Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Big Oil 'Participation' at Issue

washingtonpost.com
Big Oil 'Participation' at Issue
Definitions Cited in Dispute Over Roles in Energy Task Force

By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer

It all depends how you define the word "participate."

While that may seem as silly as bickering over the definition of the word "is," the implications for some oil company executives who testified at a Senate hearing could be significant. Based on how the word is parsed, some executives either told the truth or did not when they were asked about their "participation" in the 2001 energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney.

The dispute stems from a question raised by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). At a hearing two weeks ago, he asked five oil executives whether they or representatives of their companies participated in meetings with Cheney's energy task force.

The chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co. and Chevron Corp. answered no. The president of Shell Oil Co. said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

The Bush administration has refused to identify who participated in the task force meetings. But The Washington Post reported last week that a White House document shows that in 2001, officials from Exxon Mobil, Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil and BP America met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

Yesterday, Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for the GOP staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, one of the two panels that convened the hearing, said its lawyers had reached a preliminary conclusion: Based on a court decision in which two groups unsuccessfully challenged the secrecy of the Cheney task force, Funk said the executives appeared to be telling the truth.

"What we simply determined was that the definition of 'participation' was something litigated, and what the court concluded was that attending meetings, and even making presentations, did not rise to the level of fully participating," Funk said.

Lautenberg sees it differently, and disputes the GOP interpretation of the court decision. He also said Republicans are incorrectly interpreting his question.

"I think we're getting down to almost a silly discussion," Lautenberg said.

Lautenberg said that when he asked the question, he was thinking of the word "participation" in broad terms. Here's his definition: "If you're doing anything more than breathing in the room when you're there. Even if you're a silent observer."

The senator has asked the Justice Department to look into the matter.

Funk said that the GOP staff's findings have given "considerable comfort" to Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), the chairman of the energy panel. Funk said Domenici is reserving final judgment until after he has reviewed the written clarification that he and the panel's ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), have asked the oil companies to submit.

Yesterday, Exxon released a response to the senators, reiterating its position that its chief executive, Lee R. Raymond, testified accurately. The statement said the company had not "been a participant on the Task Force and no representative of ExxonMobil attended any meeting of the Task Force."

The statement went on to say that on Feb. 14, 2001, a 45-minute meeting took place with "an administration official" at Exxon Mobil's request. The company "provided information on the global energy supply and demand situation and steps ExxonMobil was taking to meet the world's growing energy needs."

Chevron recently submitted a statement saying that its employees had not participated in meetings with the task force. But the company said it sent a letter to President Bush outlining its position on energy policies.

ConocoPhillips has said its chief executive was appointed when Conoco and Phillips merged in 2002 and was unaware that Conoco officials had met with task force staff.

Read More...

Bitter debate on Iraq 'disturbing': Army general

Reuters
Bitter debate on Iraq 'disturbing': Army general

By Charles Aldinger

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The bitter battle in Washington over whether to withdraw U.S. troops quickly from Iraq is disturbing but has not damaged U.S. military morale, a senior American Army general in Baghdad said on Tuesday.

"A precipitous pullout, I believe, would be destabilizing," Lt. Gen. John Vines, the second-ranking U.S. commander there, told Pentagon reporters in a teleconference from Iraq. He refused to set any timetable.

"Of course the debate and the bitterness is disturbing. But, after all, we are a democracy, and that is what democracy is about ... people will have differences of opinion," Vines said.

"Certainly, soldiers are concerned about whether or not they enjoy the support of not only their elected representatives but the people. And they know that they have their support," Vines replied when pressed about morale among the 155,000 American troops in Iraq.

Vines, who commands the multinational corps of U.S.-led foreign troops in Iraq, declined to be drawn into the debate over a proposal by Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania that all of the troops be withdrawn within six months.

That call, issued last week by the decorated retired Marine and longtime supporter of the military, sparked a vitriolic war of words in the U.S. Congress, with some Republicans questioning Murtha's patriotism, at a time when President George W. Bush has suffered declining popularity over the war in Iraq.

Vines said any recommendation from U.S. commanders in Iraq to begin withdrawing forces would be made based on the security situation and not on political considerations.

"I'm not going to get into a timetable. It will be driven by conditions on the ground," he said.

CIVILIAN DEATHS

Vines expressed regret over an incident on Monday in which U.S. troops opened fire on a crowded minivan north of Baghdad, killing at least three civilians, including a child. But he said the military would not make any changes in its "rules of engagement" that might endanger troops.

"The loss of any innocent life, indeed any life, is tragic," Vines said. "What we must never do is deprive a soldier in harm's way the ability to protect himself and his fellow soldiers."

How will Americans know, Vines was asked by reporters, that any recommendation by commanders to leave Iraq is based on military judgment rather than political questions over Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and his subsequent handling of the war?

"I know that our recommendations will be based on conditions here in-country. They will not be based on the things that you allude to," Vines said.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said U.S. military commanders in Iraq are mindful that the very presence of American forces may fuel insurgent violence in parts of that country, adding that this concern factored into decisions about future U.S. force levels.

The intensifying debate at home about the future of U.S. troops in Iraq will not play a role in the decisions being made about future force levels, Di Rita added.

Read More...

Senator says Bush needs to depoliticize Iraq debate

Reuters
Senator says Bush needs to depoliticize Iraq debate

CHICAGO (Reuters) - President George W. Bush should take politics out of the Iraq war by admitting he made mistakes and pledging to work with both parties to find a responsible way to end it, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said on Tuesday.

By turning the discussion of the war into a for-us or against-us proposition, the White House last week "showed exactly what kind of debate it wants on the future of Iraq -- none," Obama said in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.

Obama, the only black in the Senate, said Bush "could take the politics out of Iraq once and for all" if he would tell the American people: "'Yes, we made mistakes. Yes. there are things I would have done differently. But ... I am willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.'"

The administration's response last week to Democratic Rep. John Murtha's call for an immediate troop withdrawal was "shameful," Obama said, and pushed the debate farther from finding a pragmatic solution to the conflict.

"No American wants a war without end -- a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent and where we end up with arbitrary poll-driven troop reductions ...," he said.

Read More...

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

White House Flip-Flops on Murtha

thinkprogress.org

White House Flip-Flops on Murtha

First, Murtha was taking a “baffling” position only accepted by “the extreme liberal wing.” White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 11/18/05:

[I]t is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled — nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.

Now, he’s taking a “clear stand” in a “legitimate discussion.” Vice President Cheney, 11/21/05:

Recently my friend Jack Murtha called for a complete withdraw of our troops in Iraq. I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best interest of this nation. He’s a good man, a marine, a patriot and he’s taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion.

Read More...

Cheney Rewrites The Headlines

Cheney Rewrites The Headlines

Vice President Dick Cheney began his speech at the American Enterprise Institute today with the following statement:

My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline quote, Cheney Says War Critics Dishonest, Reprehensible, endquote. The one thing I’ve learned in the last five years is that when you’re vice president you’re lucky if your speeches get any attention at all but I do have a quarrel with that headline.

Here’s exactly what Cheney said just a few days ago, on November 16:

And the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

To quote President Bush, it is “deeply irresponsible to rewrite history.”

UPDATE:

Cheney clarified later in the speech that he differentiates between war critics who believe the President misled the public into war and war critics who believe an exit strategy is needed. While he believes the latter is a patriotic group, the former is still “dishonest and reprehensible“:

What is not legitimate — and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible — is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.

Read More...

A Strip Search of Novak’s Column Yields No Facts

thinkprogress.org

A Strip Search of Novak’s Column Yields No Facts

In his column this morning, Novak took issue with the assertion that Alito voted to approve the strip search of a 10-year-old girl:

The ad claimed Alito, as a federal appellate judge, “even voted to approve the strip search of a 10-year-old girl.” This distorts a case where a suspected drug dealer’s daughter was searched, visibly not manually, by a female police officer in the presence of the child’s mother.

Here’s what actually happened, as described by the court:

Once inside, however, the officers found no visitors, but only John Doe’s wife, Jane, and their ten year old daughter, Mary…They were instructed to empty their pockets and lift their shirts. The female officer patted their pockets. She then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found.

That sounds like a strip search. And as the court makes clear, the 10-year-old girl was patted down, so Novak’s claim that the girl was only searched only “visibly not manually” isn’t true. Later in the decision, the court specifically points out that the girl was “touched by a female officer who was searching for contraband.”

Also, Novak fails to point out that the girl was not covered by the warrant obtained by the officers. That’s why the majority found “Searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.”

Read More...

Woodward Reveals Important Clues About White House Smear Campaign

thinkprogress.org

Woodward Reveals Important Clues About White House Smear Campaign

From Woodward’s appearance on Larry King “Live” tonight:

Question: Your source, did the source indicate whether Ms. Plame was an undercover agent or a desk analyst?

Woodward: Good question. And specifically said that — the source did — that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst. Now, I’ve been covering the CIA for over three decades, and analysts, except — in fact, I don’t even know of a case. Maybe there are cases. But they’re not undercover. They are people who take other information and analyze it. And so — and if you were there at this moment in mid-June when this was said, there was no suggestion that it was sensitive, that it was secret.

This exchange is extremely important. From the indictment, we learned that Vice President Cheney told Scooter Libby that Plame worked in the “Counterproliferation Division,” an agency in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (DO) – see fact #9. The DO is well-known as the clandestine arm of the CIA.

The “agency on weapons of mass destruction,” however, is part of the Directorate of Intelligence (DI), which is “on the overt side of the CIA.” Recall, Novak’s source also told him Plame worked at the “agency on weapons of mass destruction.” Matt Cooper was also told that Plame worked at the “agency on wmd.” And Judith Miller? Same deal — she was told Plame worked at “WINPAC” (the more formal acronym for the agency on weapons of mass destruction).

So, at some point along this chain, someone in the Bush administration changed Valerie Plame’s job affiliation with the CIA,

possibly to convince reporters that it was OK to report on her. Were Woodward, Miller, Novak, and Cooper all intentionally deceived about Plame’s status? If so, it strongly suggests the outing of Valerie Plame was not unintentional.

Read More...

Lawmaker Returns Home, a Hawk Turned War Foe

The New York Times

Lawmaker Returns Home, a Hawk Turned War Foe
By DAVID S. CLOUD

JOHNSTOWN, Pa., Nov. 21 - Representative John P. Murtha, the hawkish Democrat who spent his political career as a staunch Pentagon supporter, came home Monday as something entirely different: an antiwar symbol.

His call last week for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq within the next six months took aback many of his own constituents and made the plainspoken former Marine colonel's homecoming on Monday a moment for re-evaluation - of the congressman, as well as of the Bush administration's strategy for Iraq.

"It's really surprising that you would see Mr. Murtha speaking out and saying that it's time to get out, and if he's saying it then it's probably so," said Becky Wicks, a Johnstown resident who said she and her family had supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

As recently as last year, Mr. Murtha was warning that "premature withdrawal" of American troops could lead to a civil war in Iraq and leave American foreign policy in "disarray," the exact critique Republicans lodge against him now.

The evolution of his views, he said, has been driven both by the pain of frequent visits to see injured soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center outside Washington and by his steady disillusionment with the Bush administration's handling of the war. But in some ways he is unsuited temperamentally to the role he has assumed.

"I just came to the conclusion finally that I had to speak out," he told reporters on Monday. "I had to focus this administration on an exit strategy."

"I'm hopeful I don't go too far," he said, adding that he "felt bad" last week after bringing up Vice President Dick Cheney's "five deferments" in the Vietnam era.

Mr. Cheney, in a speech on Monday in Washington in which he defended the administration's handling of the war, called Mr. Murtha "a good man, a marine, a patriot," and said Mr. Murtha was "taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion."

An insider most comfortable in the backrooms of Congress, Mr. Murtha said his goal was only to force a dialogue with President Bush on the need to draw down American forces - not lead his party's antiwar wing. Many fellow Democrats are uneasy about his call for an immediate withdrawal, fearing it will give Republicans a chance to brand them as weak on national security.

Not everyone in Johnstown is comfortable with Mr. Murtha's new role.

At a speech Monday morning to local executives and elected officials, Mr. Murtha received three standing ovations. The talk focused almost entirely on all the federal aid Mr. Murtha has been able to deliver to his district from his seat on the House Appropriations Committee.

But when he spoke briefly about Iraq, the audience seemed unsure about how to react to their congressman's public break with the Bush administration. When Mr. Murtha invited questions after his remarks, no one in the audience of several hundred came forward.

"We're all kind of perplexed," said Robert A. Gleason Jr., an insurance executive and chairman of the local Republican Committee, who said he had put aside party loyalties and voted for Mr. Murtha in the past.

The first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress, in 1974, Mr. Murtha rose to become the top Democrat on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, a post he has used to look after average soldiers' needs. He keeps a running count of the number of his constituents killed in Iraq: now 13.

Since shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, he has frequently visited wounded troops at Walter Reed, an experience that he said had gradually convinced him that the American troop presence was exacerbating the violence by giving insurgents more targets to attack.

In speeches over the last week, he has repeatedly referred to a constituent, Pfc. Salvatore Ross Jr., a combat engineer from Dunbar, Pa., who was badly wounded while landmines he was clearing near Baghdad went off. The explosion blinded him in both eyes and tore off his leg below the knee, Private Ross said in an interview. He spent more than a month in a coma at Walter Reed and later underwent more than a dozen surgeries.

Mr. Murtha visited him twice in the hospital and later arranged a ceremony in Private Ross's hometown, where he received a Purple Heart. He also arranged for Walter Reed to pick up many of his medical bills for special treatment at a private hospital, Johns Hopkins Medical Center.

Only a year ago, though, Mr. Murtha wrote in the epilogue to the paperback edition of a biography he wrote with a former aide that "an untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America's foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America's judgment but also its perseverance."

But in several trips to Iraq in the last year, he said that he became convinced that the military was not making progress at defeating the insurgency. Yet, he said, the Bush administration ignored his efforts to open private discussions on devising a bipartisan course change.

A letter on Iraq that Mr. Murtha said he sent to Mr. Bush last year did not get a reply until five months later, and then from a underling at the Pentagon, he complained.

"I deserve more respect than that," he said.

Mr. Murtha said he began discussing his growing unease with the military presence in Iraq with longtime advisers, including two retired generals and a former secretary of the Army, whom he would not identify. They urged him not to call publicly for a withdrawal, he said, but as his doubts about the war grew, "they finally came around."

Even Mr. Gleason, the local Republican chairman, predicted that Mr. Murtha's stance would cause him no significant political problems in next November's elections.

Though most voters lean Democratic in this blue-collar region, they are generally conservative. President Bush only lost the district by 8,000 votes in 2004.

Even so, no Republican has yet announced a run against Mr. Murtha, although that may speak as much to Republican concerns over the political climate and the 2006 election as it does about Mr. Murtha's popularity in his district.

His break with the Bush administration could still entice a candidate into the race. But years of delivering federal money from his Appropriations Committee seat has made him all but invulnerable, Mr. Gleason conceded.

Colonel Denies Disparaging Murtha

By The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - A colonel in the Marine reserves has taken issue with how his views were represented in a Republican attack last week on Representative Murtha.

Speaking on the House floor on Friday, Representative Jean Schmidt, Republican of Ohio, asserted that the colonel had "asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, marines never do."

But a spokeswoman for the colonel, Danny R. Bubp, said Ms. Schmidt had misconstrued their conversation.

While Mr. Bubp, a Republican member of the Ohio House of Representatives, opposes a quick withdrawal for forces, "he did not mention Congressman Murtha by name nor did he mean to disparage Congressman Murtha," said Karen Tabor, his spokeswoman. "He feels as though the words that Congresswoman Schmidt chose did not represent their conversation."

Asked to respond on Monday, the congresswoman's office said only, "Mrs. Schmidt's statement was never meant to disparage Congressman Murtha."

Read More...

Murtha Says Americans Back Iraq Pullout

Murtha Says Americans Back Iraq Pullout

By DAN LOVERING
Associated Press Writer

JOHNSTOWN, Pa. (AP) -- U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a key Democrat on military issues, on Monday defended his call to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, saying he was reflecting Americans' sentiment.

"The public turned against this war before I said it," Murtha said. "The public is emotionally tied into finding a solution to this thing, and that's what I hope this administration is going to find out."

Murtha, 73, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he has received support from the public since calling for the troop pullout on Thursday. He said he has gotten e-mails from World War II veterans and parents of American soldiers in Iraq.

Murtha noted that his great-grandfather served in the Civil War, his father and three uncles in World War II, and that he and his brothers were Marines. Murtha said western Pennsylvania, where his district is located, is a "hotbed of patriotism and they've lost confidence in this effort."

He said Iraqis must take control of their own destiny.

"We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning," Murtha said at a scheduled news conference after a speech to a civic group in his hometown of Johnstown, about 60 miles east of Pittsburgh.

House Republicans on Friday pushed for a vote on a nonbinding resolution to pull out the troops after Murtha's comments. It was rejected 403-3, but Democrats said the quick call for the vote was a political stunt designed to undermine Murtha's comments.

"The guys in Congress are scared to death to say anything because they might be vilified," Murtha said. "The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."

Murtha said he was unmoved by criticism he's received from President Bush, others in Congress and the public.

U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, spoke on the House floor Friday about a phone call she got from a Marine colonel who said, "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Asked about it, Murtha called the comment ridiculous.

"You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution," Murtha said. "This is not a war of words, this is a war."

Aware that his comments last week would draw fire from conservatives, Murtha said he specifically asked more liberal members of his party not to step forward to support him.

"I didn't want (the public) to think this was a Democrat position plotted from the left wing," Murtha said.

Murtha expressed confidence that terrorist bombings in Iraq would cease once U.S. troops were gone and Iraqis became solely responsible for their destiny.

"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy," Murtha said. "(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."

Murtha said he believes President Bush needs to realize how citizens feel about the war.

"All of us want to support the president when he's at war," Murtha said "But you can't support him when he won't change directions, won't listen."

Read More...

GM slashing production and jobs

Reuters
GM slashing production and jobs

By Tom Brown

DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp. said on Monday it would cut 30,000 North American manufacturing jobs and close a dozen plants as it struggles to compete with fast-growing rivals led by Toyota Motor Corp.

The cuts affect about a quarter of the North American factory work force at GM and are the deepest since it eliminated 21 plants and 74,000 jobs over four years beginning in December 1991.

The latest plan, which affects factories in the United States and Canada, allows GM to reduce costs by $7 billion by the end of 2006 -- $1 billion above its previous target -- and increases by 5,000 the jobs the company had said it would cut.

The world's largest automaker warned that it would take a "significant restructuring charge" with the plan, but did not say how much it would be or when it would be taken.

Merrill Lynch analyst John Casesa said in a note late on Monday that he expects the charge to range from $1 billion and $2 billion, "which is a tough number to justify without tangible results."

This is the largest single U.S. layoff announcement since Kmart said it would cut 37,000 jobs in January 2003, according to employment consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

GM Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, who took the unusual step of denying in a letter to staff last week that GM was preparing to file for bankruptcy protection, said he was not prepared to discuss GM's 2006 profit outlook.

Shares of GM closed down 47 cents, or 1.95 percent, at $23.58 on the New York Stock Exchange on Monday. The company has lost nearly $4 billion this year, while its shares have lost more than 40 percent of their value and hit a 14-year low last week.

"The plan was in-line with our expectations and is only the beginning of a long restructuring process," Casesa said in the note.

Plants marked for closure include those in Doraville, Georgia, Ontario, Canada, Portland, Oregon and Pittsburgh, an Oklahoma City plant that makes mid-size sport utility vehicles and GM's Lansing, Michigan Craft Center, which makes a poor-selling sport pickup truck.

Separately, GM has closed or stopped production this year at three assembly plants in Lansing, Michigan, Linden, New Jersey and Baltimore, Maryland.

Wagoner first announced plans to cut North American manufacturing capacity, in line with its shrinking market share and to match demand by 2008, at the company's annual shareholders meeting in June.

"It's a big move ... We're confident that this is what it's going to take to get us going," Wagoner told a news conference in Detroit on Monday.

GM, which was founded in 1908, said it hoped it could achieve many of the job cuts through attrition and buyouts.

"TOUGH MEDICINE"

Wagoner said the leadership of the United Auto Workers union had been told of the plans, calling it "tough medicine for everyone involved."

The UAW responded to Wagoner's announcement with an angry statement to the media indicating it would push to keep furloughed workers on GM's payrolls for the duration of its current labor contract, which expires in 2007.

That could mean that laid off workers would continue to receive most of their pay and benefits, with the plant closings providing little immediate savings to GM.

"The UAW-represented workers impacted by today's action are protected by our job security program as well as other provisions and protections of the UAW-GM National Agreement," the union said in its statement.

"The full cost savings won't be realized until 2008," said analyst David Healy of Burnham Securities, citing the impact of the restrictive UAW labor agreement.

Basil "Buzz" Hargrove, head of the Canadian Auto Workers union, said the closing of one of GM's assembly plants in Oshawa, Ontario, came as a "complete shock" to him because it was the company's most productive facility in North America.

"It's a jewel so to speak, and we couldn't imagine them kind of killing the lead horse," Hargrove told local radio. He blamed the decision on bad trade policies and what he described as unfair competition from Japan and South Korea.

"They ship into our market but they don't allow us to ship back to their market," Hargrove said. "As long as we have this

unfair trade situation ... you're going to see a continuing decline in the fortune of General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler."

Pressures on Wagoner have mounted amid concerns that nothing short of a change at the top would improve the automaker's fortunes. He took the company's helm in 2000, but assumed control of daily operations at its North American unit in April 2005. On Monday, he dismissed any notion stepping aside.

"I haven't given any consideration whatsoever to that. I wasn't brought up to run and hide when things get tough," he said. "We're on the battlefield, we're taking the actions we need to, and I'm convinced that's the way the company is going to get righted."

Wagoner said his planned cuts in GM's North American production capacity did not mean that it would be ceding ground to Toyota as the world's No. 1 automaker when ranked by production.

Some analysts see that as inevitable, however, and Wall Street remained uncertain about his strategy.

In a warning issued not long after GM's restructuring announcement, Standard & Poor's said GM's credit rating could be cut further into junk territory.

Wagoner has also been under pressure from investor Kirk Kerkorian, who owns 9.9 percent of GM's stock and may demand a seat on the board next year.

GM and its crosstown rival Ford Motor Co. have both been grappling with high health-care and materials costs, loss of U.S. market share to foreign rivals, and slumping sales of large SUVs that used to be their profit centers but have lost popularity as gasoline prices rose.

Ford is expected to announce its own cuts in North American manufacturing jobs and a series of plant closings by no later than January. The No. 2 U.S. automaker announced on Friday that it was cutting 4,000 white-collar jobs, or about 10 percent of its salaried North American work force.

Read More...

Ex-DeLay aide pleads guilty in corruption case

Reuters

Ex-DeLay aide pleads guilty in corruption case

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An ex-aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and partner to a powerful Republican lobbyist pleaded guilty to conspiracy on Monday under a deal in which he is cooperating with prosecutors probing alleged influence-buying involving the lobbyist and lawmakers.

Michael Scanlon, 35, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in defrauding Indian tribes of millions of dollars and lavishing gifts upon a member of the U.S. Congress.

He was ordered to pay $19.7 million in restitution to the tribes, could serve up to five years in prison and be fined $250,000 and must cooperate with prosecutors.

Scanlon left Delay's office and became a partner to wealthy lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has been indicted for fraud in a separate case in Florida. The plea agreement has been seen as a major advance in prosecutors' efforts to investigate alleged influence-buying involving Abramoff, members of Congress and government agencies.

Scanlon's lawyer Plato Cacheris said Scanlon has more information to provide to the government, but in an exchange with reporters after the hearing refused to comment on whether more members of Congress might be implicated.

"Guilty, your honor," Scanlon, 35, told federal Judge Ellen Huvelle in formalizing the plea deal.

Abramoff has pleaded not guilty to federal charges in Florida that he defrauded lenders in a casino cruise line deal.

'LOBBYIST A'

According to prosecutors, from January 2000 through at least April 2004, Scanlon conspired with a lobbyist, only identified as "Lobbyist A," to "corruptly" give gifts to government officials. In return, the officials were to perform acts benefiting Scanlon and "Lobbyist A."

In court papers filed last week, Scanlon was alleged to have given a member of Congress and his staff a golf trip to Scotland, sports tickets and other entertainment, as well as meals and campaign contributions.

DeLay has faced questions about whether his expenses for the Scotland trip were paid by Abramoff, which would violate House rules.

The congressman was not named, but Rep. Bob Ney, a six-term Ohio Republican, recently said he had been subpoenaed as part of the U.S. Justice Department's investigation of Abramoff. Ney chairs the House Administration Committee, which oversees operations in the Capitol.

A spokesman for Ney said the congressman was cooperating with the federal investigation and has not been told he is the target of any probe.

Following the plea, Ney's office said the congressman was a victim of Scanlon's illegal activities.

"All that this plea agreement shows is that Mr. Scanlon had a deliberate, secret, and well-concealed scheme to defraud many people, and it appears, unfortunately, that Representative Ney was one of the many people defrauded," spokesman Brian Walsh said in a written statement.

Prosecutors say clients of Scanlon and the lobbyist were defrauded of millions of dollars as part of a conspiracy "to enrich themselves."

The charges say an Indian tribe in Mississippi paid Scanlon's company, Capital Campaign Strategies, about $14.8 million. According to the charges, Scanlon concealed the fact that "Lobbyist A" would get half of the profits from the tribe's payments to Scanlon.

There were similar arrangements for tribes in Louisiana, Michigan and Texas, according to the court documents.

The plea deal does not preclude other state and federal jurisdictions from pursuing Scanlon in other cases.

He is to return to the federal court in March to discuss the case's progress and possible timing for sentencing.

DeLay, a Texas Republican, resigned as majority leader in September after being indicted on conspiracy and money laundering charges in Texas related to a campaign finance investigation. DeLay has maintained his innocence and hopes to ultimately regain his powerful leadership post.

Read More...

Monday, November 21, 2005

Storm Hit Little, but Aid Flowed to Inland City

The New York Times

Storm Hit Little, but Aid Flowed to Inland City
By ERIC LIPTON

JACKSON, Miss., Nov. 19 - When the federal government and the nation's largest disaster relief group reached out a helping hand after Hurricane Katrina blew through here, tens of thousands of people grabbed it.

But in giving out $62 million in aid, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Red Cross overlooked a critical fact: the storm was hardly catastrophic here, 160 miles from the coast. The only damage sustained by most of the nearly 30,000 households receiving aid was spoiled food in the freezer.

The fact that at least some relief money has gone to those perceived as greedy, not needy, has set off recriminations in this poor, historic capital where the payments of up to $2,358 set off spending sprees on jewelry, guns and electronics.

Though a majority of the money appears to have been given out legally, the United States attorney's office is investigating at least 1,000 reports of fraud, including accusations that people lied about claims of damage or where they lived. State and local officials are criticizing FEMA and the Red Cross as doling out money without safeguards, but they also blame their fellow citizens.

"The donors all across this nation thought they were giving money to put food in the mouths of people who had nothing and clothes on the backs of people who had lost everything," said State Representative John R. Reeves, who represents Jackson. "But that is not what happened here. There was a feeding frenzy. Free money was being handed out."

And friends have turned against friends. When word of the Red Cross and federal money got out in Jackson's neighborhoods, many rushed to apply. Huge lines formed at Western Union outlets, discount stores and other places that issued or cashed the relief checks. Erica Thompson, 32, tried unsuccessfully to persuade her friends not to join in.

"People can take a good thing and abuse it," Ms. Thompson said while doing her wash at a coin laundry in Jackson this week. "It's not right."

Some of those who accepted the aid, though, feel no embarrassment. "I needed that money," said Lynn Alexander, 30, whose apartment lost power in the storm, but was not damaged. She collected $900, she said, from the Red Cross. "It helped me put gas in my car, wash my clothes and buy food."

What happened in Jackson and its suburbs - in Hinds, Madison and Rankin Counties - might not be unique. Emergency officials elsewhere in Mississippi and in parts of Louisiana have also questioned how so much federal aid could have been authorized, given the limited damage they documented.

"Someone is going to have to look at that," said Bo Boudreaux, deputy director of homeland security in Iberia Parish, west of New Orleans, where perhaps three mobile homes were damaged, he said, but 404 families, according to FEMA, received $2,000 checks in emergency aid.

FEMA, which is leading the $62 billion Hurricane Katrina relief effort, has been criticized as responding slowly to the disaster and then wasting recovery money. In defending the payments in the Jackson area, the agency and the Red Cross cited the tensions between moving quickly to help the desperate, and moving carefully to avoid aiding the undeserving.

"This is the challenge we perpetually face," said Nicol Andrews, a FEMA spokeswoman. "Do you get assistance into the hands of those who desperately need it as quickly as possible? Or do you slow it down to dot every single I and cross every single T? We chose to err on the side of the victim."

Charles D. Connor, a senior vice president at the Red Cross in Washington, said his group had a similar imperative. People who brought in a form of identification were eligible for aid. Mr. Connor acknowledges that apparently resulted in aid being offered to some who did not need it.

"We did the best we could to help people as quickly as we could knowing that mistakes would be made along the way," he said Friday.

Donald Paxton, executive director of the Central Mississippi Chapter of the Red Cross added: "Unless you drove down every street in Hinds County, there was no way of immediately determining actually what the damage was."

FEMA and the Red Cross have made disaster assistance payments in the past that have drawn criticism. After Hurricane Frances in Florida last year, FEMA distributed $31 million to residents in the Miami-Dade area despite minimal damage.

Senator Susan M. Collins, a Maine Republican whose committee oversees FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, said in an interview Thursday that the agency had apparently failed to correct problems auditors found in Florida.

"It is frustrating to me that FEMA seems incapable of paying legitimate claims quickly and effectively and yet reimburses fraudulent claims without asking any questions," Ms. Collins said. "It is the worst of all worlds."

Open for Aid

After Hurricane Katrina devastated coastal communities on Aug. 29, it moved steadily inland toward Jackson. Smack in the middle of Mississippi, the capital city has been in slow decline for more than a decade, struggling with high crime, long-simmering racial tensions and poverty.

By the time the hurricane reached this far, its power had diminished. The sustained winds, recorded at 47 m.p.h. at the airport, were far below hurricane speed. But gusts of up to 74 m.p.h. took down trees, knocking out power lines and damaging roofs. Almost all of Jackson lost power. Electricity returned for most customers in a few days. But in some cases, it took up to two weeks.

Still, the region was largely spared. In Jackson and two nearby counties, only 50 to 60 homes were declared uninhabitable, local emergency departments said. About 4,000 sustained damage, they said.

Immediately after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, the Bush administration declared a disaster area along 15 Mississippi coastal counties, as well as 31 parishes in Louisiana. Residents there were eligible for federal emergency grants, housing assistance and money for repairs, medical bills and other costs.

But by Sept. 7, at Mississippi's request, the disaster zone was expanded as far as 220 miles inland, reaching 32 counties, including several that never experienced sustained hurricane-force winds. The zone eventually reached 47 counties. The disaster area in Mississippi - which is led by a Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican ally of President Bush's - extends 200 miles farther north than that in Louisiana, which is led by Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a Democrat who at times criticized the federal storm response.

Lea Stokes, a spokeswoman for the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency, said it was the course of the storm, not politics, that dictated the map. The state urged the Bush administration to include so many counties in the disaster zone after documenting widespread damage. The state encouraged all residents to apply for aid, even if the only cost they incurred was the purchase of a chainsaw or generator.

"Let them tell you whether or not you qualify before you rule yourself out," she said, echoing the advice offered by Mississippi officials.

Ms. Andrews, the FEMA spokeswoman, said the federal government typically deferred to states on disaster declarations. But when that happens, she acknowledged, the door is opened for federal aid.

"Once we effectively turn on a county, anyone in that county can apply," Ms. Andrews said.

A Rush for Checks

Even before Hurricane Katrina landed, the Central Mississippi Chapter of the American Red Cross began preparing. The charity opened a shelter at the Coliseum and Trade Mart in Jackson for evacuees from the coast. Soon after, the Red Cross also began offering cash grants ranging from $360 for a single adult to $1,565 for a family of five.

Ms. Alexander, who is unemployed, remembers phone calls from her cousin, then from her therapist. The Red Cross, she was told, was giving out money to Jackson residents.

Ms. Alexander drove to the Trade Mart, but chose not to wait for her turn because the crowd was so large. Back home, she called the charity's toll-free telephone number dozens of times before finally getting approval for $900 in aid. She had to give her name and address, she said. The only storm damage at her apartment was spoiled food in the fridge. "I was blessed," she said.

Michael Hendrick had also gone to the Trade Mart, broke, homeless and hungry after fleeing the Louisiana coast. He listened as Jackson-area residents plotted the best way to get the biggest grants. "It was really kind of turning my stomach," Mr. Hendrick said.

Before the rush subsided, the Red Cross gave $32 million to area residents, including about 25,400 of the 92,000 households in Hinds County, home to Jackson, according to statistics first published in The Clarion Ledger and confirmed by Mr. Paxton of the local Red Cross chapter.

FEMA received 42,313 applications from Hinds County and 17,352 claims from Madison or Rankin Counties. To date, 16,407 of those applications have been approved, resulting in a payout of $20.3 million in disaster grants, as well as $9 million in rental assistance and other aid, agency records show. Most of the federal money was intended for people whose homes were uninhabitable, but it was distributed before any home inspections were conducted.

The relief checks soon created a crush of customers at local businesses. A clerk at Quik Cash, a check-cashing store, said a line of more than 100 customers stretched down the hallway, out the door and around the corner. So many people showed up that the business ran out of cash.

Lee Montgomery, the manager of Terry Road Pawn Shop in Jackson, said many of those cashing relief checks at his business immediately bought jewelry, firearms, DVD movies and electronics.

Bob Parks, owner of a Hinds County pharmacy and Western Union agency, said he watched in disbelief as hundreds of Jackson-area residents arrived at his store to get relief checks. "Surely the Red Cross has to have a better use of funds," Mr. Parks said. "Unless they just have money that they are trying to get rid of for some reason."

Unexpected Numbers

Local government officials were baffled by the payouts. Weeks after the storm, Larry J. Fisher, director of the Hinds County emergency department, got a call from a regional FEMA representative saying that staff members wanted to know why county officials had reported that so few homes were uninhabitable.

FEMA has sent aid to thousands of county residents who claimed their homes were ruined, including 7,622 checks for $2,000 in emergency financial assistance. But Mr. Fisher counted only about 50 uninhabitable homes and perhaps 4,000 with any damage at all.

To resolve the discrepancy, Mr. Fisher recalled, he was told: "You are going to increase your number." A Baptist deacon and a former city police detective, Mr. Fisher, 67, was going to have none of that. Backed up by digital photographs he had taken of damaged properties, he refused to revise his reports. "I am not going to change my figures up to yours," Mr. Fisher said he told the FEMA official. "You want to start investigating, by all means, do so." When asked about the conversation, FEMA officials said they were not aware of it.

Officials in Mississippi fault both the Red Cross and FEMA for not having clearer - and tougher - standards about what kind of damage merited a claim. In the end, it appeared that simply being a resident when the storm passed through was enough to collect a check.

"The Red Cross is thought of as the premier charity," said Representative Reeves of Jackson. "In my judgment, they dropped the ball."

Mr. Parks, a longtime Red Cross donor, said he would never donate to the charity again.

Mr. Paxton said he realized that there was some abuse, but he could not say for sure just how much took place. If the charity failed to act responsibly, he said, it will move to correct the problems.

Marshand K. Crisler, president of the Jackson City Council, said many aid applicants perhaps honestly believed they deserved help, even if it was simply to replace spoiled food. But clearly there was abuse as well.

"People are taking advantage of a crisis," Mr. Crisler said. "We are saddened that people would stoop to such a level."

Read More...

Woodward rebuked over leak case

Reuters

Woodward rebuked over leak case

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Washington Post's ombudsman rebuked journalist Bob Woodward on Sunday for withholding what he knew about the CIA leak probe from his editor and for making public statements that were dismissive of the investigation without disclosing his own involvement.

One of the best-known investigative reporters in the United States, Woodward revealed last week that he testified under oath to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official told him in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame's position at the agency.

Fitzgerald announced a few days later in court papers that his two-year criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's identity would be going back before a federal grand jury, a sign he may seek new or revised charges.

The name of Woodward's source has yet to be made public and so far more than a dozen senior administration officials have denied any involvement in the leak.

Asked on "Fox News Sunday" if he ever spoke to Woodward about Plame, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "No, of course not." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a similar denial through a spokesman on Saturday.

In a column highly critical of Woodward's conduct, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell said the newspaper took a "hit to its credibility" and called for more oversight of Woodward's work.

"He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff -- even if he's rich and famous," Howell wrote of Woodward, one of the two Washington Post reporters famed for coverage of the 1970s Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon.

Howell said Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by keeping Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie in the dark about his source for more than two years.

"He also committed another journalistic sin -- commenting on National Public Radio and (CNN's) "Larry King Live" about the Plame investigation without disclosing his early knowledge of Plame's identity," Howell wrote.

In a series of television and radio interviews before publicly disclosing his involvement in the leak case, Woodward described the leak case as laughable and Fitzgerald's behavior as "disgraceful."

One day before Fitzgerald brought charges against Vice President Dick Cheney's long-time chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Woodward said he saw no evidence of criminal intent.

Woodward has apologized to Downie, who said "Bob made a mistake" by not informing him sooner of his source on Plame.

"He made a mistake going on television, giving his opinions about the investigation. ... He shouldn't have been expressing those opinions," Downie added on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, has called for an inquiry by The Washington Post into Woodward's conduct, citing a similar investigation by The New York Times into the conduct of reporter Judith Miller, who resigned from The Times earlier this month.

Miller, who spent 85 days in jail for initially refusing to testify to Fitzgerald about her conversations with Libby, resigned after Times Executive Editor Bill Keller suggested she had misled the paper, a charge Miller denied.

Read More...

Biden: Chance of filibuster on Alito stronger

Yahoo! News
Biden: Chance of filibuster on Alito stronger

The chance of a filibuster to halt the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito rose on news he once opposed 1960s Supreme Court rulings on reapportionment based on the principle of equal voting rights, a top Democrat on the Senate judiciary panel said on Sunday.

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat from Delaware, told Fox News Sunday that a decision by Democrats to filibuster would depend largely on Alito's answers during judiciary committee questioning scheduled for January.

In a 1985 application to be a deputy assistant attorney general disclosed last week, Alito wrote that he disagreed with reapportionment decisions by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the early 1960s.

Prior to the Warren court's decisions, some state legislators were elected on a geographical basis, giving thinly populated rural areas more political heft than urban centers.

"If he really believes that reapportionment is a questionable decision -- that is, the idea of Baker vs. Carr, one man, one vote -- then clearly, clearly, you'll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court. We don't know that. We have to hear it," Biden said. "That would include a filibuster if need be."

Asked if this increased the chances of a filibuster, Biden said: "Well, I think based upon that job application where he said he strongly held these views, yes."

Read More...

Sunday, November 20, 2005

If George W Bush Was Pinocchio

Read More...

How Can Anything Be Our Fault?

Read More...

Rewriting History

Read More...

Withdrawal

Read More...

Medicare Rx Plan Too Confusing?

Read More...

Credibility

Read More...

We've Done Our Share . . .

Read More...

Security adviser named as source in CIA scandal

The Sunday Times
Security adviser named as source in CIA scandal
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter

THE mysterious source who gave America’s foremost journalist, Bob Woodward, a tip-off about the CIA agent at the centre of one of Washington’s biggest political storms was Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser, according to lawyers close to the investigation.

Woodward, the Washington Post reporter who broke the Watergate scandal that forced President Richard Nixon out of office, has refused publicly to divulge the name of his informant without permission, which has thus far been withheld.

The naming of CIA agent Valerie Plame as the wife of Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador sent to Niger to investigate disputed claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium yellowcake for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, led to the indictment last month of Vice-President Dick Cheney’s top aide, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for lying to a grand jury.

It is an offence in America to reveal the identity of a covert agent, although doubts remain about Plame’s precise status.

A spokeswoman for the National Security Council (NSC) denied that Hadley was the journalist’s source. However, in South Korea on Friday during an official visit with President George W Bush, Hadley dodged the question.

“I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources,” Hadley said with a smile. Asked if this was a yes or no he replied: “It is what it is.”

A White House official said the national security adviser’s ambiguity was unintentional and repeated that Hadley was not Woodward’s source. But others close to the investigation insisted that he was.

If so, according to Woodward’s timeline, he will have disclosed the information in mid-June 2003, roughly a week before Libby talked to other reporters on June 23. Supporters of Cheney’s disgraced aide are jubilant that this casts doubt on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby was the first to spread the word about Plame.

When Woodward realised this, he went back to his informant. “My source said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor. I said, ‘If you do, am I released?’ The source said yes, but only for the purpose of discussing it with Fitzgerald.” Woodward testified under oath to the special prosecutor last Monday.

Woodward said the unnamed official told him about Plame in “an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip” and “I didn’t attach any importance to it”. He never wrote up the story.

With more journalists in the loop than previously identified, it will be harder for Fitzgerald to prove Libby was deliberately lying when he said he first learnt of Plame from a journalist rather than the CIA.

Two years ago, when Plame’s identity was first revealed, Hadley was Condoleezza Rice’s deputy at the NSC. He is also thought to have been a key source for two books by Woodward on the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Other potential suspects have been denying they are Woodward’s source. Cheney has come under suspicion, although sources close to the investigation claim he is not in the frame.

Fitzgerald may want to interview Woodward’s informant and declared in court filings on Friday that proceedings would continue under a new grand jury. Supporters of Karl Rove, the top White House adviser known as “Bush’s brain”, also fear Fitzgerald may still be investigating him.

Woodward declined to confirm or deny that Hadley had leaked him the information.

It is familiar territory for the Washington Post journalist, who kept the name of Deep Throat, his Watergate informant, secret for more than three decades until Mark Felt, the former deputy director of the FBI, outed himself this year.

Yet colleagues at the Washington Post have been criticising him on their internal message board. One accused Woodward of being the “800-pound elephant in the room”, adding: “I admire the hell out of Bob, but this looks awful.”

Read More...

Cheney Picks a Fight With a Marine

The Nation
Cheney Picks a Fight With a Marine
John Nichols

When Dick Cheney, a Wyoming congressman who had never served in the military and who had failed during his political career to gain much respect from those who wore the uniform he had worked so hard to avoid putting on during the Vietnam War, was selected in 1989 by former President George Herbert Walker Bush to serve as Secretary of Defense, he had a credibility problem. Lacking in the experience and the connections required to effectively take charge of the Pentagon in turbulent times, he turned to a House colleague, Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, a decorated combat veteran whose hawkish stances on military matters had made him a favorite of the armed services. "I'm going to need a lot of help," Cheney told Murtha. "I don't know a blankety-blank thing about defense."

Murtha, a retired Marine colonel who earned a chest full of medals during the Vietnam fight and who has often broken with fellow Democrats to back U.S. military interventions abroad -- most notably in Latin America, where Murtha often supported former President Ronald Reagan's controversial policies regarding El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 1980s -- gave that assistance.

During both the first and second Bush administrations he emerged as a key ally -- often, the most important Democratic ally -- of the Republican presidents. Cheney frequently acknowledged their long working relationship, describing Murtha in public statements as a Democrat he could "work with."

In the 2004 vice presidential debate, Cheney noted that, "One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was Secretary of Defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee." The vice president was particularly complimentary over the years of the Pennsylvania representatives decision to provide high-profile backing of the administration's 2002 request for authorization to use force against Iraq.

But the cross-party relationship has soured as Murtha, whose concern has always been first and foremost for the men and women who serve in the military, has reached the conclusion that the Iraq intervention has steered U.S. troops into a quagmire from which they must be extracted. Typically blunt, Murtha said this week: "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring (the troops) home."

Cheney's response to the man he begged to help him understand military affairs during the first Bush administration was to rip into Murtha and other Democrats who had tried to work with the administration. "Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorising force against Saddam Hussein," the vice president growled in a speech to the conservative Frontiers of Freedom Institute. In another clear reference to Murtha, Cheney said, "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history."

Of course, it is not Murtha but Cheney who is rewriting history -- or, at least, attempting to obscure it.

As Murtha noted, he's the one who put on a Marine uniform, took his shots in Vietnam and went on to a long career of working with and defending the military, while Cheney is the one who did everything in his power to avoid serving in southeast Asia and has never been seen as a friend of the men and women who actually fight the wars the vice president so shamelessly -- and disingenuously -- promotes. "I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," said Murtha, referencing the vice president's long record of draft avoidance in the 1960s.

The clearest evidence that Cheney still does "get it" when it comes to defense policy is his decision to take on Jack Murtha. The draft dodger who not all that many years ago admitted that he "(didn't) know a blankety-blank thing about defense" will come to regret picking a fight with the Marine he called in to help him understand military matters.

An expanded paperback edition of John Nichols' biography of Vice President Dick Cheney, The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press: 2005), is available at this link:

http://tinyurl.com/8lt56

The book features an exclusive interview with Joe Wilson and a chapter on the vice president's use and misuse of intelligence. Publisher's Weekly describes the book as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney."

(John Nichols' book:
Dick: The Man Who is President (Dick Cheney) can be found at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/bjhmw )

Read More...

House Republicans Stoop To New Lows

Reuters

House rejects Iraq pullout

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a maneuver to strike at Iraq war critics, the Republican-led House of Representatives engineered a vote on Friday on a resolution to pull U.S. troops immediately from Iraq, which was defeated nearly unanimously.

Republicans, who introduced the surprise resolution hours before lawmakers were to start a Thanksgiving holiday recess, said the vote was intended to show support for U.S. forces.

Democrats denounced it as a political stunt and an attack on Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic military hawk who stunned his colleagues on Thursday by calling for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq as quickly as possible.

The action by House Republicans was the latest volley in an offensive launched by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney last week to attack war critics as unpatriotic and hypocritical.

"The best strategy to keep America safe is to continue taking the fight to the terrorists, not to retreat in the face of the despicable attacks of a determined enemy," the White House said in a statement.

Unlike Murtha's proposal calling for troops to be withdrawn "as soon as practicable," which he expected would be about six months, the Republican resolution said deployment of the U.S. forces should be "terminated immediately."

Democrats said no one advocated an immediate pull-out without ensuring the safety of troops, and that it was a meaningless resolution that ducked serious debate on the situation in Iraq. It was defeated 403-3.

"To take this proposal and trash it, trivialize it, is outrageous," said Rep. John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat.

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Republicans had "stooped to a new low even for them."

Many Democrats have called on Bush to present a plan to end the war and an estimate of when U.S. forces can start to be withdrawn based on conditions on the ground. Only a few have called for a set timetable for withdrawal.

During the emotional, raucous debate, Ohio Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt read a letter from an Ohio state representative who she said asked her to send Congress and Murtha "a message that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Democrats erupted, halting floor debate, and Schmidt withdrew the remark.

Lawmakers from both parties then applauded Murtha, a decorated Vietnam war veteran and retired Marine colonel, with several ovations.

Murtha said he had received "an outpouring from this country" since his call to withdraw troops from "people thirsting for an answer to this problem" in Iraq."

Iraqis "must be put on notice the United States will immediately redeploy," he said. "All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, free from the United States occupation."

Republicans countered with another war hero, Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas who was a war prisoner in Vietnam for seven years.

"When I was a p.o.w. I was scared to death when our Congress talked about pulling the plug that I would be left there forever," Johnson said. Soldiers "need to have full faith that a few naysayers in Washington won't cut and run and leave them high and dry."

Americans have become increasingly disenchanted with the Iraq war, which claimed its 2,000th U.S. military death last month. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have also died.

Bush, in South Korea for a summit of Asian leaders, rejected calls for a timetable to withdraw, and vowed "we will stay in the fight" until victory.

Despite several such speeches, the Republican-led Senate voted on Tuesday to require progress reports on the war from Bush and said Iraqis should start taking the lead in their own security next year to allow a withdrawal of U.S. troops.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan charged Murtha with endorsing a "surrender" policy advocated by "extreme" liberals such as filmmaker Michael Moore.

That provoked a swift response from Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, last year's defeated Democratic presidential candidate.

"It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country venomously turn their guns on a Marine who came home from Vietnam with a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts," he said.

Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam period and never saw combat. Cheney received draft deferments that kept him out of the military during Vietnam.

(Additional reporting by Alan Elsner)

Read More...

Ex-Republican aide charged in corruption case

Reuters

Ex-Republican aide charged in corruption case

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A one-time aide to former House Republican Leader Tom DeLay of Texas has been charged with conspiring with his lobbyist partner Jack Abramoff to defraud Indian tribes of millions of dollars and to corruptly give gifts to a member of Congress, prosecutors said.

The filing of the one-count charge in federal court against Michael Scanlon, was contained in what is called a criminal information, usually used in cases involving a plea agreement, rather than in an indictment.

The New York Times reported on its Web site that Scanlon had agreed to plead guilty on Monday. "Mr. Scanlon and the Department of Justice will present a proposed plea agreement to the court to resolve the charge," his lawyer, Stephen Braga, was quoted as saying.

The charge was filed in federal court on Thursday and made public on Friday.

According to the charge, Scanlon and Abramoff, once a powerful Washington lobbyist, provided a stream of things of value to a member of Congress, identified only as "Representative No. 1," from January 2000 through April of last year.

The lawmaker and members of his staff received a lavish golf trip to Scotland, tickets to sporting events and other entertainment, regular meals and campaign contributions in return for supporting legislation, according to the court documents.

Rep. Bob Ney, a Republican from Ohio, said recently he had received a subpoena as part of the U.S. Justice Department's investigation of Abramoff.

A spokesman for Ney said the lawmaker will fully cooperate in the investigation. "He has not been told that he is the target of any investigation and there would be no grounds to do so. Mr. Scanlon's being charged with lying to and cheating his clients does not change that," the spokesman said.

According to the seven-page court document, the conspiracy's purpose was for Scanlon and Abramoff "to enrich themselves by obtaining substantial funds from their clients through fraud and concealment and through obtaining benefits for their clients through corrupt means."

A Justice Department spokesman said a hearing had been scheduled for Monday in federal court in Washington in Scanlon's case, but refused to give any details.

The documents described Scanlon's dealings with "Lobbyist A," with whom he worked. Although the lobbyist was not identified by name, a source close to the investigation said that it was Abramoff.

Scanlon's former boss, DeLay, faces conspiracy and money laundering charges in Texas as part of a campaign finance investigation. He resigned as majority leader in September when he was indicted.

Abramoff has pleaded not guilty to federal charges in Florida that he defrauded lenders in a casino cruise line deal.

The charges involving Scanlon said Abramoff solicited an Indian tribe in Mississippi in 1995 as a client for lobbying services on various issues.

Abramoff recommended that the tribe hire Scanlon's company, Capital Campaign Strategies, while concealing the fact that Abramoff would get half of the profits from the tribe's payments to Scanlon, according to the court papers.

The tribe paid Scanlon's firm $14.8 million from June 2001 through April 2004, while Scanlon concealed from the tribe that 50 percent of the profit, about $6.3 million, was kicked back to Abramoff under their secret arrangement, according to the papers.

The court documents detailed similar arrangements for tribes in Louisiana, Michigan and Texas.

Read More...

House votes to cut $700 mln in food stamps

Reuters

House votes to cut $700 mln in food stamps

By Charles Abbott

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to cut $700 million from the food stamp program, despite objections from antihunger groups complaining that estimates show some 235,000 people would lose benefits.

The House bill, which also trimmed other social programs for the poor in an effort to reduce federal spending by $50 billion, was narrowly approved 217-215.

House and Senate negotiators now must write a final, compromise version of legislation to pare federal spending over five years. The Senate did not touch food stamps in its version of a $35 billion budget-cutting bill.

Food stamps, the major U.S. antihunger program, help poor people buy food. Some 25.8 million Americans received food stamps in a program run by the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Saxby Chambliss said through a spokesman that he was aiming for "zero" cuts in food stamps during talks with the House. As a committee chairman, the Georgia Republican would be a senior negotiator.

The final bill should abandon proposals to cut food stamps, urged Ellen Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center. "In nutrition, the Senate did the right thing," she said.

Bread for the World, another antihunger group, said the prospect of food stamp cuts "will make Thanksgiving bleaker for hundreds of thousands of hard-working families." It pointed to government estimates that 38.2 million Americans live in "food insecure" households that have trouble buying enough food.

House Republican leaders say the cuts are only a sliver of food stamp spending that runs more than $35 billion a year. Earlier this week, House Majority Leader Roy Blunt said the cuts would focus the program on "the people you intended to help instead of just adding on at the edges."

In a statement, the White House said it supported the House "efforts to narrow overly broad exemptions from the food stamp program's eligibility limits." President (George W.) Bush proposed restrictions in February that are similar to the House-approved steps.

Under the House plan, roughly 165,000 people now automatically enrolled in food stamps when they get assistance from welfare programs would lose food stamps. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said these were mostly working families with children.

States would have the option to continue offering free school lunches to families cut off of food stamps. The Center on Budget said it was unlikely all states would do so.

The House proposal also would require 70,000 legal immigrants in most cases to wait seven years to become eligible for food stamps, rather than the current five years. That brings the total number of people affected by the plan to 235,000.

Read More...

Ford to cut 4,000 jobs in North America

Reuters

Ford to cut 4,000 jobs in North America

By Poornima Gupta

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co., facing a deepening financial crisis, said on Friday it plans to eliminate 4,000 salaried jobs, or 10 percent of its North American white-collar work force, as part of a larger restructuring plan.

A majority of the job cuts -- announced to employees in an e-mail distributed by Mark Fields, president of Ford's Americas business -- will be made in the first quarter of 2006, spokesman Oscar Suris said.

The cuts will come through attrition, layoffs and the elimination of some agency and contract positions, Suris said.

They will be in addition to the 2,750 job losses already announced by the automaker this year.

Ford lost $284 million in the third quarter and its automotive division is in the red. Its North American vehicle operations have lost more than $1.4 billion before taxes so far this year.

The company's shares have dropped more than 40 percent since the end of 2004. They hit $7.57 per share on Thursday, the lowest in more than two years, before rebounding to $8.41 per share on Friday.

Ford Chairman and Chief Executive Bill Ford Jr. said last month that the automaker will announce its long-awaited restructuring plan -- dubbed "Way Forward" -- in January.

He also warned that the plan would include "significant plant closings" to help slash costs in North America.

Fields and his team are expected to present Bill Ford with the restructuring plan in December.

Ford, like cross-town rival General Motors Corp., has seen its margins squeezed by intense competition in the U.S. market and by a dramatic slowdown in sales of cash cows such as mid-size and large SUVs due to high gasoline prices.

The two companies are also facing higher costs and a cut in their credit ratings to high-yield, or "junk," status.

Ford has taken a number of steps this year to strengthen its balance sheet, including the sale its Hertz Corp. rental car unit.

It also agreed to bailout former parts subsidiary Visteon Corp. and announced that it intends to increase the production of hybrid vehicles tenfold to 250,000 annually.

Read More...

Senate approves $60 billion tax-cut bill

Reuters
Senate approves $60 billion tax-cut bill

By Donna Smith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Friday voted to extend $60 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses but added a $5 billion tax on big oil companies, drawing a veto threat from the White House.

The tax package passed on a 64-33 vote only after the Senate dropped provisions that would have kept in place tax-rate reductions for capital gains and dividends beyond their expiration in 2008. Democrats and some moderate Republicans put up solid opposition to those investor provisions backed by the White House.

The tax legislation is part of a broader effort by congressional Republicans to maintain Bush's tax cuts while trimming domestic spending to reduce deficits.

The House of Representatives early on Friday passed a $50 billion package of spending cuts on social programs, student loans and farm subsidies that Democrats and some moderate Republicans said put too much of the deficit-reduction burden on the poor.

The overall cost of the Senate's tax-cut legislation was trimmed by a number of measures to raise revenues, including an accounting provision that would raise about $5 billion from big oil companies by temporarily changing the way they value oil inventories.

A White House statement said President George W. Bush's advisers would recommend a veto if the oil provision remains in place through negotiations with the House. Conservative Republicans will likely insist the accounting change be dropped. But Democrats criticized the White House's position.

"It is amazing that even this White House, which is of, by, and for the big oil companies, would threaten to use its first veto ever to help its big oil buddies even at a time when they're rolling in record profits," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who sits on the Senate Finance Committee.

The House will likely take up its version of the tax cut legislation when lawmakers return in early December after a Thanksgiving holiday break.

The House bill would extend for two years a 15-percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends. A similar provision was dropped from the Senate bill to overcome opposition from moderate Republicans and Democrats.

The investment tax breaks were the cornerstone of Bush's 2003 tax cut and will expire at the end of 2008 if Congress fails to act. The capital gains rate would then go to 20 percent and dividends would be taxed at regular income rates.

The Senate bill includes about $7 billion in tax breaks to help rebuild regions destroyed by Hurricane Katrina and other provisions to encourage charitable giving.

The Senate bill also extends a number of tax breaks for business, education and savings that otherwise would expire at the end of the year. Among them is a $30 billion measure that would keep millions of taxpayers from paying the alternative minimum tax next year -- a tax originally intended for the very wealthy.

(Additional reporting by Tom Doggett)

Read More...

Jewish Leader Blasts 'Religious Right'

Yahoo! News
Jewish Leader Blasts 'Religious Right'

By KRISTEN HAYS, Associated Press Writer

The leader of the largest branch of American Judaism blasted conservative religious activists in a speech Saturday, calling them "zealots" who claim a "monopoly on God" while promoting anti-gay policies akin to Adolf Hitler's.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, said "religious right" leaders believe "unless you attend my church, accept my God and study my sacred text you cannot be a moral person."

"What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God?" he said during the movement's national assembly in Houston, which runs through Sunday.

The audience of 5,000 responded to the speech with enthusiastic applause.

Yoffie did not mention evangelical Christians directly, using the term "religious right" instead. In a separate interview, he said the phrase encompassed conservative activists of all faiths, including within the Jewish community.

He used particularly strong language to condemn conservative attitudes toward homosexuals. He said he understood that traditionalists have concluded gay marriage violates Scripture, but he said that did not justify denying legal protections to same-sex partners and their children.

"We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations," Yoffie said. "Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry."

The Union for Reform Judaism represents about 900 synagogues in North America with an estimated membership of 1.5 million people. Of the three major streams of U.S. Judaism — Orthodox and Conservative are the others — it is the only one that sanctions gay ordination and supports civil marriage for same-gender couples.

Yoffie said liberals and conservatives share some concerns, such as the potential damage to children from violent or highly sexual TV shows and other popular media. But he said, overall, conservatives too narrowly define family values, making a "frozen embryo in a fertility clinic" more important than a child, and ignoring poverty and other social ills.

One attendee, Judy Weinman of Troy, N.Y., said she thought Yoffie was "right on target."

"He reminded us of where we have things in common and where we're different," she said.

Yoffie also urged lawmakers to model themselves on presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, who famously told a Houston clergy group in 1960 that a president should not make policy based on his religion.

On other topics, Yoffie asked Reform synagogues to do more to hold onto members, who often leave after their children go to college. He also said the Reform movement, which is among the most accepting of non-Jewish spouses, should make a greater effort to invite spouses to convert.

___

AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Union for Reform Judaism: http://urj.org

Read More...

GOPs Dis Springsteen

HuffingtonPost.com
GOPs Dis Springsteen
Steve Cobble

So the Republican leadership, led by Bill Frist, won't honor Bruce Springsteen's contributions to American culture with a simple resolution, the type that is usually passed easily by voice vote...

Well, I've got a solution, jiu-jitsu move that goes way beyond getting even.
I posted on the idea last week.

Newly-elected Governor and about to be ex-Senator Jon Corzine should ask Bruce to join Frist in the Senate.

A cosmic joke, Jon--and everyone will get it but Frist...

Seriously, Governor Corzine, why not?

The Senate could use another (a?) fighter for the working class.
New Jersey voters would like it, and you'd be an instant national (indeed, international) hero.

And as I pointed out last week, Bruce could change the rules. He wouldn't have to act like the usual Senator--he could take his show out on the road, a peace-and-justice organizing tour aimed at revitalizing the opposition to a Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, George W. Bush, and the mean-spirited band of conservative thugs who have just finished knocking poor kids off food stamps in order to pay for more tax cuts and their illegal, immoral war.

Make your first move as Governor one to remember. One for the history books. One for the whole world to applaud. Ask Bruce. He was born to run--and he could help us turn this country around.

Read More...

Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Antiwar Critics

The Nation
Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Antiwar Critics
David Corn

[From 11.14.05]

In a Veterans Day speech on Friday, delivered to troops and others at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, George W. Bush veered from the usual commemoration of sacrifice to strike at critics who have questioned whether he steered the country into war by using false information. This has become a tough and troubling issue for his presidency. A poll taken before his speech found that 57 percent of the respondents now believe that Bush "deliberately misled" the nation into war. That is astounding and, I assume, without precedent in history. Has there been another wartime period during which a majority of Americans believed the president had purposefully bamboozled them about the reasons for that war? Addressing this charge is tough for Bush because it calls more attention to it, and the on-ground-realities in Iraq only cause more popular unease with the war. But Bush and his aides calculated that it was better to punch back than ignore the criticism, and that's a sign that they're worried that Bush is coming to be defined as a president who conned the nation into an ugly war. So Bush tried. Let's break down his effort:

Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

Conservative who claim raising questions about the war does a disservice to the troops and is anti-American might want to keep these words in mind.

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.

Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam. In October 2002, the House and Senate approved a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed that appropriate. At the time, Bush and his aides were claiming it was their goal to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction and his WMD programs (which, we know now, did not exist). When the resolution passed---and in the weeks after---the White House insisted that Bush was not bent on "regime change" and that he was willing to work within the UN to force Saddam to accept UN inspectors (which Saddam did) in pursuit of the goal of disarming Iraq. Is Bush now saying that he had already resolved to invade Iraq at this point and all his talk about achieving disarmament through the UN process was bunk? Is he rewriting history--or telling us the real truth? In any event, when Bush did order the invasion of Iraq months later in March 2003, he did not ask Congress to vote on his decision to remove Saddam.

I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

Bush might accept "the responsibilities and criticisms," but has yet to acknowledge the mistakes he and his aides made before and after the invasion about planning for a post-invasion Iraq. He also has not insisted on any accountability for these mistakes. For instance, he gave a spiffy medal to former CIA chief George Tenet, who was responsible for the prewar intelligence failure.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

When was the last time Bush talked about how the war began--that is, when did he mention that his primary reason for war (protecting the American public from the supposed WMD threat posed by Saddam Hussein) was discredited by reality? Is ignoring history the same as rewriting it?

Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

This is not the full and accurate explanation of the controversy at hand. The issue of whether the Bush administration misled the nation in the run-up to the war has two components. The first is the production of the intelligence related to WMDs and the supposed al Qaeda-Sadam connection. The second is how the Bush crowd represented the intelligence to the public when trying to make the case for war. As for the first, the Senate intelligence committee report did say the committee had found no evidence of political pressure. But Democratic members of the committee and others challenged this finding. Several committee Democrats pointed to a CIA independent review on the prewar intelligence, conducted by a panel led by Richard Kerr, former deputy director of the CIA, which said,

Requests for reporting and analysis of [Iraq's links to al Qaeda] were steady and heavy in the period leading up to the war, creating significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection.

More to the point, Kerr told Vanity Fair that intelligence analysts did feel pressured by the go-to-war gang. The magazine in May 2004 reported,

"There was a lot of pressure, no question," says Kerr. "The White House, State, Defense were raising questions, heavily on W.M.D. and the issue of terrorism. Why did you select this information rather than that? Why have you downplayed this particular thing?...Sure, I heard that some of the analysts felt pressure. We heard about it from friends. There are always some people in the agency who will say, 'We've been pushed to hard.' Analysts will say, 'You're trying to politicize it.' There were people who felt there was too much pressure. Not that they were being asked to change their judgments, but there were being asked again and again to restate their judgments--do another paper on this, repetitive pressures. Do it again."

Was it a case, then, of officials repeatedly asking for another paper until they got the answer they wanted? "There may have been some of that," Kerr concedes. The requests came from "primarily people outside asking for the same paper again and again. There was a lot of repetitive tasking. Some of the analysts felt this was unnecessary pressure. The repetitive requests, Kerr made clear, came from the C.I.A.'s "senior customers," including "the White House, the vice president, State, Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Despite Bush's assertion, the question remains whether undue pressure was applied by the White House. And in his Veterans Day speech, Bush ducked the second issue: how he and his aides depicted the intelligence. This is the source of the dispute over the so-called Phase II investigation of the Senate intelligence committee. The allegation is that Bush and administration officials overstated and hyped the flawed intelligence and claimed it was definitive when they had reason to know it was not.

For example, in his final speech to the nation before launching the war, Bush claimed that US intelligence left "no doubt" about Iraq's supposed WMDs. But there was plenty of doubt on critical issues. Intelligence analysts at the Energy Department and State Department disagreed with those at the CIA about the evidence that purportedly showed Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program: its importation of aluminum tubes and the allegation that Iraq had been uranium-shopping in Niger. (In 2002, Dick Cheney said the tubes were "irrefutable evidence," and Condoleezza Rice said they were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But a year earlier, as The New York Times reported in 2004, "Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear expert seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.") The CIA believed Iraq had chemical weapons. But the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that there was no evidence such stockpiles existed. Some intelligence analysts concluded that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver chemical or biological weapons. The experts on UAVs at the Air Force thought this was not so. Was Bush speaking accurately when he told the public--and the world--there was "no doubt"?

Also, did Bush make specific claims unsupported by the intelligence? The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced in October 2002, maintained that Iraq had an active biological research and development program. Bush publicly said Iraq had "stockpiles" of biological weapons. There is a difference between an R&D program (which Iraq did not have) and warehouses loaded with ready-to-go weapons (which Bush implied existed). How did an R&D program become stockpiles? This is as intriguing a question as how those sixteen words about Iraq's alleged pursuit of uranium in Africa became embedded in the State of the Union speech Bush delivered in early 2003.

On the key issue of Saddam Hussein's alleged connection to al Qaeda, Bush also made statements that went beyond the intelligence. This link was crucial to the case for war, for Bush and other hawks were arguing that Saddam Hussein could slip his WMDs to his pal Osama bin Laden. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was "dealing with" al Qaeda. But his intelligence agencies had not reached that conclusion. (And the 9/11 Commission later said there was no evidence of collusion between al Qaeda and Saddam.) So how did Bush come to make such a statement? Recently, Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat, released formerly classified material showing that before the war when Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell and other administration officials cited evidence that Iraq had been training al Qaeda operatives in the use of bombs and other weapons, Bush and these officials were relying on the statements of a captured al Qaeda member whose claims had been discounted by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Once more, how had Bush and his senior aides come to disseminate specific and provocative information deemed unreliable by the intelligence community?

Bush's Veterans Days comments addressed none of this.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.

The people with the most hands-on information regarding WMDs in Iraq did not. The International Atomic Energy Agency, led by recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, concluded weeks before the war (after their inspectors had returned to Iraq) that Saddam Hussein had not revived the nuclear weapons program that the IAEA had dismantled in the mid-1990s. And Hans Blix, head of the UN inspectors in Iraq, repeatedly said that his team was not finding evidence of chemical or biological weapons stockpiles.

...And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate--who had access to the same intelligence--voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

As noted above, the Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to use force when he thought he should--but only after Bush had promised to go to the United Nations in an effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, who, it turned out, was telling the truth when he denied his government possessed WMDs. Even the John Kerry quote that Bush cites contains the to-disarm condition. And several Democratic members of Congress have claimed that they did not see all the intelligence that was available to the White House.

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges.

It's hard to argue with that.

These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough.

Who said that "it's perfectly legitimate to criticize" the "decision [to go to war in Iraq] or the conduct of the war"? That was Bush, moments earlier, in the same speech. So which is it? Is it okay to criticize the conduct of the war or not?

By the way, while accusing his critics of falsifying history, Bush never conceded that he launched the war on a false premise--that Saddam Hussein was up to his neck in WMDs--and, thus, as he paid tribute to veterans of this war and others, he did not accept responsibility for sending American troops into battle for a cause that did not exist.

Read More...