Bush says he would like to close Guantanamo; Places blame for delay on Supreme Court

Reuters
Bush says he would like to close Guantanamo
By Noah Barkin

BERLIN (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said he would like to close the U.S.-run prison at Guantanamo Bay -- a step urged by several U.S. allies -- but was awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on how suspects held there might be tried.

"Of course Guantanamo is a delicate issue for people. I would like to close the camp and put the prisoners on trial," Bush said in comments to German television to be broadcast on Sunday night. The interview was recorded last week.

Human-rights groups have accused the United States of mistreating Guantanamo detainees through cruel interrogation methods, a charge denied by the U.S. government.

They also criticize the indefinite detention of suspects captured since the military prison was opened in 2002 at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, as part of the Bush administration's war on terrorism.

Bush was asked by the German public television station ARD how the United States could restore its human-rights image following reports of prisoner abuse.

"Our top court must still rule on whether they should go before a civil or military court," he said.

"They will get their day in court. One can't say that of the people that they killed. They didn't give these people the opportunity for a fair trial."

The quotes were translated by Reuters from a German transcript.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June on whether military tribunals of foreign terrorist suspects can proceed.

Bush's comments were a reiteration of long-standing U.S. policy, Frederick Jones, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in Washington.

"The United States has no intention of permanently detaining individuals, that is not our goal. We want to see all these individuals brought to justice," he said, whether in their home countries or in the United States.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, has dismissed calls for the prison to be closed.

"Every once and a while someone pops up and gets some press for saying 'Oh let's close Guantanamo Bay.' Well, if someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it," Rumsfeld said in a February speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The United States has 480 detainees at Guantanamo and has freed or handed over to their home governments a total of 272. The Pentagon has said it has no interest in holding anyone longer than necessary but that it has been unable to arrange for some to return to their home countries.

The Pentagon says the detainees come from 40 countries and the West Bank, with the largest number from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen.

In a report last week for the U.N. Committee against Torture, Amnesty International said torture and inhumane treatment were "widespread" in U.S.-run detention centers, including Guantanamo Bay.

The United States defended its treatment of foreign terrorism suspects in a hearing before the committee in Geneva on Friday, saying it backed a ban on torture.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria in Washington)

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats pledge probes of Bush, not impeachment

Reuters
Democrats pledge probes of Bush, not impeachment
By Andrea Hopkins

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats will launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration if they take control of Congress in November but are not out to impeach President George W. Bush, a top Democrat said on Sunday.

House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Democrats would hold hearings on the use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq war and investigate the high price of energy and prescription drugs if they win the extra 15 seats they need for a House majority in the mid-term elections.

But Pelosi denied Republican claims that her party would move quickly to impeach Bush.

"I said we'd be having hearings on the war, we'd have hearings. But I don't see us going to a place of impeachment," Pelosi said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. "Investigation does not equate to impeachment. Investigation is the requirement of Congress. It is about checks and balances."

In Congress, the majority party controls the chairmanship and agenda of all committees, where most laws are drafted and investigative and subpoena power is held.

With Bush's public approval rating at an all-time low and Republicans fearing they could lose control of both houses of Congress in November, Democrats are laying out plans for an aggressive start to the new Congress.

Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has called for the creation of committee to recommend grounds for possible impeachment of Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

But Pelosi said such a decision rests with her and the Democratic caucus.

"John Conyers is an enthusiastic advocate. I am the leader. Our caucus will decide where we go," she said.

While she declined to rule out impeachment, Pelosi focused on investigations of the White House's energy task force and the prescription drug bill.

"You never know where the facts take you ... but that is not what we are about," Pelosi said. "We will have subpoena power and that's why the Republicans are so afraid that we will be able to show the public how they arrived at a prescription drug bill that is born of corruption," Pelosi said.

"The cost of corruption is huge to the consumer, whether it is low income seniors paying more at the pharmacy, whether it is all American consumers paying more at the pump or home heating oil. How did we get to this place? That is worthy of scrutiny."

Read More...

Summary only...

Lawmakers challenge Bush on likely CIA pick

Reuters
Lawmakers challenge Bush on likely CIA pick
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lawmakers, some from President George W. Bush's Republican party, are challenging his expected choice of a general behind a disputed domestic spying program as the new CIA chief.

They voiced reservations on Sunday talk shows about Bush's potential choice of Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy to national intelligence director John Negroponte, to head the spy agency following Porter Goss's resignation under pressure on Friday.

Senators said they would use Hayden's Senate confirmation hearings to learn more about the program of warrantless eavesdropping on Americans' international phone calls and e-mail in pursuit of terrorism suspects. Critics say the program threatens civil liberties but Bush defends it as essential to fighting terrorism.

Some members of Congress also said a general heading the CIA could give the Pentagon too much sway over U.S. intelligence gathering.

"The bottom line: I do believe he is the wrong person at the wrong place at the wrong time," said Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, on "Fox News Sunday."

The White House was expected to announce as early as Monday Bush's choice to replace Goss, who resigned after a contentious tenure at the CIA marked by an exodus of senior officials and tensions with Negroponte.

Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency which conducts eavesdropping operations, must be confirmed by the Senate if he is nominated.

Bush has said Hayden was the one who proposed the domestic eavesdropping program after the September 11 attacks. Revelation of its existence sparked a public and political furor.

Hayden's confirmation hearings would give Congress a chance to learn more about the program, said Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"There is no doubt there's an enormous threat from terrorism, but the president does not have a blank check. Now with Gen. Hayden up for confirmation, this will give us an opportunity to try to find out," Specter said on "Fox News Sunday."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, offered a lukewarm endorsement of Hayden, saying he liked him, but "I'm not in a position to say that I am for Gen. Hayden and will vote for him."

Roberts, whose committee will hold the confirmation hearings, said on CNN's "Late Edition" that a new CIA head must understand the agency's culture and mission. The spymaster must achieve change "without that person becoming an enemy of the transition. Now that's apparently in part what happened to Porter Goss," he said.

Goss left after clashing with Negroponte, who wants to move some CIA functions such as analysis to other intelligence agencies and focus the CIA on clandestine operations and recruiting foreign agents, intelligence experts said.

Hayden was considered likely to carry out the changes Negroponte wants at CIA.

Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on ABC's "This Week" program, "I too have a little bit of concern, frankly, about military personnel running the CIA." But he said Hayden was well-respected.

Roberts suggested Hayden could answer some objections by relinquishing his military post and naming deputies with civilian backgrounds.

Hayden has "certain strikes against him," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. She cited his military background and his lack of experience building a clandestine service.

"And the third thing is that it's not clear he will be independent of this White House," she said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Harman cited a speech in which Hayden defended the domestic spying program as necessary and said current law was not "optimized" to deal with a September 11-type of terrorism threat.

Read More...

Summary only...

How A Bill Becomes A Law

Read More...

Summary only...

Who's Impersonating Whom?

Read More...

Summary only...

The Wit And The Half-Wit

Read More...

Summary only...

What Changed The Minds Of 23 Million People Between 2004 and 2006?

Read More...

Summary only...

Benefits Check

Read More...

Summary only...

Mr. Hastert Sets An Example

Read More...

Summary only...

Where did the bicycles come from?

Read More...

Summary only...

Attention Virgins!

Read More...

Summary only...

72 Vermin

Read More...

Summary only...

The Intelligence Business

The New York Times
The Intelligence Business

We've been waiting for well over two years for the Senate Intelligence Committee to finally hold the Bush administration accountable for the fairy tales it told about Saddam Hussein's weapons. Republican leaders keep saying it is a waste of time to find out whether President Bush and other top officials deliberately misled the world. But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's bizarre responses the other day to questions about that very issue were a timely reminder of why this investigation needs to be completed promptly, thoroughly and fairly.

Unfortunately, Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate panel, is running it in a way that makes it unlikely that anything useful will come of it.

It is bad enough that Mr. Rumsfeld and others did not tell Americans the full truth — to take the best-case situation — before the war. But they are still doing it. Just look at the profoundly twisted version of events that the defense secretary offered last week at a public event in Atlanta.

Ray McGovern, an analyst for 27 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, stood in the audience and asked why Mr. Rumsfeld lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The secretary shot back, "I did not lie." Then, even though no one asked about them, he said Colin Powell and Mr. Bush offered "their honest opinion" based on "weeks and weeks" of time with the C.I.A. "I'm not in the intelligence business," he said, adding, "It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there."

First, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Period. Second, neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Powell spent long weeks with the C.I.A., whose analysts were largely cut out of the decision making. And that was because, third, Mr. Rumsfeld was, and is, very much in the intelligence business.

The Defense Department controls most of the intelligence budget and is the biggest user of intelligence. Mr. Rumsfeld also set up his own intelligence agency within the Pentagon when the C.I.A. and the State Department refused to tell him what he wanted to hear about Iraq. It was that office's distortions that formed the basis for what the administration told Congress and the public.

In Atlanta, Mr. Rumsfeld denied ever saying flatly that there were dangerous weapons in Iraq. Actually, he did, many times, even as late as March 30, 2003. On Sept. 27, 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld said there was "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, including that Iraq had trained Qaeda agents in chemical and biological warfare, and he repeated that myth in response to Mr. McGovern.

Which brings us back to the Senate committee. In 2004, Democratic members agreed to split the investigation of Iraq intelligence. The committee issued a report on how bad the information was, but put off until after the 2004 election the question of whether the administration deliberately hyped the evidence. Mr. Roberts tried to kill the investigation entirely, and after the Democrats forced him to proceed, he set rules that seem a lot like the recipe for a whitewash.

The investigation, known as Phase 2, is divided into five parts: Did officials' public statements reflect the actual intelligence? Why did the government fail to anticipate the postwar disaster in Iraq? Were there actually any W.M.D. in Iraq? Was the Pentagon's mini-C.I.A. a proper and legal operation? And did any of the disinformation provided by the Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi get into any "intelligence product"?

Mr. Roberts has so gummed up the first part of the investigation that it is going to take forever to complete and is unlikely to be of much clarity. The only public statements that matter are those by Mr. Bush and his top aides. But Mr. Roberts included any statement, by any public official, including members of Congress, going back to 1991.

Beyond dragging out the process further, the intent, obviously, is to suggest that Mr. Bush said the same things that Democratic senators and others did. That has no significance. They did not decide to have a war and had access only to the sanitized intelligence fed to them by the administration. Bill Clinton and Mr. Bush's father did think there were dangerous weapons in Iraq — back in the 20th century. By the time the war started, those weapons had long been eliminated by inspections and sanctions.

It is worth knowing why policy makers failed to anticipate the insurgency and other postwar nightmares, but the structure of this part of the investigation is flawed as well. The Senate investigation of Mr. Chalabi's involvement is limited to "intelligence products," which the C.I.A. produces. But it was not the C.I.A. that predicted rose petals in Baghdad and a virtually problem-free transition to democracy; it was Mr. Chalabi and his henchmen, creatures of Mr. Rumsfeld's team at the Pentagon. And it was the intelligence business that Mr. Rumsfeld now pretends not to run that used Mr. Chalabi's myths in an attempt to rebut the skeptical State Department and make dubious information seem more reliable.

It was helpful of Mr. Rumsfeld to remind us why this inquiry is still so important. The least Mr. Roberts and his committee can do is to finish the flawed investigation and make the results public.

Read More...

Summary only...

Judges challenge Internet wiretap rules

USA TODAY
Judges challenge Internet wiretap rules

WASHINGTON (AP) — A U.S. appeals panel sharply challenged the Bush administration Friday over new rules making it easier for police and the FBI to wiretap Internet phone calls. A judge said the government's courtroom arguments were "gobbledygook."

The skepticism expressed so openly toward the administration's case encouraged civil liberties and education groups that argued that the U.S. is improperly applying telephone-era rules to a new generation of Internet services.

"Your argument makes no sense," U.S. Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards told the lawyer for the Federal Communications Commission, Jacob Lewis. "When you go back to the office, have a big chuckle. I'm not missing this. This is ridiculous. Counsel!"

At another point in the hearing, Edwards told the FCC's lawyer that his arguments were "gobbledygook" and "nonsense."

The court's decision was expected within several months.

In an unrelated case last year affecting digital television, two of the same three judges determined the FCC had significantly exceeded its authority and threw out new government rules requiring anti-piracy devices in new video devices. Lewis was also the losing lawyer in that case, and Edwards also was impassioned then in his criticisms of the FCC.

In the current case, Edwards appeared especially skeptical over the FCC's decision to require that providers of Internet phone service and broadband services must ensure their equipment can accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.

The new rules go into effect in May 2007.

The 1994 law was originally aimed at ensuring court-ordered wiretaps could be placed on wireless phones.

The Justice Department, which has lobbied aggressively on the subject, warned in court papers that failure to expand the wiretap requirements to the fast-growing Internet phone industry "could effectively provide a surveillance safe haven for criminals and terrorists who make use of new communications services."

Critics said the new FCC rules are too broad and inconsistent with the intent of Congress when it passed the 1994 surveillance law, which excluded categories of companies described as information services.

The FCC asserted that providers of high-speed Internet services should be covered under the 1994 law because their voice-transmission services can be considered separately from information services. "Congress intended to cover services (in the 1994 law) that were functionally equivalent" to traditional telephones, Lewis said during the hearing in U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

"There's nothing to suggest that in the statute," Edwards replied. "Stating that doesn't make it so."

The panel appeared more inclined to support the FCC's argument that Internet-phone services — which allow users to dial and receive calls from traditional phone numbers — may be covered under the 1994 law and required to accommodate court-ordered wiretaps. The technology, popularized by Holmdel, N.J.-based Vonage Holdings Corp., is known as "voice over Internet protocol," or VOIP.

"Voice-over is a very different thing," U.S. Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle said. He said it offered "precisely the same" functions as traditional telephone lines.

Edwards told the lawyer for the civil liberties groups, Matthew Brill, that on his challenge that VOIP services aren't covered under the surveillance law, "I didn't think you have it."

Education groups had challenged the FCC rules because they said the requirements would impose burdensome new costs on private university networks.

The third judge on the panel, Janice Rogers Brown, did not comment or ask any questions during the arguments.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-05-internetwiretaps_x.htm

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats urge action on gas price-gouging

USA TODAY
Democrats urge action on gas price-gouging
By Matthew Daly, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — With gas prices above $3 a gallon in many places, Congress should pass legislation by Memorial Day to make price-gouging a federal crime, Sen. Maria Cantwell said Saturday in the Democrats' weekly radio address.

Cantwell, of Washington state, also called for increased investments in alternative fuel development to break what she called America's over-reliance on oil, particularly from other countries.

"It's time that we simply stop talking about energy independence and start running toward a future that will make America more secure and more economically competitive," she said.

Cantwell, who is seeking her second term this fall, said gas prices have shot up more than 70 cents in one year, leaving consumers with few options.

"The American economy and American families are hurting," she said.

Cantwell cited reports of school days being canceled because local school districts can't afford the cost of diesel fuel for buses, and airline jobs and pensions being lost "because airlines can't afford the skyrocketing cost of jet fuel."

While about half of the oil consumed in the United States comes from foreign countries, Cantwell said Democrats believe America can be "energy independent" by 2020.

"It begins with conservation and efficiency," she said. "We can ask Americans to sacrifice. We can ask Americans to conserve. We can ask Americans to innovate and invest in new technologies. We just can't ask them to accept the status quo."

Cantwell said it was time to end huge tax breaks for big oil companies. She said they should be replaced with new incentives for cars that are made of lightweight, efficient materials and can run on either ethanol or gasoline.

Republican spokesman Tucker Bounds said Cantwell "promotes a number of policies that Republicans are already pursuing, but doesn't mention any real intention to work with the majority of her colleagues to find solutions."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-06-dems-gas_x.htm

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats push to end tax breaks for oil companies

Reuters
Democrats push to end tax breaks for oil companies

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats on Saturday pressed the U.S. Congress to slash tax breaks for profit-flush oil companies amid record high gasoline prices and quickly pass legislation aimed at protecting consumers from price-gouging.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat up for reelection this fall, said the tax breaks for oil companies should be changed to offer incentives for vehicles that can run on ethanol and for more energy-efficient goods.

"It's time to end the huge tax breaks for big oil, and replace them with new incentives for lightweight, efficient materials and for cars that can run on either ethanol or gasoline," she said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.

The national retail price for gasoline hit an average of $2.92 a gallon in the last week, up 42 cents a gallon in the last month. Some oil companies have been reporting hefty profits recently.

Democrats, who believe they could wrest majority control of Congress from Republicans in the November election because of soaring gasoline costs, earlier this week offered legislation that they said would slash at least $28 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for oil and natural gas companies.

Republicans have been scrambling for other ideas on how to ease the gas price burden, but an initial idea of handing out $100 checks to U.S. consumers flopped.

President George W. Bush held a brainstorming session with lawmakers this week and proposals ranged from building better battery-powered gas-electric hybrid cars to building new refineries and producing more fuel from sources like corn.

"The president has outlined a plan that will really transform the way we power our cars and trucks and make us less dependent on oil," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday.

Tucker Bounds, spokesman for the Republican National Committee, criticized Cantwell for not working together with the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

"Maria Cantwell promotes a number of policies that Republicans are already pursuing, but doesn't mention any real intention to work with the majority of her colleagues to find solutions," he said in a statement.

Cantwell also called for Congress to pass legislation to criminalize price-gouging before the Memorial Day holiday at the end of May, considered the start of Americans' summer vacation period.

The House passed a measure this week to make it a federal crime for companies to profiteer on pricing gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, heating oil and biofuel.

"Democrats believe that supply and demand are basic forces that guide our economy," she said. "But even those forces demand real transparency to make sure that markets are functioning the way they're supposed to."

Bush has ordered the Federal Trade Commission further examine whether there has been any price-gouging.

(Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa)

Read More...

Summary only...

More Questions Surface in the Wake of a Congressman's Bribery Case

The New York Times
More Questions Surface in the Wake of a Congressman's Bribery Case
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, May 6 — A federal investigation into one congressman's bribe-taking last year has produced a second round of inquiries into the actions of officials at the C.I.A. and the Homeland Security Department and of members of the House Intelligence Committee, government officials say.

These new inquiries reach beyond Randy Cunningham, the former Republican House member from California who was sentenced in March to more than eight years in prison for taking $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors. The investigations suggest a growing suspicion among some lawmakers that corrupt practices may have influenced decision-making in Congress and at executive-branch agencies.

Last month, The San Diego Union-Tribune and The Wall Street Journal reported that federal investigators were looking into whether the military contractors involved in Mr. Cunningham's bribery had also arranged limousines, poker parties and prostitutes for him at the Watergate and Westin Grand hotels here.

Law enforcement officials have confirmed these reports, and a manager at the Watergate has said the hotel was subpoenaed by federal officials seeking documents related to the poker parties. Calls to Mr. Cunningham's lawyer, K. Lee Blalack II, seeking comment were not returned.

The investigation has led to further official inquiries into who arranged and attended the poker parties and their connections to the military contractors who played roles in Mr. Cunningham's bribery.

The inspector general of the Central Intelligence Agency, the agency says, is conducting an inquiry into Kyle Foggo, its executive director, who said this week that he attended some of the parties over the years.

Mr. Foggo, the C.I.A.'s third-ranking official, is a longtime friend of Brent R. Wilkes, one of the military contractors whose role is described in the indictment against Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Wilkes has not been charged, and his lawyer did not return calls on Friday.

Mr. Wilkes is a business associate of Mitchell Wade, a military contractor who pleaded guilty in February to providing more than $1 million in bribes to Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Wade's lawyer declined Friday to discuss his client's role in the investigation.

A C.I.A. spokesman said Saturday that Mr. Foggo has said he did not violate agency rules in the awarding of contracts and that the poker games were nothing more than a gathering of friends. Mr. Foggo was promoted to his job at the C.I.A. by Porter J. Goss, who abruptly resigned Friday as director of the agency. There has been no suggestion by officials involved in these investigations that Mr. Goss did anything wrong or was under investigation.

The inquiry into the poker games has also put a spotlight on the limousine company that ferried Mr. Cunningham and others to the Watergate and Westin Grand. The company, Shirlington Limousine and Transportation, is operated by Christopher D. Baker, a man with a history of criminal convictions and financial troubles. Shirlington won a contract worth as much as $25.2 million to drive homeland security employees and officials around Washington.

Lawyers for Mr. Baker did not return calls seeking comment, and a message left with Shirlington Limousine's answering service on Saturday did not bring a response. The company is listed at several addresses in the region, including a post office box in Arlington, Va., and an apartment in a residential building in downtown Washington.

Shirlington provided 12 minibuses five days a week to drive homeland security employees among downtown offices, and 10 drivers to ferry department executives around the region in department-owned sedans.

F.B.I. agents have talked to Shirlington employees about driving Mr. Cunningham and prostitutes to hotel poker parties, and have interviewed women who work for escort services, said a lawyer involved in the investigation.

On Friday, Republicans and Democrats on the House Committee on Homeland Security announced that they planned to investigate Shirlington Limousine's contract.

"The information we've obtained raises a number of serious questions, from the contracting process to possible security concerns," said Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the House subcommittee in charge of management and oversight at the Department of Homeland Security. "The appearance of a lack of background checks on contractors is another troubling personnel issue at D.H.S. that we are examining."

In a draft letter to the inspector general of homeland security, to be sent Monday, Representative Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, asks why the department hired the limousine company and whether Shirlington's bid received preferential treatment. It seeks a list of official passengers.

Democrats on the committee said Friday that they plan to ask homeland security officials about the Shirlington contract in a May 18 hearing.

Larry Orluskie, a homeland security spokesman, said background checks were conducted on all Shirlington drivers before they were given access to department cars and officials. He stressed that the department does not use Shirlington's limousines and that it has been "absolutely satisfied" with the company since awarding it a contract in April 2004.

"The drivers are professional," he said. "The buses are always on time. The contract is just perfect."

In January, the top Republican and top Democrat on the House intelligence committee announced their own inquiry into whether Mr. Cunningham's bribery schemes had influenced the committee's business. The intelligence committee oversees the 16 intelligence agencies and their $44 billion annual budget.

Read More...

Summary only...

Libby Plans to Call on Rove to Testify; Libby Also Seeks Testimony From Outed CIA Officer's Husband and Former State Department Official

ABC News
Libby Plans to Call on Rove to Testify
Libby Also Seeks Testimony From Outed CIA Officer's Husband and Former State Department Official
By JENNIFER DUCK and JASON RYAN

May 5, 2006 — - I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's lawyers plan to call on White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove as a witness in his trial for allegedly lying to a federal grand jury and investigators over the CIA leak case.

The defense revealed today it will also focus on testimony from former State Department official Marc Grossman and Joseph Wilson, husband of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Libby, the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, was charged in October 2005 over statements about how he learned about Plame's CIA connections. Plame was identified by columnist Robert Novak in July 2003, and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as a special prosecutor to investigate the matter later that year.

At a hearing today, Libby's lawyer Ted Wells said five witnesses would testify that Wilson revealed Plame's status before Novak did. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton fired back at Wells saying, "I don't know how it has any bearing on whether your client allegedly testified falsely."

The defense team also asked that the government produce any documents and e-mails they have in their possession relating to the ongoing investigation.

The hearing offered no clues on Fitzgerald's investigation into Rove's statements made before the grand jury last week or whether Fitzgerald will bring charges against Rove.

Wells asked that materials relating to Rove be provided to the defense, asserting that the prosecution is required to do so even if no charges have been brought against Rove. Fitzgerald denied he was withholding evidence.

Some Document Requests Denied

The defense also requested additional documents from the CIA, the State Department and the White House. Walton denied some, saying he did not see how the documents related to the perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Libby.

However, Walton granted the defense information about the declassification process of the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate. The 2002 report was declassified by President Bush after Wilson and other critics began to question the administration's Iraq pre-war intelligence. Walton also said information provided to Federal investigators after interviews with Bush and Cheney could be turned over to the defense.

Meanwhile, Fitzgerald has told the defense that they have not been able to locate certain White House records.

"In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system, " Fitzgerald wrote in a letter to Libby's lawyers dated Jan. 23, 2006.

Not a Debate Over War in Iraq

Walton questioned Wells several times about why the defense needed documents pertaining to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger to prepare for Libby's defense.

"I don't see how that has anything to do with this case," Walton said.

The judge worried the jury would focus on whether America was winning the war and said he would not let the trial be a proxy for a fight over the decision to go to war in Iraq.

"You want to try the legitimacy of the war, and I don't see how this helps us determine whether Libby lied when he talked to the FBI and went before the grand jury," Walton said.

Glimpse Into Future Defense Arguments

Wells said the defense will highlight two areas: 1) what Libby was told about Plame's employment at the CIA and Wilson's trip to Niger and 2) testimony from reporters involved in the case.

The testimony from reporters has been an ongoing battle. A hearing will be held on May 16 to deal with the issue of media subpoenas for former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, NBC host Tim Russert and Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper. Journalists' testimony was a major part of Fitzgerald's investigation leading to the charges against Libby.

At a hearing on Feb. 24, Walton seemed to indicate the defense was going too far in wanting to subpoena multiple journalists to establish the known field for how many journalists may have known about Plame's employment at the CIA.

Walton also refused to impose a gag order on this case, saying they should only be issued in "extreme circumstances." He encouraged the counsel not to make public statements before the trial.

Libby said only spoke once during the the two-hour hearing, to waive the right to a speedy trial. Walton said the trial, which is set to begin in January 2007, will last about one month.

Read More...

Summary only...

Libby lawyer to argue Bush's role in leak

Reuters
Libby lawyer to argue Bush's role in leak
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The lawyer for former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby said on Friday he would argue that his client revealed intelligence on Iraq after Vice President Dick Cheney authorized it and President George W. Bush declassified the information.

At a hearing on what documents the prosecution must turn over to the defense, lawyer Theodore Wells also said he believed there may be testimony or statements by Bush and Cheney that the disclosure of the intelligence was authorized.

Wells said he was entitled to any such information from the special prosecutor investigating who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to the news media.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton ruled that prosecutors must turn over information about how the intelligence was declassified because it was important to Libby's defense.

Prosecutors disclosed last month that Libby had testified he had been authorized to disclose the intelligence to reporters in the summer of 2003, to counter criticism of Bush's Iraq policy from Plame's husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson.

Bush has acknowledged declassifying the information, prompting charges of hypocrisy from Democrats who say he has denounced some leaks while encouraging others.

Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, is charged with lying to investigators as they sought to determine who disclosed Plame's name to a conservative columnist in July 2003.

Wells said he would tell the jury that Libby disclosed the intelligence with Cheney's authorization and with the understanding Bush had declassified it.

The trial is scheduled to begin in January, keeping alive an issue that has dogged the White House for months.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said he already turned over the relevant documents. Fitzgerald said he agreed with the defense the intelligence had been declassified, but did not know precisely when that happened.

The leak occurred at a time when opponents were stepping up their criticism of the March 2003 invasion after U.S. forces had failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Wells also said he planned to attack the credibility of Wilson, a former ambassador. He said he planned to call five witnesses who would say that Wilson told them about his wife working at the CIA.

Wilson investigated for the CIA an administration claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium, an ingredient used in nuclear weapons, in Niger, and he later wrote in a New York Times article that the charges could not be substantiated.

Wells said he wanted a wide range of government documents about Wilson's trip to Niger.

The judge rejected the request on the grounds that it was not relevant to the lying charges against Libby. "I'm just not going to let this case become a judicial resolution of the legitimacy of the (Iraq) war," he said.

Wells also said top White House aide Karl Rove would likely be a defense witness at the trial and the prosecutor must turn over information about Rove, who remains under investigation.

Fitzgerald said he was not withholding information about Rove. Rove, who faces possible perjury charges, last month testified before a grand jury for the fifth time. Fitzgerald has yet to decide whether to charge Rove.

Read More...

Summary only...

Conservatives Drive Bush's and Republican Congress' Approval Ratings to New Lows

ABC News
Conservatives Drive Bush's Approval Down
Poll: Conservatives Drive Bush's and Republican Congress' Approval Ratings to New Lows
By RON FOURNIER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Angry conservatives are driving the approval ratings of President Bush and the GOP-led Congress to dismal new lows, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that underscores why Republicans fear an Election Day massacre.

Six months out, the intensity of opposition to Bush and Congress has risen sharply, along with the percentage of Americans who believe the nation is on the wrong track.

The AP-Ipsos poll also suggests that Democratic voters are far more motivated than Republicans. Elections in the middle of a president's term traditionally favor the party whose core supporters are the most energized.

This week's survey of 1,000 adults, including 865 registered voters, found:

Just 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, the lowest of his presidency. That compares with 36 percent approval in early April. Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president.

Just one-fourth of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling and down 5 percentage points since last month. A whopping 65 percent of conservatives disapprove of Congress.

A majority of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). That's the largest gap recorded by AP-Ipsos since Bush took office. Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power.

The souring of the nation's mood has accelerated the past three months, with the percentage of people describing the nation on the wrong track rising 12 points to a new high of 73 percent. Six of 10 conservatives say America is headed in the wrong direction.

Republican strategists said the party stands to lose control of Congress unless the environment changes unexpectedly.

"It's going to take some events of significance to turn this around," GOP pollster Whit Ayres said. "I don't think at this point you can talk your way back from those sorts of ratings."

He said the party needs concrete progress in Iraq and action in Congress on immigration, lobbying reform and tax cuts.

"Those things would give the country a sense that Washington has heard the people and is responding in a way that will give conservatives a sense that their concerns are being addressed," Ayres said.

Conservative voters blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. Those concerns come on top of public worries about Iraq, the economy and gasoline prices.

"I think he's the dumbest president we've ever had," said Mark Rauzi, a conservative voter from Gillespie, Ill. "I disapprove of a lot of the stuff he's doing. This war was a big boo-boo and he won't admit he did wrong."

Hardline conservatives are not likely to vote Democratic in the fall, but it would be just as devastating to the Republicans if conservatives lose their enthusiasm and stay home on Election Day.

AP-Ipsos polling suggests that Democrats may be winning the motivation game. Fewer voters today than in 2004 call themselves Republicans or Republican-leaning. In addition, 27 percent of registered voters were strong Republicans just before the 2004 election, while only 15 percent fit that description today.

Democratic numbers are the same or better since 2004.

"This tells us we've got our work cut out for us," said Sen. Sam Brownback, a conservative Republican from Kansas who may run for president in 2008. "The key for us is to show restraint on spending and on dealing with immigration."

Bush's strong suit continues to be his handling of foreign policy and terrorism, an area in which he modestly improved his ratings since April. Still, a majority of Americans disapprove of his performance on both fronts.

It gets worse. Only 23 percent of the public approve of the way the president is handling gasoline prices, the lowest in AP-Ipsos polling. Those who strongly disapprove outnumber those who strongly approve by an extraordinary 55 percent to 8 percent.

As for his overall job performance, history suggests that Bush's paltry 33 percent spells trouble for Republicans in the fall.

In the past six decades, only one president had a lower job approval rating six months before a midterm election Richard Nixon in May 1974, the year in which Watergate-scarred Republicans lost 48 seats in the House and four in the Senate.

By November, Nixon was out of a job too, having resigned the presidency in August.

Nearly half of the public strongly disapproves of Bush, a huge jump from his 5 percent strong disapproval rating in 2002. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Of all Republicans, nearly 30 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing, including 13 percent who feel strongly about it.

"Hopefully this is a wake-up call for my party to get out of its bunker and hunker mentality," said Republican strategist Greg Mueller, whose firm specializes in conservative politics.

He urged his party to start criticizing Democratic positions on the Iraq war, immigration and the economy.

"We've been like a punching bag," Mueller said.

Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate for control of Congress, no easy task in an era that favors incumbents.

"What we have to do is earn the public approval of our right to govern again," said Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean.

The Democratic strategy is to nationalize the elections around a throw-the-bums-out theme.

Republicans counter that they will do better than polls suggest when voters are forced on Election Day to choose between candidates in their particular House and Senate races.

"But," Ayres said, "we better get in gear."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the poll numbers were "snapshots in time."

"When you're engaged in a war, it makes people anxious about the future," McClellan said. "But this country is on a solid track under this president because of his leadership. We have worked together to accomplish big things."

On the Net:

Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com

Associated Press writer Will Lester, manager of news surveys Trevor Tompson, and polling director Mike Mokrzycki contributed to this story.

Read More...

Summary only...

Veto? Who Needs a Veto?

The New York Times
Veto? Who Needs a Veto?

One of the abiding curiosities of the Bush administration is that after more than five years in office, the president has yet to issue a veto. No one since Thomas Jefferson has stayed in the White House this long without rejecting a single act of Congress. Some people attribute this to the Republicans' control of the House and the Senate, and others to Mr. Bush's reluctance to expend political capital on anything but tax cuts for the wealthy and the war in Iraq. Now, thanks to a recent article in The Boston Globe, we have a better answer.

President Bush doesn't bother with vetoes; he simply declares his intention not to enforce anything he dislikes. Charlie Savage at The Globe reported recently that Mr. Bush had issued more than 750 "presidential signing statements" declaring he wouldn't do what the laws required. Perhaps the most infamous was the one in which he stated that he did not really feel bound by the Congressional ban on the torture of prisoners.

In this area, as in so many others, Mr. Bush has decided not to take the open, forthright constitutional path. He signed some of the laws in question with great fanfare, then quietly registered his intention to ignore them. He placed his imperial vision of the presidency over the will of America's elected lawmakers. And as usual, the Republican majority in Congress simply looked the other way.

Many of the signing statements reject efforts to curb Mr. Bush's out-of-control sense of his powers in combating terrorism. In March, after frequent pious declarations of his commitment to protecting civil liberties, Mr. Bush issued a signing statement that said he would not obey a new law requiring the Justice Department to report on how the F.B.I. is using the Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers if he decided that such reporting could impair national security or executive branch operations.

In another case, the president said he would not instruct the military to follow a law barring it from storing illegally obtained intelligence about Americans. Now we know, of course, that Mr. Bush had already authorized the National Security Agency, which is run by the Pentagon, to violate the law by eavesdropping on Americans' conversations and reading Americans' e-mail without getting warrants.

We know from this sort of bitter experience that the president is not simply expressing philosophical reservations about how a particular law may affect the war on terror. The signing statements are not even all about national security. Mr. Bush is not willing to enforce a law protecting employees of nuclear-related agencies if they report misdeeds to Congress. In another case, he said he would not turn over scientific information "uncensored and without delay" when Congress needed it. (Remember the altered environmental reports?)

Mr. Bush also demurred from following a law forbidding the Defense Department to censor the legal advice of military lawyers. (Remember the ones who objected to the torture-is-legal policy?) Instead, his signing statement said military lawyers are bound to agree with political appointees at the Justice Department and the Pentagon.

The founding fathers never conceived of anything like a signing statement. The idea was cooked up by Edwin Meese III, when he was the attorney general for Ronald Reagan, to expand presidential powers. He was helped by a young lawyer who was a true believer in the unitary presidency, a euphemism for an autocratic executive branch that ignores Congress and the courts. Unhappily, that lawyer, Samuel Alito Jr., is now on the Supreme Court.

Since the Reagan era, other presidents have issued signing statements to explain how they interpreted a law for the purpose of enforcing it, or to register narrow constitutional concerns. But none have done it as profligately as Mr. Bush. (His father issued about 232 in four years, and Bill Clinton 140 in eight years.) And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.

Like many of Mr. Bush's other imperial excesses, this one serves no legitimate purpose. Congress is run by a solid and iron-fisted Republican majority. And there is actually a system for the president to object to a law: he vetoes it, and Congress then has a chance to override the veto with a two-thirds majority.

That process was good enough for 42 other presidents. But it has the disadvantage of leaving the chief executive bound by his oath of office to abide by the result. This president seems determined not to play by any rules other than the ones of his own making. And that includes the Constitution.

Read More...

Summary only...

That Missing Vaccine Capacity

The New York Times
That Missing Vaccine Capacity

The more the federal government tells us how to prepare for a possible avian flu pandemic, the more apparent it becomes that we won't be prepared anytime soon. If a pandemic hits within the next several years, it will be up to hospitals, doctors, public health agencies and ordinary people to muddle through as best they can — with guidance, but little money, from the federal government.

The latest advice from the federal government, in a plan issued this week, makes it clear that a worst-case pandemic would indeed be bad. A third of the population might become infected, two million Americans might die, and 40 percent of the work force might be out of commission at the height of the outbreak. Nobody has the foggiest idea whether a pandemic will arrive in the near future or how severe one might be, but federal officials argue, persuasively, that we have to brace ourselves for the worst.

The 227-page document usefully spells out some 300 actions to be taken by federal agencies and the timetables for achieving them. It also offers advice to businesses, schools, individuals and others in the private sector. All of this is to the good. It makes sense to think through problems in advance rather than in the midst of a raging pandemic.

What troubles us most is what looks like a less-than-urgent push to develop a new vaccine production capacity that can quickly respond to an emergency. There is no overstating the importance of effective vaccines; they could greatly reduce the need for other costly and less effective measures to deal with a lethal new virus. To its credit, the Bush administration, as part of its $7.1 billion preparedness plan, has poured substantial money into developing and procuring vaccines and antiviral drugs. But its primary goal — to expand and modernize domestic production capacity to make enough vaccine for all Americans within six months — seems as distant as ever. Last fall officials said that goal might be reached in four to five years. Half a year later, the target is still five years away, and is contingent on future appropriations and the responsiveness of vaccine makers. Congress needs to look hard to see whether a more aggressive effort might convert the industry more quickly.

Meanwhile, the burden of caring for the sickest patients would fall on the nation's hospitals. Most of us probably assume that should we get sick, our local hospitals would of course take us in. But that confidence may be misplaced. The federal government has offered many pages of advice on what hospitals should do to prepare, but precious little money to help them do it. Given that many hospitals are already on the financial ropes, with their emergency rooms clogged, it seems unlikely that they could handle a sudden onslaught of very ill patients.

Some experts are estimating that $5 billion may be needed to get all hospitals prepared. That is a hefty sum that no one seems eager to pay — and all the more reason to get cracking on a faster way to make vaccines.

Read More...

Summary only...

US job growth less than expected

BBC NEWS
US job growth less than expected
The US economy created 138,000 jobs in April, fewer than expected, as the unemployment rate stayed steady at 4.7%, the Labor Department has said.

The gain was the smallest since last October, when job growth was dented by 2005's devastating hurricane season.

The financial sector, health care and manufacturing industries made most gains, but these were offset by a fall of 36,000 jobs in retailing.

The total number of jobless people was largely unchanged at 7.1 million.

Analysts had expected 200,000 jobs would be created in April.

The department also reduced the number of jobs that had been created in February and March to around 200,000 each month, from its initial estimates of 225,000 and 211,000 respectively.

The Labor Department added that the average US hourly wage had climbed by 3.8% over the past year - this was the fastest rate since August 2001.

Mixed picture

US Treasury Secretary John Snow gave an upbeat interpretation of the news.

"This month's report, showing more jobs, more hours worked and higher wages tells a positive story," he said.

But many analysts warned that the figures were below the rate of job growth need to keep up with population.

Economist Ethan Harris of Lehman Brothers said that the figures were in line with "trend-like job growth instead of booming job growth."

Earlier in the week, US economic growth was reported to be 4.8% in the first quaater of the year, higher than expected.

The most recent figures paint a confusing picture for the Federal Reserve, the US central bank which is set to decide interest rates next week.

The Fed has raised rates 15 times to 4.75%, and is widely expected to raise them again to 5.0%.

But Bernard Bernanke, the Fed boss, has suggested that a pause in rate rises might then be in order.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/4977160.stm

Read More...

Summary only...

Court skeptical of FCC on broadband wiretap access

Reuters
Court skeptical of FCC on broadband wiretap access
By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. telecommunications regulators on Friday faced tough questioning from a federal appeals court about whether the government can force broadband Internet service providers to give law enforcement authorities access for surveillance purposes.

One of the three judges hearing the case called the government's rationale for the surveillance requirement "gobbledygook," and another also expressed reservations.

"This is totally ridiculous. I can't believe you're making this argument," Judge Harry Edwards told the Federal Communications Commission lawyer.

The issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a decision by the FCC in August requiring facilities-based broadband providers and those that offer Internet telephone service to comply with U.S. wiretap laws.

The FCC has set a May 14, 2007 deadline for compliance.

Authorities are concerned that the growth of Internet communications could allow criminals to circumvent wiretaps by using e-mail and Internet phone service instead of traditional telephone services.

Private networks would not be subject to the wiretap requirements but those that are connected with a public network would have to comply with the law.

The FCC decision prompted an appeal by universities and libraries. The groups, including the American Library Association and Association of American Universities, challenged the agency's authority to extend such requirements to high-speed Internet services.

The groups challenging the decision note that the law contains an exemption for "information services." They say the FCC has long included broadband Internet in that category.

Judge Edwards agreed. And he scoffed at the FCC's argument that broadband Internet services included a separate telecommunications "component" that made it subject to the wiretapping requirements.

"Your argument makes no sense," Edwards told Jacob Lewis, an associate general counsel with the FCC.

"I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear," Lewis said.

"You're making yourself very clear. That's the problem," Edwards replied.

One of the other two justices on the panel, David Sentelle, expressed more sympathy for the government's argument, especially regarding the idea of extending the surveillance requirements to Internet phone service. But Sentelle also sounded skeptical about the FCC's position on broadband services.

The third judge, Janice Brown, did not question the lawyers.

Read More...

Summary only...

CIA health questioned as Goss quits

Reuters
CIA health questioned as Goss quits
By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The abrupt resignation of CIA Director Porter Goss raises disturbing questions about the U.S. flagship intelligence agency's health, amid growing concerns about a nuclear Iran, turmoil in Iraq and the al Qaeda threat.

More than four years after the September 11 attacks, critics of the Bush administration, including Democrats in Congress, also warned that problems at the CIA had parallels elsewhere in the 16-agency U.S. intelligence community including at the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Goss' departure capped months of unhappiness over his leadership of the CIA and efforts to rebuild the agency's key clandestine and analytical operations for the war on terrorism, analysts and former intelligence officers said.

"The real problem is that Goss has laid out his vision, but what he hasn't been able to do -- this because of his management style and his weak leadership -- is to build allies within the ranks who can be agents for change," said former CIA agent and author Melissa Boyle Mahle.

Added another former CIA officer who spoke on condition of anonymity: "The agency's gone down hill since he arrived. There's been an exodus of senior people, and the guy he appointed to head the clandestine service has proved mediocre."

Goss, a former Florida congressman who headed the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was charged with increasing CIA spy ranks that had been found sorely lacking after the September 11 attacks.

But analysts said an early confrontation between the Goss staff and clandestine officers prompted a number of senior agents to resign and left the CIA with little senior leadership at a time when the agency is taking on an army of green recruits and trying to recover from massive failures on Iraq and the September 11 attacks.

"In the last year-and-a-half, more than 300 years of experience has either been pushed out or walked out the door in frustration. This has left the agency in free-fall," said Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Congressional Republicans stressed that Goss had made progress in bringing reform to the CIA at a time of great turmoil.

But Harman's counterpart in the Senate, Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, said management problems in intelligence were more widespread than just at the CIA.

"There are red-flags throughout the community," said Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence panel.

"The Department of Homeland Security has fallen well short of its mandate to protect our borders. The FBI continues to struggle with meeting its national security and counterterrorism responsibilities," he said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Rumsfeld on defensive over Iraq

Reuters
Rumsfeld on defensive over Iraq
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld faced tough questions and hecklers during a stormy speech in Atlanta on Thursday, with a former CIA analyst accusing him of lying his way into the Iraq war.

Rumsfeld, an unyielding defender of the war, denied lying. He told an audience at the Southern Center for International Studies that the Bush administration gave an "honest opinion" that prewar Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"I would like to ask you to be upfront with the American people. Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?" asked audience member Ray McGovern, who had a 27-year career as a CIA analyst.

"Well, first of all, I haven't lied," Rumsfeld said.

One woman whose son was a U.S. soldier killed in the war asked if the Pentagon was making sure American troops were better equipped for combat. "You bet," Rumsfeld said. "And I'm so sorry about your son."

There have been 2,411 U.S. military deaths in the war, with 17,874 troops wounded in combat, the Pentagon said on Thursday. Opinion polls show U.S. public support for the war declining. President George W. Bush recently voiced strong support for Rumsfeld after a handful of retired generals demanded his ouster, accusing him of strategic blunders in Iraq and ignoring military advice.

Rumsfeld, whose speech focused on U.S. military alliances worldwide, was interrupted briefly by hecklers, including one clutching a sign that read: "Guilty! of war crimes."

McGovern pressed Rumsfeld about the case for war made by the administration before the March 2003 invasion.

"I'm not in the intelligence business," Rumsfeld said about U.S. assertions that now-deposed President Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear arms.

Rumsfeld said then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his February 2003 speech before the United Nations detailing U.S. beliefs about Iraqi arms, had "spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate."

Rumsfeld said Bush, who made the threat posed by Iraq's weapons his main justification for war, also "spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people" before making his case to the American people.

"They gave the world their honest opinion," Rumsfeld added. "It appears that there were no weapons of mass destruction."

'I DID NOT'

McGovern shot back, "You said you knew where they were," referring to the Iraqi weapons.

"I did not," Rumsfeld retorted. "I said I knew where suspect sites were."

"You said you know where they were, near Tikrit, near Baghdad, and north, east, south and west of there. Those are your words," McGovern shot back.

"I'd just like an honest answer," McGovern added. "We're talking about lies," also mentioning the administration's assertions of prewar ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

A week and a half into the war, Rumsfeld was asked on March 30, 2003, on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," whether he found it curious that U.S. forces had not yet found weapons of mass destruction.

"Not at all," Rumsfeld responded, according to a Pentagon transcript of the interview.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat," Rumsfeld stated.

Rumsfeld on January 20, 2003, said Saddam's government had "large, unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, including VX, sarin, mustard gas, anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox," as well as "an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."

Other audience members in Atlanta were gentler. One asked about "what happened in your childhood to make you the man you are today? This might help some parents, because you're a great man." Rumsfeld noted that "my mom was a school teacher and my dad read history voraciously."

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate panel seeks US policy on detainee treatment

Reuters
Senate panel seeks US policy on detainee treatment
By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate Armed Services Committee called on Thursday for a legal definition of inhumane treatment of military detainees as it pressed the Bush administration to comply with a law banning mistreatment of such prisoners.

The committee called for a legal opinion from federal departments to pin the administration down on its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other terrorism suspects as lawmakers cleared a $517.7 billion defense authorization bill.

The measure seeks the administration's stance on whether techniques such as forcing an inmate to wear women's underwear or simulating the sensation of drowning complied with the law passed last year barring cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners.

The measure "shows bipartisan dissatisfaction" with the Bush administration's response on setting out a clear policy on detainee treatment, a committee aide said.

Over President George W. Bush's objections, Congress last year passed a law spearheaded by Arizona Republican John McCain that set standards for treating military prisoners in the wake of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and harsh interrogations at the Guantanamo base in Cuba.

McCain was tortured as a war prisoner in Vietnam.

Bush initially threatened to veto a bill with the torture ban, saying it would hinder the ability to obtain information to combat terrorism. He finally bowed to congressional pressure and signed it.

The law called for interrogators to abide by standards in the Army Field Manual. But the revised manual has been delayed repeatedly, leaving standards unclear, a Senate aide said.

The Armed Services committees of the Senate and House of Representatives cleared their versions of the defense authorization bill this week. Both called for a further $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghan wars, although that money will be provided in later appropriations bills.

That $50 billion would come on top of the $67 billion the Senate and House have approved for the wars, bringing the total near $400 billion.

Both Senate and House defense authorization bills call for pay raises for the military.

With lawmakers from both parties saying the Iraq war has stretched the armed forces too thin, both bills would let the Pentagon boost troop numbers on a long-term basis, a step it has resisted as too costly and counter to efforts to streamline operations and use personnel more efficiently.

Showing dissatisfaction with reconstruction efforts in Iraq conducted largely by the Pentagon, the Senate bill also calls for the administration to develop a plan among federal departments for stabilization and reconstruction.

The full House is expected to consider its version of the bill next week; the Senate is expected to consider its version later this month.

Read More...

Summary only...

China left out of US-hosted anti-terror meet

Reuters
China left out of US-hosted anti-terror meet
By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. generals did not invite China to a meeting last week attended by 91 countries and aimed at boosting cooperation in the U.S.-declared global war on terrorism, the military said on Thursday.

China borders several hot spots, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is home to ethnic groups whose members have been detained by the United States as enemy combatants. President Bush has highlighted the importance of working with China in the post-September 11 world.

"We intend to deepen our cooperation in addressing threats to global security -- including the nuclear ambitions of Iran, the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, the violence unleashed by terrorists and extremists, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," Bush told President Hu Jintao of China at a White House welcoming ceremony April 20.

Five days later, more than 230 participants from 91 countries, met in Washington to compare notes on counterterrorism issues, without China, which the Pentagon calls a potential strategic competitor.

Among the 91 nations represented in the so-called Multilateral Planners Conference were traditional U.S. allies plus such countries as Albania, Tajikistan, Tonga and Djibouti, a member of the military joint staff said.

China was not invited "because the (U.S.) inter-agency coordination requirement and timeline didn't allow sufficient time to extend an invitation," Maj. Almarah Belk of the Air Force, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an e-mailed reply to a query from Reuters.

A Chinese Embassy spokesman did not respond to a request about whether China would have liked to attend.

BRINGING TOGETHER SECURITY PLANNERS

The April 25-26 meeting was the fourth in a series held since May 2004 to bring together security planners from around the world.

A Feb 3. invitation to the session was sent to counterparts by Lt. Gen. Victor Renuart of the Air Force who, as the joint chief's director for strategic plans and policies, is the U.S. military's top strategist.

In the invitation, he described the forum as designed "to enhance our understanding of global and regional security environments and foster a common vision for confronting the challenges in the 21st century."

A copy of the invitation appears on the conference's Web site, www.jcs.mil/j5/conference/. Renuart said he hosted the conference on behalf of Gen. Peter Pace of the Marine Corps, chairman of the joint chiefs.

Twenty nations attended the conference for the first time, including Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Yemen, a member of the joint staff said.

Failing to include China was a mistake, said Kurt Campbell, a former Asia policy chief at the Pentagon, because fighting radical Islamic fundamentalism "is one area where we can and have worked well with China."

"The only U.S. agency that has difficulty clearing a meeting with China is the office of the secretary of defense," added Campbell, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

James Mulvenon, who runs a 15-member team of China analysts at the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, a group that consults for U.S. intelligence agencies, said leaving China out sends a wrong signal to the Chinese, "especially when we're trying to form a strategic relationship with them."

(Additional reporting by Paul Eckert)

Read More...

Summary only...

White House Plan Defers Leadership In Bird-Flu Fight

washingtonpost.com
White House Plan Defers Leadership In Bird-Flu Fight
By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer

The Bush administration plan for an influenza pandemic released yesterday hinges on sharing authority with global agencies such as the World Health Organization, and, at the opposite end of the spectrum, with governors, mayors and school superintendents.

The 227-page road map acknowledges that the federal government cannot -- and should not try -- to fully manage the response to an event that is likely to start overseas, eventually take hold in even the smallest U.S. communities, and last for months.

"The impact of a severe pandemic may be more comparable to that of war or a widespread economic crisis than a hurricane, earthquake, or act of terrorism," the authors of the plan wrote. "The center of gravity of the pandemic response will be in communities [and] the support the federal government can guarantee to any state, tribe or community will be limited."

At the same time, the road map -- developed to support an equally voluminous pandemic "strategy" unveiled in November -- lays out an ambitious agenda of more than 300 tasks for federal agencies, along with a timetable for completing them.

They include such tasks as helping improve a flu laboratory in Singapore and encouraging new cell-based vaccine-making technology in this country; devising plans to route all international flights to just a few U.S. airports during a pandemic; and helping local jurisdictions come up with plans for canceling school and triaging patients at hospital emergency rooms.

Nevertheless, many crucial questions about the government's response remain unanswered in the "Implementation Plan of the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza."

They include how officials would decide who should get limited supplies of vaccine and antiviral drugs; whether the government would dip into those domestic supplies to help contain a foreign outbreak; at what point to trigger mass treatment of U.S. citizens in an effort to contain the virus here; and how travel and border-crossing might be limited.

"We recognize that we cannot make these decisions in a vacuum and must consult with our international partners to ensure that we adopt a consistent approach," Frances Fragos Townsend, President Bush's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, said at White House briefing.

The document anticipates that a flu pandemic would probably come in two or three global waves, each lasting about three months; in any given community, an outbreak would last six to eight weeks; at least one-third of the population would become ill, and workforce absenteeism could peak at 40 percent.

Mortality in the United States depends on many variables; the report assumes there could be 200,000 to 2 million deaths.

A pandemic on the scale of the Spanish flu that circled the world three times in 1918 and 1919, killing at least 50 million people, could result in the loss of 5 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates cited in the report.

The administration's plan appeared to reflect the lessons of the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak of 2003 and the response to Hurricane Katrina last summer.

SARS, a virus that emerged in China, caused about 8,400 cases of illness in 28 countries and about 800 deaths. The WHO organized the global response in a way unprecedented for the Geneva-based agency. It coordinated disease surveillance, helped disseminate treatment strategies and influenced governments' behavior, advising against travel to Canada and forcing China to make a full accounting of its SARS cases. Many experts believe the SARS experience amounted to a dry run for a much more dangerous flu pandemic.

The Bush plan cedes to the WHO the lead role in managing this global health crisis -- something it has resisted on other health issues, notably AIDS.

"The World Health Organization represents the linchpin of international preparedness and response activities. . . . During a pandemic we will rely upon it to be a highly visible and credible coordinator of the international response," the plan says.

In particular, the authors wrote, "we will rely upon the WHO to confirm sustained human-to-human transmission of a novel influenza virus." That decision will trigger the global response and have repercussions through the United States even if there are no cases here. In practice, U.S. scientists will have a major say in making that crucial call, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta is a major source of the WHO's expertise.

The plan specifies that the Department of Homeland Security "is responsible for overall coordination of federal response actions for a pandemic." However, the disastrous response to Katrina seems to echo in a statement that, in effect, advises people not to wait for help from Washington.

Nothing in the plan "alters or impedes the ability of federal, state, local, or tribal departments and agencies to carry out their specific authorities or perform their responsibilities under applicable laws," its authors wrote.

Despite the $7.1 billion Bush has asked for pandemic preparation, Irwin Redlener, a physician at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, said little of the money will go to localities. Most will be spent on vaccine development and building a national stockpile of antiviral drugs.

Local hospitals and health departments "cannot possibly fulfill what amounts to a string of unfunded mandates," he said.

This view was shared by Joshua M. Sharfstein, Baltimore's health commissioner.

"The key challenge from our perspective is to answer the question, How do we keep Baltimore running? How do we ensure the trash is picked up, the police and fire departments work, that businesses can stay open?" he said. "It would be immensely easier if we had additional resources equal to what we are being asked to do."

Leading Democrats in Congress also criticized it, with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) saying that "pawning [responsibility] off on the state and local government is not a solution." Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said the document "still leaves us without a coherent overall national plan."

Read More...

Summary only...

Former Marine Admits Passing Secret Documents

The New York Times
Former Marine Admits Passing Secret Documents
By RONALD SMOTHERS

NEWARK, May 4 — A former Marine security attaché who worked in the White House in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations pleaded guilty in federal court to passing top-secret information and documents to political opponents of the current Philippine government.

The former marine, Leandro Aragoncillo, 47, a naturalized American citizen who came to the United States from his native Philippines in 1983, also confessed that he had continued mining top-secret and classified material after leaving the Office of the Vice President in the White House in 2003. He took a job as an intelligence analyst for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2004.

Mr. Aragoncillo's illegal activities were uncovered in an audit of his computer use at the bureau after he appealed in March 2005 to immigration officials on behalf of a former Filipino police official who had been detained in New York for overstaying his visa.

He was arrested in September along with the former police official, Michael Ray Aquino, whom the indictment accused of being Mr. Aragoncillo's go-between in the espionage case. Mr. Aragoncillo faces 15 to 24 years in prison when sentenced on Aug. 14.

Mr. Aragoncillo admitted passing documents from White House briefing books, situation reports and other top-secret documents from the F.B.I. computer that contained information like the names of confidential informants in the Philippines.

Other documents provided to unnamed opponents of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of the Philippines were described by Mr. Aragoncillo as a "blueprint" of how to stage a military coup that the United States government might support.

"His betrayal is profound and a disservice to his country and all the men and women in military and security positions," said Christopher J. Christie, the United States attorney who prosecuted the case.

Chester Keller, the federal public defender representing Mr. Aragoncillo, said his client never intended to harm the American people and sought only to help the Philippine people.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush to nominate Myers to run US Geological Survey

Reuters
Bush to nominate Myers to run US Geological Survey
By Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - President Bush plans to nominate Mark Myers, a critic of Alaska's Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski's close ties with oil companies, to head the U.S. Geological Survey, the White House said on Thursday.

Myers stepped down as Alaska's oil and gas manager in October to protest Murkowski's secret negotiations with oil companies to build a natural gas pipeline. Myers deemed the concessions to major oil producers to be too generous.

Reached at his home in Anchorage, Myers said there is no link between the events surrounding his departure from the Murkowski administration and his nomination to head the USGS, a scientific agency within the Interior Department responsible for studying the American landscape and its natural resources.

Myers was one of six Alaska Department of Natural Resources deputies to resign in solidarity after Murkowski fired the department's commissioner, Tom Irwin, for criticism about the governor's fiscal terms for a $20 billion natural gas pipeline.

Irwin said in a memorandum that the governor's concessions would shortchange the state to the benefit of ConocoPhillips, BP and Exxon Mobil. Murkowski reached an agreement in February with major oil companies but the contract has not been released for public review.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Bug in Windows GOP: Microsoft's $1.6 Million Man; He's righteous conservative consultant-turned-candidate Ralph Reed

Seattle Weekly.com
Microsoft's $1.6 Million Man
He's righteous conservative consultant-turned-candidate Ralph Reed.
By Rick Anderson

A Bug in Windows GOP

Microsoft is ending its relationship with choirboy-lobbyist Ralph Reed, but the company's ties to others in the seemingly infinite loop of the Republican lobbying scandal are deep—in D.C. and Seattle. (June 1, 2005)

After it was disclosed a year ago that Microsoft had retained Ralph Reed Jr. for lobbying and consulting work, a mystery remained. How much was the Christian conservative and anti-gay-rights crusader paid by the Redmond software giant? Microsoft refused to say, but now Reed has had to disclose the income. It comes to a substantial $1.6 million over five years, according to Reed's personal financial documents.

Reed revealed the payments, made from 2001 through last year, in a May 1 filing with the Georgia State Ethics Commission. He is seeking election to be that state's lieutenant governor. The filing, required of candidates who have worked as lobbyists in Georgia, reveals that Reed was paid $572,000 by Microsoft in 2001, $240,000 in 2002, $401,000 in 2003, $240,000 in 2004, and $117,5000 in 2005. That income and another $90,000 consulting for Enron, among others helped bump his current personal worth to $4.6 million, he disclosed.

The former Christian Coalition leader turned political consultant did not have to reveal payments by Microsoft prior to that five-year period. But Reed was known to have been on Microsoft's payroll in 2000, when George W. Bush began his White House campaign (see "A Bug in Windows GOP," June 1, 2005) and for several years prior, which could bring his total Microsoft income to $2 million or more. While working for Bush in 2000, Reed worked on Microsoft's behalf for settlement of the company's landmark antitrust lawsuit. Reed asked supporters to write his candidate, Bush, in support of his client, Microsoft. He ultimately apologized for the "misperception" that might have caused.

At the same time in 2000, Reed was working as a subcontractor for Seattle-based Preston Gates Ellis, the law and lobbying firm of the father of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. Reed became involved with other religious-right Republicans in what would become today's Lobbygate scandal. Money from the law firm was funneled through key scandal figure Jack Abramoff and tax-reform guru Grover Norquist to help Reed run a deceptive antigambling campaign in the South. (See "Choctaw Cash," July 6, 2005.)

In 2004, Microsoft paid Reed a $20,000 monthly retainer while he again campaigned for Bush, playing a major role as the party's Southeast regional campaign coordinator. Exactly what duties he performed for Microsoft haven't been revealed. Says Ginny Terzano, spokesperson for Microsoft in D.C.: "While we typically do not discuss consultant retainers, it was made public last spring that Microsoft hired Century Strategies, Ralph Reed's consulting firm, in the late 1990s, to consult on issues related to international trade and competition." The firm was terminated in 2005, she said, "when we decided that it would not be appropriate to have a consultant on retainer that was seeking elective office at the same time."


Microsoft dropped Reed, a notorious opponent of gay-rights laws, about the time the company was also suffering a public-relations meltdown for failing to support a gay-rights bill in Olympia, which was defeated. The company did a U-turn and threw its support to the bill this year, and it passed. It will take effect in June.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Fox News Effect

washingtonpost.com
The Fox News Effect
By Richard Morin

We report. You decide. Does President Bush owe his controversial win in 2000 to Fox cable television news?

Yes, suggest data collected by two economists who found that the growth of the Fox cable news network in the late 1990s may have significantly boosted the Republican Party's share of the vote in the 2000 election and delivered Florida to Bush.

"Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its audience to shift its voting behavior towards the Republican Party, a sizable media persuasion effect," said Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California at Berkely and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University.

In Florida alone, they estimate, the Fox effect may have produced more than 10,000 additional votes for Bush -- clearly a decisive factor in a state he carried by fewer than 600 votes.

Fox cable news debuted in 1996 as a competitor to CNN and four years later was available to about one in five Americans. That allowed DellaVigna and Kaplan to compare changes in the Republican vote shar efrom 1996 to 2000 in 9,256 cities and towns where Fox News was introduced. They also examined election cdata from 2004.

The Experiment: The Fox Effect II

We experiment. You decide: Do people apply a political litmus test to the news?

Yes, suggest the results of the latest online experiment by The Washington Post, washingtonpost.com and Stanford University's political communication lab.

The test found Republicans preferred to get their news from Fox -- even when the news stories were about subjects far removed from politics, such as sports or travel.

On the other hand, Democrats avoided Fox when it came to political news and preferred National Public Radio and CNN. And when the news focused on controversial issues such as the Iraq war and politics, "partisans are especially likely to screen out sources they consider opposed to their political views," said Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar, director of the communication lab.

More than 2,000 people participated in the test of whether attention to the identical news story was increased or decreased when the story was attributed to Fox News, NPR, CNN or the BBC. Participants saw a brief headline accompanied by the logo of the news organization. They were asked to choose which story they wanted to see, then repeated the task across six news categories -- American politics, the war in Iraq, race in America, crime, travel and sports.

There was one twist: Some participants saw a story attributed to Fox, whereas others saw the same story attributed to CNN, NPR or the BBC. Comparing the percentage of Democrats who chose to see a story about race if it was on Fox vs. CNN offered clues about whether partisanship mattered.

The results found strong evidence that people apply a political litmus test to the news, avoiding sources they view as unfriendly while seeking out compatible sources, a finding confirmed by researchers at Polimetrix in a national study with a representative sample of adults done in cooperation with the Stanford lab.

The Republicans even preferred to get news about sports and travel from Fox while Democrats didn't have as strong a preference on non-political stories, Iyengar found.

Read a complete analysis of the results of the latest Post-Stanford experiment.

The Next Experiment

We're beginning a new study today: Experiment Katrina, in which we hope to learn something about the long-term consequences of last August's devastating hurricane. It's our most ambitious experiment so far and was designed in collaboration with our colleagues at Stanford's political communication lab.

Who Would Have Thought?

Alphabetical Discrimination, Stripper Power and Crossing the Street

"What's in a Surname? The Effects of Surname Initials on Academic Success" by Liran Einav and Leeat Yariv, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 1. Economists at Stanford and Caltech find that economists whose last names begin with letters earlier in the alphabet are more likely to receive tenure at top universities, more likely to become fellows of the top economics society and more likely to receive the Nobel Prize and other prestigious awards.

"Strategic Flirting and the Emotional Tab of Exotic Dancing" by Tina Deshotels and Craig Forsyth, Deviant Behavior, Vol. 27. Sociologists at Jacksonville State University and University of Louisiana at Lafayette interview 112 exotic dancers and find that stripping made them feel they had power over men but "impeded their ability to create an authentic self and in particular an authentic sexual self."

"Sensation Seeking and Pedestrian Crossing Compliance" by Tova Rosenbloom, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 34, No. 2. An Israeli criminologist finds that people who cross the street when the light is red score higher on a psychological test measuring sensation seeking that those who wait for the light to turn green.

Read More...

Summary only...

We may have to bomb Iran

timesonline.co.uk
We may have to bomb Iran
Rod Liddle

Natanz seems an agreeable little town, perched nearly 5,000ft up in the majestic mountains of central Iran, full of dusty relics of Alexander the Great and black-clad peasants scurrying hither and thither. It is a shame, then, that we may soon be obliged to bomb it to smithereens. An even bigger shame, though, if we don’t.

Natanz is where the Iranians are carrying out their hectic uranium enrichment programme — something they were politely requested to stop doing by the International Atomic Energy Agency one month ago. The deadline for them to pack up their thousands of centrifuges passed on Friday — but they are still beavering away and have expressed a marked reluctance to take the slightest notice of the international community.

There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that their intention is to produce nuclear weapons; a handful every year, perhaps. The Natanz facility is partially underground, a fact that provoked the IAEA inspectors to note, rather drily, that this was “inconsistent” with the Iranian claims that the plant was solely for the purpose of manufacturing mildly enriched uranium for benignly commercial purposes.

Equally anomalous to this defence is the fact that those same inspectors found particles of extremely enriched uranium at Natanz, the sort of stuff you need to make atomic bombs. Presented with this evidence, the Iranians shuffled their feet a little, looked at the ground and then announced that maybe they hadn’t washed the equipment thoroughly when they bought it from the Pakistanis and consequently there was still the odd bit of weapons-grade material kicking around, sorry about that, you know how it is, can’t get the help, etc.

You can believe them if you wish. It would be a kinder, happier world if we were all able to trust one another. But my suspicion is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, who has expressed a desire to see Israel wiped from the face of the world, may soon have the wherewithal. A suspicion supported with physical evidence and a statement of malevolent intent. What more evidence do you need? An awful lot more, as far as the international community is concerned. Paralysis has descended since the invasion of Iraq and it afflicts not just the United Nations and the European Union but western public opinion, too. So ill-judged and catastrophic was the Anglo-US adventure against Saddam Hussein that it has warped our ability to think rationally about what to do with Iran. Opposition to pre-emptive military action against Iran will be deafening.

The war against Iraq was predicated upon two misconceptions — first of all that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. He did not. His hopeless army possessed scarcely any weapons at all. But even allowing for hindsight, the term “weapons of mass destruction” in Saddam’s case referred only to chemical and biological weapons — which, although thoroughly nasty, are a politically inspired misnomer. It is nukes that inflict genuine mass destruction and there was never a suggestion that Saddam had any of those.

The difference with any action against Iran is stark: hard evidence of genuine WMD in preparation; hard, stated evidence of intent. And a clearly defined, containable and comparatively attainable military objective — knocking out that enrichment site at Natanz.

I have debated this issue with numerous British politicians, from Tony Benn on the left to Steven Norris on the right, and the result is always the same. “We must negotiate with the Iranians,” they all say, a mantra, a form of whistling in the dark.

Well, of course we must first negotiate. Of course we must, later, bring whatever pressure we can to bear from supra-national organisations such as the UN. We should beg, bully, plead and cajole the medieval Ahmadinejad. We should offer economic incentives. When these do not work, we should impose sanctions. We should bar the Iranian team from the World Cup and refuse them entry to the Eurovision song contest — that’ll teach ’em. But what on earth do we do when all that fails, as it looks as though it will? Faced with that probability, there is just silence from the politicians: the question is never answered.

Never mind such niceties as verifying Iran’s nuclear aims: there is still a large tranche of the western world that believes with bovine obduracy that because we and the Americans and the French and the Israelis have nukes, why shouldn’t poor old Third World Iran? Fair play to the burka boys, don’t you think? The answer is simple and yet — in some quarters — quite unsayable: because it is Iran.

There is a final irony: the war against Iraq may have been at least partially responsible for the election next door of a primitive fundamentalist from the Dark Ages. So, too, the commitment within the country to continue enriching uranium, regardless of how unhappy it might make the imperialistic western powers.

One way or another we will need to get to grips with Natanz quite soon. I may not want to live in a world with nuclear weapons — but I really don’t want to live in a world where Iran has nuclear weapons.

Read More...

Summary only...

Eric Boehlert's "Lapdogs" On The Swift Boat Hoax: "The Press, Spooked About Being Tagged As Too Liberal, Played Dumb On An Unprecedented Scale"...

Huffington Post
Eric Boehlert's "Lapdogs" On The Swift Boat Hoax: "The Press, Spooked About Being Tagged As Too Liberal, Played Dumb On An Unprecedented Scale"...



In his new book, "Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush," Eric Boehlert dissects the Beltway media's culpability during the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign from the 2004 campaign and concludes the episode "likely delivered Bush the cushion he needed to win in November" and "represented an embarrassing new benchmark for campaign season reporting." "Lapdogs" holds the press accountable for the central role it played in enabling a smear campaign that consumed the crucial campaign month of August 2004 -- "a media monsoon that washed away Kerry's momentum coming out of the Democratic convention."


How, for instance, the Washington Post published 13 page-one Swift Boat stories in 12 days, most of which failed to address the key fact that the Swift boat allegations -- that Kerry lied about his Vietnam War record -- were riddled with errors and compounded by the veterans' fanciful, ever-changing stories. Despite the lack of evidence to substantiate their claims, which were floated 35 years after the fact and bankrolled by partisan Republicans, the press refused, in real time, to call out the Swift Boat allegations as a dirty trick.

"Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush," in bookstores next week, charges that the press, spooked by allegations of liberal bias, has been "afraid of the facts and the consequences of reporting them" during the Bush years.

Read More...

Summary only...