts have no sense of humor," he told WBZ-AM.

The Federalist Society is among the nation's most influential conservative legal organizations, an important constituency for Romney if he decides to seek the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. Several senior members of the Bush administration are members.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-11-massachusetts_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Clinton calls impeachment 'egregious abuse'

USA TODAY
Clinton calls impeachment 'egregious abuse'

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (AP) — Former president Bill Clinton called Congress' impeachment of him an "egregious" abuse of the Constitution and challenged those who say history will judge him poorly because of his White House tryst with Monica Lewinsky.

Speaking at an academic conference examining his presidency here Thursday, Clinton challenged historian Douglas Brinkley's comments in a newspaper interview that Clinton would be deemed a great president were it not for his impeachment.

"I completely disagree with that," Clinton said in his speech at Hofstra University. "You can agree with that statement, but only if you think impeachment was justified. Otherwise, it was an egregious abuse of the Constitution and law and history of our country."

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate of perjury and obstruction of justice at his 1999 impeachment trial, which he argued was not about what he called his "misconduct."

"Now if you want to hold it against me that I did something wrong, that's a fair deal," he said. "If you do that, then you have a whole lot of other questions, which is how many other presidents do you have to downgrade and what are you going to do with all those Republican congressmen, you know, that had problems?"

Clinton touted what he called the achievements of his eight-year presidency, from Middle East peace initiatives to turning around the U.S. economy.

His remarks were cheered loudly by the audience.

Clinton said his administration's failures included its slowness to act to halt the genocide in Rwanda and the decision to allow federal agents to raid a cult leader's compound in Waco, Texas. Nearly 80 cult followers died in a fire during the 1993 confrontation.

"We should have waited them out," he said.

The presidential conference is the 11th to be held at Hofstra; the first in 1982 examined the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-11-clintonhofstra_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Approves Limiting Rights of U.S. Detainees

The New York Times

Senate Approves Limiting Rights of U.S. Detainees
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - The Senate voted Thursday to strip captured "enemy combatants" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of the principal legal tool given to them last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts.

The vote, 49 to 42, on an amendment to a military budget bill by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, comes at a time of intense debate over the government's treatment of prisoners in American custody worldwide, and just days after the Senate passed a measure by Senator John McCain banning abusive treatment of them.

If approved in its current form by both the Senate and the House, which has not yet considered the measure but where passage is considered likely, the law would nullify a June 2004 Supreme Court opinion that detainees at Guantánamo Bay had a right to challenge their detentions in court.

Nearly 200 of roughly 500 detainees there have already filed habeas corpus motions, which are making their way up through the federal court system. As written, the amendment would void any suits pending at the time the law was passed.

The vote also came in the same week that the Supreme Court announced that it would consider the constitutionality of war crimes trials before President Bush's military commissions for certain detainees at Guantánamo Bay, a case that legal experts said might never be decided by the court if the Graham amendment became law.

Five Democrats joined 44 Republicans in backing the amendment, but the vote on Thursday may only be a temporary triumph for Mr. Graham. Senate Democrats led by Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico said they would seek another vote, as early as Monday, to gut the part of Mr. Graham's measure that bans Guantánamo prisoners from challenging their incarceration by petitioning in civilian court for a writ of habeas corpus.

So it is possible that some lawmakers could have it both ways, backing other provisions in Mr. Graham's measure that try to make the Guantánamo tribunal process more accountable to the Senate, but opposing the more exceptional element of the legislation that limits prerogatives of the judiciary. Nine senators were absent for Thursday's vote.

Mr. Graham said the measure was necessary to eliminate a blizzard of legal claims from prisoners that was tying up Department of Justice resources, and slowing the ability of federal interrogators to glean information from detainees that have been plucked off the battlefields of Afghanistan and elsewhere.


"It is not fair to our troops fighting in the war on terror to be sued in every court in the land by our enemies based on every possible complaint," Mr. Graham said. "We have done nothing today but return to the basics of the law of armed conflict where we are dealing with enemy combatants, not common criminals."

Opponents of the measure denounced the Senate vote as a grave step backward in the nation's treatment of detainees in the global war on terror. "This is not a time to back away from the principles that this country was founded on," Mr. Bingaman said during floor debate.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of four Republicans to vote against the measure, said the Senate was unduly rushing into a major legal shift without enough debate. "I believe the habeas corpus provision needs to be maintained," Mr. Specter said.

A three-judge panel trying to resolve the extent of Guantánamo prisoners' rights to challenge detentions sharply questioned an administration lawyer in September when he argued that detainees had no right to be heard in federal appeals courts.

The panel of the District of Columbia Circuit is trying to apply a 2004 Supreme Court ruling to two subsequent, conflicting decisions by lower courts, one appealed by the prisoners and the other by the administration.

In its June 28, 2004, decision in Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the Guantánamo base was not outside the jurisdiction of American law as administration lawyers had argued and that the habeas corpus statute allowing prisoners to challenge their detentions was applicable.

Under Mr. Graham's measure, Guantánamo prisoners would be able to challenge only the narrow question of whether the government followed procedures established by the defense secretary at the time the military determined their status as enemy combatants, which is subject to an annual review. The District of Columbia Circuit would retain the right to rule on that, but not on other aspects of a prisoner's case.

Detainees would not be able to challenge the underlying rationale for their detention. "If it stands, it means detainees at Guantánamo Bay would have no access to any federal court for anything other than very simple procedural complaints dealing with annual status review," said Christopher E. Anders, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Otherwise, the federal courts' door is shut."

If the measure is enacted, civil liberties groups said it would appear to render moot the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to decide the validity of the military commissions that Mr. Bush wants to try detainees charged with terrorist offenses to trial. But some legal experts said the court might be able to move ahead if determined to do so.

Under the Graham amendment, the measure would apply to any application or action pending "on or after the date of enactment of this act."

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, said: "The Senate acted unwisely, and unnecessarily, in stripping courts of jurisdiction over Guantánamo detainees. Particularly now, as the string of reports of abuse over the past several years have underscored how important it is to have effective checks on the exercise of executive authority, depriving an entire branch of government of its ability to exercise meaningful oversight is a decidedly wrong course to take."

The Senate vote on Thursday came just days after senators voted, for the second time in recent weeks, to back a measure by Mr. McCain to prohibit the use of cruel and degrading treatment against detainees in American custody.

Vice President Dick Cheney has appealed to Mr. McCain and to Senate Republicans to grant the C.I.A. an exemption to allow it extra latitude, subject to presidential authorization, in interrogating high-level terrorists abroad who might know about future attacks. Mr. McCain said Thursday that negotiations with the White House on compromise language were stalemated.

In addition to Mr. Specter, Republicans voting against the bill were Senators John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. The five Democrats voting for the bill were Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Read More...

Summary only...

Was the Universe "Intelligently Designed" ... by Satan?

huffingtonpost.com

Was the Universe "Intelligently Designed" ... by Satan?
RJ Eskow

Creationists like to say that "intelligent design" is not "religious" is nature because, while it argues for the existence of an all-powerful Creator, it never explicitly says that Creator is the biblical God. They leave those particular dots for individual worshippers - er, I mean students - to connect for themselves. "How can you look at complex biological processes," they ask, "and not see the organizing hand of a Planner at work?"

"ID" critics like physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, a recent guest on the "Colbert Report," respond by pointing out flaws in the universe's alleged "design" - like those pesky asteroids that could plunge the earth into lifeless chaos at any moment. Dr. Tyson et al. argue that imperfections like these refute the idea of a master planner behind all creation.

Let's get the two sides together. "ID"-ers say the Creator need not be "God," and scientists point to major problems with the created universe. So, let's see ... if it wasn't God, who else might have created a reality so filled with deviations, inconsistencies, and problems? Hmm. Could it be ... perhaps ... oh, I don't know ... Satan???

Consider the evidence: Diseases. Torture. Sadness. Pat Robertson. The overwhelming destructive force of antimatter. Michael Bolton's remake of "When A Man Loves A Woman." Yeah, that's right. The evidence of a Devil-Creator is all around us, staring us in the face with its baleful eyes. Do we dare look away?

The idea of physical existence as a satanic creation is hardly a new one but, like lots of other devilish creatures, it may be ready for a facelift. Manicheans, Bogomils, Cathars, Paulicians - they all saw this reality as the creation of a deity who was less righteous (and more aggravating) than God, if not downright evil. Sure, these groups lost out in the competition of early religious sects, and the Religious Right is dominating the game right now - but what's that all about, except a kind of theological Darwinism? Why shouldn't we assume that Satan created this Universe as a playground for himself and his fellow executives at Halliburton?

But then again ... nah. The idea doesn't hold water, if you think about it. After all, there are good things in this universe, too - like health, charity, happiness, Martin Luther King, and Percy Sledge's original version of "When A Man Loves a Woman." The old Muslim idea of Satan as the "lurker" or "whisperer" in the human heart - who has no power other than that people willingly give him - makes more sense to me. That's an interpretation that, when translated into more modern metaphor, addresses the moral and psychological dimensions of evil. And evil only seems to exist in humanity, not in the rest of the universe.

Sorry, creationists. You don't believe this world is the creation of the Devil, and neither do I. And if a merciful God created this Universe in the way you believe, why would he have given us minds with which to interpret it - unless we were meant to use them? The Catholic Church accepts the validity of evolution, aas does virtually every living scientist. The National Council of Churches supports the teaching of science, as do most major Jewish, Buddhist, and Islamic organizations in this country. For everybody except a retrograde few, the truth and power of science are undeniable.

You few who think otherwise want to impose your vision - your 'design' - on everybody else. You may be riding high in Kansas, but you're out on the street in Dover - and you're not too popular in the national opinion polls, either. So, for the so-called "intelligent designers," it looks like it's time to go back to the drawing board.

Read More...

Summary only...

Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath

Reuters

Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential conservative Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has a long record of similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements.

Last summer, he hit the headlines by calling for the assassination of leftist Venezuelan Present Hugo Chavez, one of President George W. Bush's most vocal international critics.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

The 700 Club claims a daily audience of around one million. It is also broadcast around the world translated into more than 70 languages.

In voting on Tuesday, all eight Dover, Pennsylvania, school board members up for re-election lost their seats after trying to introduce "intelligent design" to high school science students as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Adherents of intelligent design argue that certain forms in nature are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been created by a "designer." Opponents say it is the latest attempt by conservatives to introduce religion into the school science curriculum.

The Dover case sparked a trial in federal court that gained nationwide attention after the school board was sued by parents backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The board ordered schools to read students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it.

The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternate theory and recommended students read a book that explained the theory further. A decision in the case is expected before the end of the year.

In 1998, Robertson warned the city of Orlando, Florida that it risked hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist bombs after it allowed homosexual organizations to put up rainbow flags in support of sexual diversity.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pentagon probes treatment of 'Able Danger' officer

Reuters

Pentagon probes treatment of 'Able Danger' officer

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon inspector general is investigating the Defense Intelligence Agency's treatment of an Army colonel who was the first to claim publicly that the government knew about four September 11 hijackers long before the 2001 attacks, officials said on Wednesday.

Among the issues under review is whether the DIA revoked the security clearance of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer last September in retaliation for repeated comments he made in the media about a military intelligence team code-named Able Danger, sources familiar with the case said.

Revelations about Able Danger, a small data-mining operation that ended in 2000, have reignited debate about whether the United States could have prevented the attacks on New York and Washington that killed 3,000 people and prompted the U.S. war on terrorism.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the inspector general began reviewing Shaffer's case after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld received a written request on October 20 from Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services.

Shaffer and his attorney met with officials from the inspector general's office on Wednesday.

Shaffer came forward in August with claims that Able Danger had identified September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as al Qaeda members in early 2000. But he said Pentagon lawyers prevented the team from warning the FBI.

Others associated with Able Danger, including the team's former leader, Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, have since made similar statements. But an exhaustive Pentagon search of tens of thousands of documents and electronic files related to the operation failed to corroborate the claims.

Officials with House and Senate intelligence oversight committees have also said there is little substantiating evidence.

U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican who has championed Able Danger and other data-mining projects, told reporters on Wednesday that Able Danger also uncovered evidence of a threat to U.S. interests in Yemen two days before the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole, which killed 17 sailors.

Weldon, who attributed his information to Phillpott, said the Able Danger team passed along the warning through proper channels but no word of danger ever reached the Cole.

"They sent it up but they don't know what happened," Weldon said. "That's part of what needs to be investigated."

Meanwhile, Shaffer's attorneys say their client is in danger of losing his job because the DIA has accused him of obtaining a medal under false pretenses, improperly showing his military identification while drunk and stealing ink pens.

Shaffer's supporters, including Weldon, say the charges are trumped up.

Weldon and Shaffer attorney Mark Zaid both said the DIA recently returned Shaffer's personal effects from his office but mistakenly included several classified documents and another employee's mail.

"There are several inconsistencies between the DIA and LTC Shaffer concerning the facts," Hunter said in his letter to Rumsfeld. "The committee also has concerns with certain aspects of how the DIA has handled this matter."

Read More...

Summary only...

Chairman Threatens Subpoenas on Katrina

Chairman Threatens Subpoenas on Katrina

By JEFFREY McMURRAY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican chairman of a House panel investigating the response to Hurricane Katrina threatened Wednesday to issue subpoenas for documents if the White House and other agencies don't provide them by Nov. 18.

Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia made the commitment after a Louisiana Democrat, Charlie Melancon, pointed out the panel still hadn't seen some documents it requested more than a month ago. The original request pertains to the White House, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services and the states of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Davis said there had been a significant response from the White House, Alabama and Mississippi and that the Department of Homeland Security had assured him it would provide documents within a week.

"This is progress, but it's not enough," Davis said.

"Lack of compliance is hindering the investigation," Melancon said.

The committee made its initial request in late September and set a due date for Oct. 4. Some of those documents have been provided, including a few pertaining to budget issues and e-mails between former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown and Homeland Security headquarters.

However, Melancon said most of the key documents are missing - including anything involving Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and correspondence between federal agencies. Louisiana has indicated it will provide documents but has requested an extension, Melancon's office said.

Read More...

Summary only...

TransUnion notifies consumers of data loss

TransUnion notifies consumers of data loss
A burglar stole a desktop computer containing sensitive data

News Story by Jaikumar Vijayan

NOVEMBER 09, 2005 (COMPUTERWORLD) - TransUnion LLC, one of the three major credit reporting companies in the U.S., today confirmed that a desktop computer containing the Social Security numbers and other sensitive information belonging to more than 3,600 consumers was stolen from one of its facilities in October.

The theft prompted the company to notify them of the breach on Oct. 21 and offer free credit monitoring services for a year.

In a statement, TransUnion said that a “small” TransUnion sales office in California was burglarized in early October. “One of the items stolen during the incident was a password-protected desktop computer, which may have contained some personal [credit] information on approximately 3,600 consumers,” the company said.

TransUnion notified local law enforcement authorities of the break-in and has assembled its own team to investigate the incident.

Since then, the credit reporting agency has been monitoring the credit reports of the affected consumers. “At this point, we do not believe there is any indication of any fraudulent activity,” it said.

However, the implications of the reported breach could go beyond the customers whose data was stolen if information stored on the missing desktop enables access to databases holding information on other consumers, said Prat Moghe, CEO of Tizor Systems Inc., a Maynard, Mass.-based vendor of activity auditing tools.

TransUnion, along with Experian North America Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services Inc., maintains credit histories on U.S. consumers that are used by lenders and other businesses for a variety of purposes.

The TransUnion breach is the latest in a series of high-profile data compromises this year involving companies such as ChoicePoint Inc., Bank of America Corp., DSW Inc., Reed Elsevier Inc.’s LexisNexis unit, Card Systems Inc. and several universities.

The rash of disclosures has raised consumer concerns about identity theft and prompted federal lawmakers to propose several new regulations.

Just last week, for instance. a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill that would require companies to notify consumers when their information is stolen. It would also require information brokers to tell the Federal Trade Commission about their plans for safeguarding private data for monitoring and periodic review.

If approved, the bill would override state laws such as California’s much-touted SB 1386 Database Breach Notification Act and would serve as a national breach notification law. The proposed measure, however, requires companies to inform consumers of data breaches only if there is a “significant risk” of fraud.

That clause could provide a big loophole for companies and possibly result in incidents such as the one involving TransUnion to go unreported in the future, warned Alan Paller, director of the SANS Institute, a security research and training firm in Bethesda, Md.

“I believe that 98% of the time companies are not going to disclose breaches” if the law goes into effect, Paller said. “Only 2% are going to be good citizens and report breaches” even if there is nothing to suggest imminent fraud, he added.

Read More...

Summary only...

Security of FEMA database questioned

Security of FEMA database questioned
Agency officials agree that changes are needed to protect data

News Story by Linda Rosencrance

NOVEMBER 09, 2005 (COMPUTERWORLD) - The Federal Emergency Management Agency has not established adequate controls over sensitive data in its National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS), according to a redacted report (download PDF) released Monday by Robert Skinner, inspector general of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

FEMA is now part of the DHS’s Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R) Directorate.

Although the agency, which came under fire for its slow response to Hurricane Katrina in late August, has developed and maintained many essential security controls for NEMIS, more work needs to be done to protect the database, according to Skinner’s report.

Specifically, FEMA hasn’t implemented effective procedures for granting, monitoring and removing user access, nor has it conducted contingency training or testing, Skinner said. In addition, vulnerabilities were found on NEMIS servers related to access rights and password administration.

NEMIS allows incident tracking and coordination, is used by individuals and small businesses that apply for federal assistance, and processes requests from states for funding of hazard mitigation projects.

“Due to these database security exposures, there is an increased risk that unauthorized individuals could gain access to critical EP&R database resources and compromise the confidentiality, integrity and availability of sensitive NEMIS data,” Skinner wrote in the report. “In addition, EP&R may not be able to recover NEMIS following a disaster.”

He called on FEMA to make sure adequate controls over user access to NEMIS are put in place and urged it to implement an IT contingency training and testing program for NEMIS. He also said FEMA needs to develop corrective action plans to address the vulnerabilities and weaknesses Skinner found.

In response to a draft of the report, FEMA officials agreed with Skinner’s recommendations and said they are moving to correct the deficiencies. Even so, Skinner said FEMA did not offer up a specific plan to address 56 deficiencies, and noted that EP&R has not fully aligned its security program with DHS’s overall policies, procedures or practices.

“For example, security controls had not been tested in over a year; a contingency plan has not been tested; security control costs have not been integrated into the life cycle of the system; and system and database administrators have not obtained specialized security training,” Skinner wrote.

The NEMIS database, which was implemented in 1998, was designed and developed by Fairfax, Va.-based Anteon Corp., using Oracle Corp.’s relational database management system. Although that information was redacted from Skinner’s report, it was available at Anteon’s Web site.

NEMIS replaced FEMA’s legacy system with a fully integrated client/server architecture consisting of more than 31 networked servers installed nationwide, according to Anteon.

Read More...

Summary only...

Under fire from Democrats, Cheney pushes back

Reuters

Under fire from Democrats, Cheney pushes back

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With Vice President Dick Cheney under mounting fire, his office together with the White House and the Republican Party responded with a coordinated counter-attack on Tuesday, accusing Sen. Harry Reid of malicious conduct "unbecoming" his role as Democratic leader.

The White House response -- unusual in its hostile tone and coordination -- was sparked by Reid's charges that Cheney manipulated pre-war intelligence about Iraq and was "behind" the leaking of classified information to discredit White House critics.

Cheney's long-time chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted last month for obstructing justice, perjury and lying after a two-year investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Cheney has also come under withering criticism for spearheading an effort in Congress to exempt the CIA from an amendment by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain that would ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

The counter-attack against Reid may be a sign that the White House is planning a more aggressive campaign against its critics as polls show Bush's approval ratings at all-time lows.

"There's a dark cloud hanging over the White House. It's really a storm cloud. The vice president, who gets his authority from the president, sadly is in the middle of that storm," Reid told reporters.

Cheney was involved in "the manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq," said Reid, who also accused the vice president of being behind an energy policy that has put "big oil ahead of the American consumer."

"Leaking classified information to discredit White House critics, the vice president is behind that," Reid added.

Plame's identity was leaked to the media in July 2003 after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the war in Iraq.

Within minutes of each other, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, counsel to the vice president Steve Schmidt and the Republican National Committee all issued responses bashing Reid.

McClellan decried Reid's "rants" as "unbecoming of a leader of any party," and said Americans would question "whether Democrats are more concerned about the peoples' priorities or scoring political points at the expense of a dedicated public servant."

Schmidt called Reid's comments "unconscionable personal attacks and malicious," adding: "These are beneath the office of the Democratic leader."

Brian Jones, the RNC's communications director, said Reid's comments were "vicious" and accused him of spinning a "far-flung conspiracy theory."

Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman, brushed aside the criticism, saying "the attack dogs on the right are just trying to personalize this debate."

Libby's indictment in the CIA leak probe has put a spotlight on Cheney's role and how his office made the case for the Iraq war.

According to the indictment, Libby learned from Cheney on June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked in the counterproliferation division of the CIA. Cheney himself could be summoned to testify at an eventual trial.

Read More...

Summary only...

Virginia, A Republican Problem

huffingtonpost.com

Virginia, A Republican Problem
by Timothy Naftali

Tim Kaine has just been elected Governor of Virginia and national Republicans should be concerned. All week in Charlottesville, Virginia, a Democratic echo chamber in the center of the state, there was serious pessimism that the Democratic candidate would win, despite the popularity of the current Democratic governor, Mark Warner. Traditionally a Democrat needs to be ahead by 6 or 7 points in the last poll before any election to have any chance to carry the state.

A seasoned local Democratic pol explained this by telling me that Virginian Republicans tend to lie to pollsters about who they are planning to vote for. Leaving that possibly partisan sociology aside, Mark Warner's victory in 2001 was indeed a lot narrower than had been predicted by the polls. With Kaine leading by only a couple of points going into today's vote, he seemed to be a likely loser. Kaine had run on the theme of good government, while trying to stay away from social issues and many of his supporters believed that his campaign was too lackluster. His opponent, Jerry Kilgore, though a weak campaigner enjoyed the enthusiastic support of Virginia's powerful and wealthy religious right. Moreover, in recent days, the Kilgore campaign mounted a mischievous effort to split the Democratic vote by encouraging progressives to support an independent candidate. A flyer entitled "Official Democratic and Progressive 2005 Voters Guide" appeared at the doorsteps of registered Democrats. It featured a donkey and gave reasons why the independent candidate, Russ Potts, was more pro-gay and pro-choice than the Democratic candidate. Only a careful reader could see the fine print that the flyer was developed and paid for by state Republicans. Meanwhile telephone banks started calling registered Democrats to tell them that the independent candidate was more committed to womens' issues than Tim Kaine. When some of the recipients of these calls looked up the organization that claimed credit for giving this progressive advice, they found that it was a Republican PAC. Democrats shook their heads and until tonight worried that these ploys might succeed.

Despite all of these apparent advantages, Kilgore lost by five points. Indeed Kaine's margin of victory was larger than his lead in recent polls and despite the Republican eve-of-the-election trick, the independent vote collapsed with the Democrat the sole beneficiary. This is not supposed to happen in Virginia. And, by the way, this week President Bush made a last-minute campaign stop here to help Kilgore. That was also supposed to help in a Red state.

Read More...

Summary only...

Evolution suffers Kansas setback

BBC NEWS
Evolution suffers Kansas setback
The US state of Kansas has approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on evolution.

The Board of Education's vote, expected for months, approved the new language criticising evolution by 6-4.

Proponents of the change argue they are trying to expose students to legitimate scientific questions about evolution.

Critics say it is an attempt to inject creationism into schools, in violation of the constitutional separation between church and state.

The decision is part of an ongoing national debate over the teaching of evolution and intelligent design.

The theory of intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Definition of science

Tuesday's vote was the third time in six years that the Kansas board has rewritten standards with evolution as the central issue.

Current state standards treat evolution as well-established, a view held by national science groups.

The new standards include several specific challenges, including statements that there is a lack of evidence or natural explanation for the genetic code, and charges that fossil records are inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

It also states that says certain evolutionary explanations "are not based on direct observations... and often reflect... inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence".

"This is a great day for education," board chairman Steve Abrams told the Reuters news agency.

Decisions about what is taught in Kansas classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards, but the new standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science.

Educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania is expected to rule soon in a lawsuit against a school district policy that requires science teachers to say that evolution is unproven.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4419796.stm

Read More...

Summary only...