Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Global arms shipments out of control

Reuters
Global arms shipments out of control: Amnesty
By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) - Governments who cut their armed forces end up relying on private suppliers to transport their weapons with few controls, Amnesty International said on Wednesday.

And as these logistics networks proliferate in conflicts across the globe, international arms control rules are now floundering, the human rights group said in a new report urging tough government action to re-impose control.

"Arms supply chains are becoming increasingly sub-contracted and completely out of control," Amnesty's arms expert Brian Wood told Reuters. "They are talking about curbing brokering but they haven't even got round to transport."

"Brokering is increasingly common, with main contractors sub-contracting supply, transportation and collection in an ever lengthening and increasingly opaque chain," he added as his report "Dead on Time - arms, transportation, brokering and the threat to human rights" was published.

Not only were governments exploiting the poor controls to hide their activities, but increasingly armed opposition groups and organized crime rings were taking advantage of the murky markets to obtain their weaponry, he said in an interview.

The report, published ahead of a United Nations meeting late next month on small arms trafficking, says that increasingly weapons are either destined for or diverted to countries under arms embargoes or to insurgent and criminal groups.

At the same time the financial arrangements for these shipments has become increasingly complex, with large sums of cash changing hands or arms and ammunition being bartered for narcotics or natural resources like gems, oil and timber.

It called for governments to reestablish control over the arms trade -- especially the brokerage and transport firms.

"All these controls are inadequate and antiquated. There must be proper systems of vetting and licensing," Wood said.

The report said the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 unleashed not only a flood of cheap arms but also the giant aircraft needed to carry them across the globe to wars in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East.

Wood said small scale brokers who had shielded government involvement in the movement of arms and ammunition to the proxy wars of the Cold War had now grown to become major players in an increasingly diverse international weapons markets.

The report noted cases including US and Chinese arms shipments to Nepal via circuitous routes, an attempt caught in South Africa to secretly ship weapons from Brazil to Saudi Arabia and Mauritius and Chinese arms send covertly to Liberia.

"The idea of arms being put on a plane in one country and flown directly to the end recipient still does happen, but it is increasingly the exception rather than the rule," Wood said.

The report cited the vast quantities of weapons in Bosnia that were shipped after the war by the Alabama-based Taos Industries Inc on behalf of the US Department of Defense to Iraq for the new Iraqi Army after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

It said Taos sub-contracted the multi-million dollar deal to companies in Israel, Switzerland, Bulgaria and Britain, with the first shipments being flown out of Bosnia via Aerocom which had been accused in a 2003 UN report of smuggling arms to Liberia.

However, records were very sketchy and one flight which was logged out of Tuzla airbase on the way to Baghdad was never recorded as arriving in Iraq, the report said.

"Even more importantly, it cannot be established with any certainty that the weapons carried by Aerocom were actually delivered in Baghdad," the report said.



Read More...

Democrats urged to challenge Bush on security

Reuters
Democrats urged to challenge Bush on security
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Moderate Democrats led by two potential 2008 White House contenders, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, urged the party on Tuesday to challenge Republicans on security issues and prove it can do a better job.

Democrats should embrace a security debate with President George W. Bush, who they said had been a failure in fighting terrorism, conducting the Iraq war and containing Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

"We can defeat Republicans on their own ground," said Bayh, a former Indiana governor who has called for a more muscular Democratic foreign policy approach. "They have been a lot better at national security politics than policy."

Republicans have traditionally enjoyed an advantage over Democrats on military and foreign policy issues. It remains the lone issue on which polls show Americans favoring Republicans over Democrats, even as Bush's overall approval ratings continue to drop to record lows.

Warner, who has been trying to bolster his foreign policy credentials before a likely presidential run after one term as Virginia governor, said Bush's "almost unprecedented" list of mistakes in Iraq threatened to turn that country into a terrorist stronghold.

He ridiculed White House political adviser Karl Rove's contention this year that Democrats were trapped in a "pre-9/11 mindset" that limited their ability to fight terrorists.

"I don't need to be lectured by Karl Rove ... about what is needed to keep America safe," Warner said at a news conference launching a new foreign policy book by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council's Progressive Policy Institute.

"This administration is caught in a 19th-century mindset," Warner said. "A 19th-century mindset that says well, a major military power can act unilaterally and to heck with the consequences."

Bayh and Warner said a stronger economy and energy independence would lead to greater security and endorsed the PPI's call for building global alliances and bolstering and restructuring the military to increase its flexibility.

Bayh said the Democratic election loss in 2004 was caused in part by a "perceived problem with national security broadly defined, the war on terror more specifically."

Democrats will not be able to win over voters to their domestic proposals on the economy, jobs and health care without winning their trust on security, Bayh said.

"They are not going to trust us on those things if they don't first trust us with their lives," he said.




Read More...

Two Democrats call for HUD contracts probe

Reuters
Two Democrats call for HUD contracts probe
By Kristin Roberts

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Two House Democrats on Tuesday called for a probe of contract decisions by the Housing and Urban Development Department under its current secretary to determine whether politics played a part in those awards.

The call from the top Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee and House Financial Services Committee follows statements reportedly made by HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson in Dallas that a contractor was first selected, but ultimately not awarded a contract because he said he did not "like" President Bush.

"If this account is accurate, your comments and actions were improper and most likely illegal," Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Rep. Henry Waxman of California wrote to Jackson on Tuesday.

"Federal contracts should be awarded based on merit, not on whether a contractor likes or dislikes President Bush," they wrote.

The congressmen requested Jackson provide all documents related to the contract he discussed in Dallas as well as any other contract the secretary personally reviewed, approved or was involved with at the department.

A HUD spokesman did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

According to a report in the Dallas Business Journal, Jackson told a minority real estate forum that a contractor "made a heck of a proposal" for an advertising contract and was selected.

But according to the report, Jackson said the contractor did not ultimately get the deal because the contractor later said he did not like Bush.

"Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe," Jackson was reported as saying.

Frank and Waxman said those comments imply Jackson views government contracts as rewards for the administration's political supporters.




Read More...

Clark assails Iraqi trial of Saddam Hussein

Yahoo! News
Clark assails Iraqi trial of Saddam Hussein
By Vicki Allen

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, a member of Saddam Hussein's defense team, on Tuesday said the former Iraqi president's trial was a sham designed to justify the U.S.-led invasion.

Saddam's trial on charges of crimes against humanity was "a direct threat to international law, the United Nations, universal human rights and world peace," Clark said at a news conference. He demanded that proceedings be transferred from the Iraqi Special Tribunal to a new court that could work independently, free of prejudice.

Saddam and seven others are on trial for the executions of 148 people in Dujail in 1982 following a failed assassination attempt. Clark said those executed had signed confessions and under Iraqi law, the death penalty was mandatory for treason.

"It is common for the law to require the highest official of a state to approve and sign death warrants. George W. Bush signed 152 such warrants as governor of Texas," he said.

Clark, who was attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson from 1967-1969, said the United States wanted the trial to "vindicate its invasion, to validate its occupation, and to make the world believe that the Iraqi people demanded that Saddam Hussein and leaders in his government be executed."

Clark has become known for his radical left-wing politics and for defending controversial figures, including ousted Liberian leader Charles Taylor, former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, who died in April, and Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a leader in the Rwandan genocide.

Saddam's trial has been rocked by the murders of two defense lawyers and one judge. It is currently adjourned until May 15 but Clark said the defense would seek at least another month to review documents.

So far in the trial, he said Saddam's defense lawyers have been denied exculpatory documents and evidence, as well as witnesses statements and court transcripts.

The judges have either been Kurds or Shi'ites, and the defendants with one or two exceptions Sunnis, he said. "It's a sectarian persecution, if you will."

Clark said a fair trial in the midst of such widespread violence sweeping the country was impossible.

He said it should be transferred to a court that was legal, independent, impartial and competent, working in a safe environment "free of prejudicial influences."

Saddam and seven others are on trial for the executions of 148 people in Dujail in 1982 following a failed assassination attempt. Clark said those executed had signed confessions and under Iraqi law, the death penalty was mandatory for treason.

"It is common for the law to require the highest official of a state to approve and sign death warrants. George W. Bush signed 152 such warrants as governor of Texas," he said.



Read More...

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

The Truth About the War in Iraq and Al Gore

The Huffington Post
The Truth About the War in Iraq and Al Gore
Trudi Loh

It is sometimes said that good ideas have many fathers but bad ideas are always orphans. And so it is with the retrospective of the decision to go to war in Iraq. As everyone from the White House and Secretary of Defense to members of Congress and the media engage in revisionist history concerning who said what and who knew what about the decision to invade Iraq, it is important to hold everyone's feet to the fire.

The integrity of our democracy requires it. The American people should demand it. Joe Scarborough, the self-styled straight-talking host of Scarborough Country, contributed to annuals of revisionism last Thursday (May 4, 2006) when he suggested that Al Gore was a Johnny-come-lately in his opposition to the War in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that, on September 23, 2002, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club -- long before the invasion of Iraq and before members of Congress voted to give President Bush authority to invade -- Vice President Al Gore unequivocally and emphatically stated his opposition to a War in Iraq and set forth a multitude of reasons why.

Among his reasons were

that 1) We should focus our efforts on building a multinational coalition to fight terrorism and the enemies who were responsible for 9/11 and not become distracted; 2) A war with Iraq had the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century; 3) Although Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction would continue for as long as Saddam was in power, the existing U.N. resolutions passed 11 years ago were completely sufficient to contain that potential threat; and, 4) We should focus on stabilizing Afghanistan so that terrorists would not be able to slip back across the border and set up camp there again. Al Gore told the truth despite the political costs. In contrast, members of Congress checked President Bush's poll numbers before deciding whether to vote to authorize a war in Iraq. Al Gore took the unpopular position, but clearly the correct one. He took no small amount of flak from his own party for raising the pressure on them not to issue a blank check and to at least require the administration to put forth the an assessment of how it thought the course of a war would run. Instead, Congress rushed to vote yes, to show its patriotic bona fides -- just in time for the November election. Not that you would know any of this by reading or listening to the mainstream press such as Scarborough Country. They gloss over or ignore Al Gore's courageous and insightful (and early) opposition to the War. So it is up to Blogworld to set the record straight. Blog on.




Read More...

Signing the Constitution Away

Center for American Progress
Eric Alterman
Think Again: Signing the Constitution Away

Last Sunday, the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage broke a story that should be shocking to all of us had we not grown inured to the casual contempt toward the Constitution that the Bush administration deems to be its droite d'etat. Connecting dots in an incredibly dogged fashion over nearly 4,000 words, Savage reported that, "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution."

At issue is the president's preference to simply ignore the content of laws of which he does not approve via the vehicle of the "signing statement." In a nutshell, these assert that the president isn't actually bound by the laws he just put into effect. On Tuesday, Savage followed up his own reporting with a piece giving voice to Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Edward M. Kennedy's criticisms of the president's actions. Both the April 30 and May 2 pieces were themselves follow-ups to Savage's March 24 scoop in which he explained, "When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers."

Taken together, Savage's articles offer a sobering overview of the gross misuse of power the Bush administration has conducted out of the public eye. Amazingly, most of the mainstream media does not appear to think this is much of a story. According to a Nexis search, on January 14 of this year, the New York Times' Adam Liptak appears to have first broached the subject in a story about how then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito "helped to introduce" the concept of presidential signing statements during his stint as a lawyer in the Reagan administration. In 1986, Alito wrote a memo (which he distanced himself from under Congressional questioning) stating that ''our primary objective is to ensure that presidential signing statements assume their rightful place in the interpretation of legislation.'' Once this was accomplished, he continued, this would ''increase the power of the executive to shape the law."

Liptak went on to say that, "The legal status of such signing statements remains unclear, but they are no longer novel. Every administration since the Reagan administration has issued them. President Bush has issued more than 100."

While Liptak wasn't wrong in writing that president Bush has issued more than 100 signing statements, the number is still a far cry from the 750 that Savage found in his Boston Globe story. On February 19, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution dug a little deeper into the story, reporting that, "The numbers also show how signing statements have increased, beginning under Reagan, who used them 71 times. The elder Bush produced 146 signing statements. Clinton used 105. The current president has surpassed the 500 mark." Again, not wrong, but still woefully short of the mark.

Nexis shows that other than the Globe, the Times and the Journal-Constitution, most media outlets have completely ignored the story, other than brief op-eds about the subject that appeared in the Denver Post and the Palm Beach Post on April 2. MediaMatters for America discovered a March 24 United Press International article mentioned the signing statement issue, and other than "brief mentions in an April 1 San Francisco Chronicle article and an April 23 Washington Post article," the story has seen a virtual media blackout. On television, the story has been discussed only by Keith Olbermann, who featured the Globe article on March 24.

This is another of those instances where citizens can say "Thank God for the Web." Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School, Jack M. Balkin, explains, "One effect of this policy ... is that the president may be directing his subordinates to refuse to enforce a wide variety of federal laws in secret, with little or no public accountability, and with no effective way for the courts or Congress to hold him to his duties to enforce the law and 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' under the Constitution." Another legal scholar, Glenn Greenwald, author of How Would a Patriot Act? notes, "What is entirely unprecedented -- is that the administration's theories of its own power arrogate unto itself not just the right to refrain from enforcing such laws, but to act in violation of those laws, to engage in the very conduct which those laws criminalize, and they do so secretly and deceitfully, after signing the law and pretending that they are engaged in the democratic process."

Still, if a tree falls on the front page of the Boston Globe and is heard only in the blogosophere, does that mean it hasn't really fallen? In other words, will the Bush administration's lawlessness continue unabated without even exciting any interest on the part of the mainstream media? Just how much contempt for Congress and the Constitution is too much?

Eric Alterman is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and the author of six books. His most recent, When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences, is available in paperback from Penguin.

Read More...

5 issues redraw playing field for Election 2006

USA TODAY
5 issues redraw playing field for Election 2006
By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — All politics is local. Except when it's not.

Republicans have counted on financial advantage, redrawn district lines and the power of parochial issues and constituent services to hold narrow majorities in Congress since they won control 12 years ago. In the election now precisely six months away, however, they'll have to defy history to avoid losing the House of Representatives to Democrats.

A handful of issues is shaping the landscape for competitive contests nationwide, driving down the standing of President Bush and Congress and creating formidable hurdles for the GOP. Democrats are banking that unhappiness over the Iraq war — plus record gas prices, divisions over immigration, snags in Medicare's new prescription-drug benefit and corruption — will make this election a referendum on the president and the direction of the country.

In a sign of Republican travails, Bush's approval rating fell to a record-low 31% in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.

"At this moment, it doesn't look like the Republican Party can dig out of this hole," veteran Republican pollster Lance Tarrance says.

"You have a mosaic of things coming together, and that creates challenges," says former House speaker Newt Gingrich, architect of the GOP takeover in 1994. He questions, though, whether Democrats led by such liberals as national Chairman Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, and House leader Nancy Pelosi of California can seal the deal with voters.

"It's not guaranteed that the Democrats will be able to sell a contract with Vermont and San Francisco," he says, a reference to the "Contract With America" that Republicans employed in 1994.

During the past three decades, three elections have taken place in a similar environment: One party controlling the White House and Congress, and both branches of government getting low approval ratings. In those elections, the party in power lost 15 House seats in 1978, 34 seats in 1980 and 54 seats in 1994.

Democrats need to pick up 15 seats in November to regain control of the House, six seats for the Senate. Pelosi is confident enough that she's begun discussing the Democrats' agenda for their first week in power, from raising the minimum wage to reinstating deficit controls.

Winning either chamber would enable the opposition party to more aggressively challenge Bush's proposals, scrutinize his appointments and launch investigations.

"I think of it as a 'mood' election or a 'wave' election," says analyst Amy Walter of the non-partisan Cook Political Report.

That's "wave" as in "tidal wave." They happen about once a decade and are almost always bad news for the people in power.

Here's a look at five big issues and how they're likely to influence who wins and loses.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-08-election-issues-cover_x.htm






Read More...

Confident Democrats Lay Out Agenda

washingtonpost.com
Confident Democrats Lay Out Agenda
Party Plans Probes Of Administration If It Wins the House
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer

Democratic leaders, increasingly confident they will seize control of the House in November, are laying plans for a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to."

In recent days, Democratic confidence has been buoyed by a series of polls indicating that not only is Bush growing increasingly unpopular, so are Republicans in Congress. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday found that 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, the lowest rating of his presidency. And only 25 percent approves of the job Congress is doing, a figure comparable to congressional approval ratings before the 1994 elections that swept Republicans to power.

The AP-Ipsos poll found that 51 percent of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress. Only 34 percent favor Republican control.

"We have to be ready to win," Pelosi said, "and we have to tell [voters] what we will do when we win."

Republicans say Democratic leaders run the risk of looking overconfident -- if not foolish -- in predicting they will win the 15 net seats necessary to take the House.

"If they fall short [of control], she's going to be severely damaged," Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said of Pelosi.

But Democratic planning parallels similar efforts 12 years ago, when GOP leaders were plotting a return to control after 42 years. By May 1994, Republicans had the outlines of a legislative agenda that would become their "Contract With America," said Richard K. Armey, who was the chairman of the House Republican Conference at that time.

Republicans then needed to pick up 40 seats, something most analysts considered virtually impossible six months before the election.

Democrats need to pick up 15, a task that many analysts still believe is a long shot. Democratic leaders do not.

"We are more and more confident that we are going to have the responsibility of leading the House, so we have to prepare," said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).

Despite waves of redistricting that have solidified the positions of incumbents from both parties, Pelosi said 50 Republican seats are in play, while fewer than 10 Democratic seats face strong challenges. That figure of GOP seats is disputed by independent analysts, but even the most cautious estimates put more than 15 Republican seats in jeopardy.

Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, said his most expansive estimate classifies 52 seats as "unsafe," 40 of them Republican, 12 of them Democratic. But, he said, only a tidal wave would dislodge the incumbent party from many of those seats, and more realistically, 30 Republican seats and five Democratic districts are vulnerable.

To seize control in 1994, Armey said, Republicans needed three key ingredients: scandal, which was provided by House members' abuse of the House bank and postal system; a policy fiasco, provided by the Clinton administration's failed national health-care plan; and a coherent plan of action, which came with the "Contract With America."

This year, the House is engulfed in bribery and influence-peddling scandals that have forced the resignation of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), sent former representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) to jail, and yielded guilty pleas from two former DeLay aides and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

But those scandals are also linked to a Democrat, Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), leading some Republicans to conclude they have been inoculated.

The war in Iraq has provided a policy debacle at least on par with the health-care issue, Armey said. But Democrats cannot offer policy alternatives because, he said, Americans remain leery of their prescriptions for an activist government and higher taxes.

To counter that perception, House Democrats have formulated a plan of action for their first week in control. Their leaders said a Democratic House would quickly vote to raise the minimum wage for the first time since 1997. It would roll back a provision in the Republicans' Medicare prescription drug benefit that prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from negotiating prices for drugs offered under the program.

It would vote to fully implement the recommendations of the bipartisan panel convened to shore up homeland security after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Democratic leaders said.

And it would reinstate lapsed rules that say any tax cuts or spending increases have to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases to prevent the federal deficit from growing.

Armey dismissed the substance of the Democratic proposals as demagoguery but said that the politics "really, frankly, are not too bad."

Pelosi also vowed "to use the power to investigate" the administration on multiple fronts, starting with the task force convened in secret by Vice President Cheney to devise the administration's energy policy. The administration has successfully fought lawsuits since 2001 that sought to reveal the names of energy company executives tapped to advise the task force.

"Certainly the conduct of the war" in Iraq would be the subject of hearings, if not a full-fledged House investigation, Pelosi said. Another subject for investigation could be the use of intelligence on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction to make the case for the 2003 invasion.

Hoyer added that he would like to see investigations into the extent of domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency, and the billions of dollars wasted by contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Campaign chiefs for Republican Senate and House candidates have already begun using the threat of such investigations to raise money and rile core Republican voters. A recent mailing by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), chairwoman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, warned that Democrats "will call for endless congressional investigations and possibly call for the impeachment of President Bush!"



Read More...

Evenly Spreading Partisan Votes May Be the Key to Winning

washingtonpost.com
Evenly Spreading Partisan Votes May Be the Key to Winning
By Thomas B. Edsall and Zachary A. Goldfarb

With Democrats locked out of the White House and in the minority in Congress, it might seem that there just aren't enough Democratic voters to win elections. But political scientist Gary Jacobson says the problem is actually more complicated: The distribution of Republican voters is more politically effective across the nation.

Jacobson's research shows a little more than half of all the nation's 435 congressional districts over recent decades consistently favored Republican presidential candidates. A little less than 40 percent went for Democrats. (The remainder had a mixed pattern.) Jacobson, at the University of California at San Diego, said this is due to an "inefficient" distribution of Democratic voters, with many concentrations of 60 percent or more in urban areas and places with large numbers of minorities. Republicans, he found, are distributed more evenly, yielding more districts in which GOP voters have a slimmer but sturdy majority.

Jacobson's study highlighted another problem for Democrats as they labor to shed minority status: the decline in split-ticket voting.

In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, about 40 percent of all House Democrats represented districts that voted for GOP presidential candidates. Many were in the South, where local Democratic politicians often disowned the "national" Democratic Party and many endorsed the GOP presidential nominee.

In the 1990s, the number of districts voting Republican for president but for a Democratic House candidate fell to a little more than 20 percent, and in this decade, down to 13 percent. "There has been a big increase in party-line voting at all levels," Jacobson said. Given the trends toward partisan polarization, Democrats face the uphill task of winning in states and districts where straight-ticket Republican voting has become increasingly common. Democratic strategists think that what polls show -- President Bush's unpopularity, combined with widespread unease over the Iraq war -- will be enough to overcome these trends this fall. But, according to Jacobson's analysis, the Republican tilt of many districts will make it hard for Democrats to hold on to whatever gains they make this year.
Cornhusker Fans Could Decide Nebraska Primary

Nebraskans love Cornhusker football, it goes without saying. But control of the governor's office may hinge on just how much they love it.

Republicans will vote in a primary tomorrow in which Rep. Tom Osborne, who helped lead the Huskers to many championship games over 36 years, is hoping for the GOP nomination. It had long been assumed by political analysts that Osborne would parlay gridiron glory into the governorship, but President Bush threw a curve in these expectations last year when he nominated then-Gov. Mike Johanns as agriculture secretary. Republican Dave Heineman became governor and decided to try to keep his job.

"If we have a governor who's doing a good job, why should we change?" Heineman campaign manager Carlos Castillo asked.

A recent rush of independents and Democrats registering as Republicans might augur well, however, for Osborne, who is seen as more moderate. He has picked up three major state newspaper endorsements because, campaign manager Vicki Powell said, "He has legislative experience. He has actually run a company."

Nebraska primary voters will also settle tomorrow on the Republican nominee to try to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson. Recent polls suggest that Pete Ricketts, a former top executive at online broker Ameritrade, is leading over former state attorney general Don Stenberg and former state GOP chairman David Kramer.

Nelson, a conservative Democrat, has generally been popular in Nebraska, but he is running in a state that Bush won in 2004 with 66 percent of the vote.


Read More...

Spitzer Says H&R Block Executives Knew of Bad Investment Advice

ABC News
Spitzer: H&R Block Knew of Bad Advice
Spitzer Says H&R Block Executives Knew of Bad Investment Advice
By MICHAEL GORMLEY
The Associated Press

ALBANY, N.Y. - New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said on Monday he has evidence that H&R Block executives not only knew they were pushing customers to buy money-losing retirement account plans, but penalized employees who refused to recommend them.

Spitzer amended his March suit against the nation's largest tax preparation company with copies of e-mails that he said show managers disregarded complaints from tax preparers about misleading marketing of the retirement product called Express IRA. The internal documents also showed that tax preparers were told "sell more IRAs" or "there's the door."

In March, Spitzer filed a $250 million fraud suit accusing H&R Block Inc. of steering more than 500,000 customers into a money losing retirement account plan. Spitzer said Block advised clients to buy an "unsuitable, fraudulently marketed, poorly performing, fee-ridden 'retirement vehicle' called the Express IRA," an account that actually shrinks over time.

Court papers say the amount of money in the retirement account decreases because the only investment option is a money market account with an interest rate so low that it does not cover the fees "fees that H&R Block fails to adequately disclose."

H&R Block in March issued an immediate and strong reply saying the company will "fight vigorously to defend the Express IRA product and ensure it remains available to our many clients who rely on it as a helpful savings option."

A company spokesman didn't immediately return a request for comment Monday.

"In addition to designing a flawed product with hidden fees and marketing it fraudulently to unsuspecting customers, senior management did more than simply ignore the concerns of its tax preparers; management penalized H&R Block tax professionals who refused to push the product," Spitzer said.

The attorney general's lawsuit seeks to stop the company from engaging in any fraudulent practices, force it to return profits and pay damages and restitution caused by its alleged scheme, and pay civil penalties in an amount no less than $250 million.

Spitzer said that H&R Block opened more than half a million Express IRA accounts in the last four years. He said 85 percent of customers who opened the accounts paid H&R Block more in fees than they earned in interest.

More than 150,000 customers closed their accounts, incurring additional undisclosed fees and almost $6 million in tax penalties, Spitzer said.

On the Net:

http://www.hrblock.com

http://www.oag.state.ny.us



Read More...

Violence in Iraq Leaves at Least 34 Dead

ABC News
Violence in Iraq Leaves at Least 34 Dead
Violence in Iraq Leaves at Least 34 People Dead, Including U.S. Soldier
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Violence killed at least 34 people including a U.S. soldier as efforts to finish choosing the new Cabinet bogged down Monday in a web of conflicting interests.

The deadliest attack Monday occurred when a car bomb exploded near an Iraqi court in central Baghdad, killing five Iraqi civilians and wounding 10, police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi said.

Two Iraqi policemen died and 12 people were wounded when another car bomb went off near a police patrol traveling down busy Palestine Street in eastern Baghdad, police Lt. Ahmed Qassim said.

The American soldier was killed when a roadside bomb struck a military convoy Monday southeast of Baghdad, according to a U.S. statement. The command did not specify the location, but Iraqi police reported a bombing damaged a U.S. convoy between the Shiite holy cities of Karbala and Najaf.

In a separate statement, the U.S. command said one American soldier was killed and another wounded during a clash Sunday near Tal Afar, 260 miles northwest of Baghdad.

The fatalities raised to at least 2,421 the number of U.S. military members who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

At least 33 American troops have been killed since April 22, when the new Iraqi government began to take shape with the selection of top leaders and the appointment of Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister-designate.

Al-Maliki, a Shiite, had hoped to complete the selection of his Cabinet on Tuesday or Wednesday. That would mark the final step in the establishment of the new government of national unity, which U.S. officials hope can calm sectarian tensions, lure Sunni Arabs from the insurgency and enable American troops to go home.

However, key Shiite and Sunni lawmakers told The Associated Press Monday that it was unlikely al-Maliki would finish the task this week because of the need to balance the interests of the religiously and ethnically based parties.

Late Monday, Shiite lawmaker Bahaa al-Din al-Araji told the AP that the parties had agreed broadly on what factions would get specific posts. But they have yet to decide on the candidates to assume those positions.

Speaking about the prospects for Iraqi national unity, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that the U.S. government is not looking "at how hard they're working to hang together, because they literally will hang separately or hang together, literally. There's no stronger incentive to get it right than the incentives that they have."

The main stumbling block is the choice to head the Interior Ministry, which controls the police, and the Defense Ministry, which runs the army. U.S. and British officials have insisted those posts go to people without ties to sectarian militias, responsible for many of the tit-for-tat killings of Sunnis and Shiites.

Several lawmakers said the Shiite alliance and the Sunni bloc were searching for candidates with enough independence to satisfy the Americans and the British, but who would also be acceptable to the Iraqi parties.

One lawmaker said outgoing Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, a former Pentagon favorite, had been mentioned to head the Interior Ministry. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the talks are secret, acknowledged that Chalabi was a long shot.

Chalabi, a secular Shiite, had once been Washington's choice to replace Saddam Hussein, but he fell from favor after the U.S.-led invasion and failed to win a parliament seat in the Dec. 15 election.

But Chalabi has proven one of the most resilient figures in Iraqi politics and has forged ties not only with radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr but with some Sunni groups as well.

Sunni Arabs have been pushing hard for one of the seven top ministries, which include interior and defense. Sunnis hold only 55 of the 275 parliament seats, compared with 130 for the Shiites.

"In reality, the situation is being dictated by the Americans on the basis of electoral results, not the national interest," Sunni politician Khalaf al-Ilyan said. "The distribution (of posts) is based on sects, Sunni, Kurdish, Shiite."

As the politicians haggled, bloodshed continued.

Two employees of an Iraqi television station were found dead Monday, a day after they were stopped by men wearing police uniforms on a road southwest of Baghdad, according to Abdul-Karim al-Mehdawi, general manager of Al-Nahrain TV. The bodies of journalist Laith al-Dulaimi and telephone operator Muazaz Ahmed were taken to a morgue in Kut.

At least 69 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. About three-fourths of them were Iraqis.

At least 19 other bodies were found Monday, including 12 in Baghdad and seven in Kut, according to police. They appeared to have been victims of sectarian death squads.

In other violence Monday:

Gunmen stopped a bus carrying Higher Education Ministry employees to work in western Baghdad, killing the driver and wounding a guard, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.

Two gunmen were killed in a clash with Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad's Dora neighborhood.

One person was killed and another wounded in a drive-by shooting in a west Baghdad market.

A pharmacist was killed in Mosul by gunmen who set fire to his drug store.



Read More...

Social Security Endures; Not "Going Broke"

The New York Times
Social Security Endures

Buried in the newly released 2006 annual report on Social Security, there is good news on the program's long-term health. But don't expect to hear President Bush talking about it. His main comment on the new report is that the system is "going broke." He apparently still wants people to believe that their only options are ending up with nothing from the government in old age or relying on financial markets. That's a false choice and Americans recognized it as such when they rejected his push last year for private accounts.

Projected "cost rates" in this year's report show smaller annual deficits in Social Security than had previously been assumed, starting around mid-century. The 75-year projection ends in 2080 with a shortfall that is less than last year's estimates by $57 billion, in today's dollars. That's important, because the smaller the deficit, the less drastic the reforms needed to keep the program going strong.

The deficit is lower because government statisticians now assume that American women will have two children, on average, versus an earlier estimate of 1.95. The happy result for Social Security is that more taxpayers make for a healthier system. That is not to suggest that increased fertility is the key to strengthening Social Security. It obviously helps, as would more immigration or stronger wage growth.

What the big impact of small adjustments shows is that Social Security is a dynamic system, adaptable to the 21st century. Currently, it is able to pay full benefits until 2040. Reforms that are enacted between now and then must be structured to take advantage of shifts that work in the system's favor, and to protect against those that don't. To that end, phasing in a modest package of benefit cuts and tax increases over the next several decades is the best way to ensure that the system won't come up short a generation from now.





Read More...

U.S. Subpoenas Newspaper for Sources in Steroid Case

The New York Times
U.S. Subpoenas Newspaper for Sources in Steroid Case
By ADAM LIPTAK

In the latest effort by the government to learn the identities of reporters' confidential sources, the United States attorney in Los Angeles issued grand jury subpoenas to The San Francisco Chronicle and two of its reporters on Friday.

The relative ordinariness of the case, which arose out of reporting on steroid use in baseball rather than on covert operatives, domestic eavesdropping or secret prisons, may make its outcome instructive.

As a practical matter, the case will answer whether, after a series of recent setbacks, reporters retain any rights to protect their confidential sources in federal court.

Phil Bronstein, the editor of The Chronicle, said the paper would move to quash the subpoenas.

Whether it succeeds will turn in large part on which of two competing approaches the courts adopt. Both were represented last year in a federal appeals court's decision that sent Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times, to jail in an investigation centering on the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Wilson, an officer of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The three appeals judges who heard that case agreed that a 1972 decision of the United States Supreme Court, Branzburg v. Hayes, ruled out any First Amendment protections for reporters from federal grand jury subpoenas except in cases of prosecutorial harassment.

But one judge, David S. Tatel, proposed an alternative approach rooted in the federal common law of evidence rather than the First Amendment. A similar test is part of a proposed federal shield law likely to be introduced in the Senate shortly.

Judge Tatel said judges should balance "the public interest in compelling disclosure, measured by the harm the leak caused, against the public interest in newsgathering, measured by the leaked information's value."

In the Miller case, Judge Tatel said, the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity may have jeopardized her safety, her work and "friends and associates from whom she might have gathered information in the past." On the other hand, he wrote, Ms. Wilson's identity "had marginal news value."

Under that balancing, Judge Tatel wrote, Ms. Miller lost. But that same balancing, if adopted by the judge in the case involving The Chronicle, may yield a different result.

The subpoenas served Friday seek testimony and documents concerning three articles published by the paper in 2004 about a grand jury investigation into the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative, or Balco, which distributed performance-enhancing drugs to athletes.

The articles quoted, apparently verbatim, transcripts of grand jury testimony from prominent athletes, including the baseball stars Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi. Whoever provided those transcripts to The Chronicle probably violated the law.

Mr. Bronstein, The Chronicle's editor, said the proper way to strike the balance between the value of the information and the harm caused by its disclosure was plain to him, if not to all his paper's readers.

"Had the reporting not been done and not been published," Mr. Bronstein said, "we would not have had a very strong debate about the illegal use of steroids in professional sports."

Readers, on the other hand, "have hammered us quite severely," he continued. There is, he said, "an awful lot of sentiment expressed about the sanctity of the grand jury process."

Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for Debra Wong Yang, the United States attorney in Los Angeles, declined to comment. The investigation is presumably being conducted from Los Angeles because federal prosecutors in San Francisco had had access to the leaked materials.

Eve Burton, vice president and general counsel of the Hearst Corporation, which owns The Chronicle, said the legal balance should be struck in favor of the reporters, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, given that the Balco grand jury appears to have concluded its work.

"The government's interest in learning who the whistle-blowers were in a case that's finished is less important," she said, "than the ability of journalists to protect their confidential sources."




Read More...

Bush approval rating falls to new low in poll

Reuters
Bush approval rating falls to new low in poll

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's approval rating fell to 31 percent in a USA Today/Gallup Poll released on Monday, the lowest recorded in the survey and a drop of three percentage points in a single week.

Bush's approval rating, at 34 percent a week ago, tumbled on declining support from conservatives and Republicans. The poll found 52 percent of conservatives and 68 percent of Republicans approved of Bush's performance, record lows in both categories.

Bush's approval rating has been mired in the low and mid-30s in most surveys amid public unease about the Iraq war and rising gasoline prices. His plummeting standing has caused growing worry among Republicans about November's elections, when the balance of power in Congress will be up for grabs.

The poll of 1,013 adults, taken Friday through Sunday, had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.



Read More...

Dems block medical liability bill

Reuters
Dems block medical liability bill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Monday blocked the latest Republican attempts to limit damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice lawsuits.

Republicans offered two versions of the bill, one applying to all malpractice cases and the other limited to obstetrics and gynecology, an area with high malpractice insurance costs.

Both bills failed to garner the 60 votes necessary in the 100-member Senate to advance to a full debate. The vote was 48-42 on the broader bill and 49-44 on the obstetrics and gynecology bill, largely along party lines.

President George W. Bush and his Republican allies have been trying to pass limits on malpractice damages for years, contending that frivolous lawsuits are driving up the cost of care.

Supporters of the limits argue that the high cost of malpractice insurance is also driving some doctors in high-risk specialties out of medicine.

"Medical malpractice liability premiums have skyrocketed and they are poisoning the practice of medicine," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican who is also a physician.

Republicans modified the bills to allow damages of up to $750,000 -- although no single doctor or hospital would have to pay more than $250,000. People could still recover economic damages such as lost wages and medical care.

Legislation with a $250,000 cap has passed the House of Representatives repeatedly but has been blocked in the Senate.

Most Democrats and a few Republicans oppose the caps, at least at the federal level. Many states already have imposed lawsuit limits as well as insurance market reforms. Opponents of caps say they will protect insurers profits, not necessarily doctors or patients who have been harmed.

Democrats opposed to the legislation argued that rising premiums were due more to insurance industry stock market losses than lawsuits and were more a product of election-year politics than a serious legislative effort.

"These two bills are put here as a result of the insurance industry," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada during the debate. "These measures before the Senate don't represent a serious attempt to improve health care or the civil justice system in our country."

The bill's failure to advance marked another legislative setback for Bush, who accused Democrats of blocking the legislation to please "their trial lawyer supporters."

"I am disappointed that the Senate has yet again failed to pass real medical liability reform legislation," Bush said in a statement. "Junk lawsuits are driving too many good doctors out of medicine."

The Senate is expected to take up another health related bill on Tuesday, sponsored by Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi, which would allow small businesses to pool together across state lines to purchase insurance.

Those policies would be exempt from state regulations on prices and benefits. The bill faces opposition from Democrats who say it would distort the insurance market and drive up prices for many people.




Read More...

Dems block medical liability bill

Reuters
Dems block medical liability bill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Monday blocked the latest Republican attempts to limit damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice lawsuits.

Republicans offered two versions of the bill, one applying to all malpractice cases and the other limited to obstetrics and gynecology, an area with high malpractice insurance costs.

Both bills failed to garner the 60 votes necessary in the 100-member Senate to advance to a full debate. The vote was 48-42 on the broader bill and 49-44 on the obstetrics and gynecology bill, largely along party lines.

President George W. Bush and his Republican allies have been trying to pass limits on malpractice damages for years, contending that frivolous lawsuits are driving up the cost of care.

Supporters of the limits argue that the high cost of malpractice insurance is also driving some doctors in high-risk specialties out of medicine.

"Medical malpractice liability premiums have skyrocketed and they are poisoning the practice of medicine," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican who is also a physician.

Republicans modified the bills to allow damages of up to $750,000 -- although no single doctor or hospital would have to pay more than $250,000. People could still recover economic damages such as lost wages and medical care.

Legislation with a $250,000 cap has passed the House of Representatives repeatedly but has been blocked in the Senate.

Most Democrats and a few Republicans oppose the caps, at least at the federal level. Many states already have imposed lawsuit limits as well as insurance market reforms. Opponents of caps say they will protect insurers profits, not necessarily doctors or patients who have been harmed.

Democrats opposed to the legislation argued that rising premiums were due more to insurance industry stock market losses than lawsuits and were more a product of election-year politics than a serious legislative effort.

"These two bills are put here as a result of the insurance industry," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada during the debate. "These measures before the Senate don't represent a serious attempt to improve health care or the civil justice system in our country."

The bill's failure to advance marked another legislative setback for Bush, who accused Democrats of blocking the legislation to please "their trial lawyer supporters."

"I am disappointed that the Senate has yet again failed to pass real medical liability reform legislation," Bush said in a statement. "Junk lawsuits are driving too many good doctors out of medicine."

The Senate is expected to take up another health related bill on Tuesday, sponsored by Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi, which would allow small businesses to pool together across state lines to purchase insurance.

Those policies would be exempt from state regulations on prices and benefits. The bill faces opposition from Democrats who say it would distort the insurance market and drive up prices for many people.




Read More...

Medicare drug change would cost $3.4 bln: CBO

Reuters
Medicare drug change would cost $3.4 bln: CBO

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Extending a May 15 deadline for senior citizens to sign up for a new U.S. prescription drug insurance plan would cost the government $100 million this year and $3.4 billion over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office said on Monday.

Democrats in Congress have been pushing for either extending next week's deadline to the end of the year, or for waiving penalties for seniors who miss the deadline.

On March 15, President Bush rejected an extension saying, "There's got to be a fixed time for people to sign up" for the new program, which already is estimated to cost $724 billion over 10 years.

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius, traveling with the president in Fort Lauderdale on Tuesday, said Bush's position hadn't changed.

The nonpartisan CBO also estimated that about 10 million Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for the prescription drug program this year will instead enroll over the next three years.

The agency also estimated that about 1 million of those beneficiaries would enroll this year if the deadline was extended to December 31.

CBO said the revenue loss mostly would be related to late-enrollment penalties that would not be collected.

The Medicare drug program was launched in January for 42 million elderly or disabled Americans who are Medicare beneficiaries.

Enrollment got off to a rocky start late last year, with many pharmacies unprepared and many elderly people confused by the dozens of plans being offered.

So far, more than 30 million people are receiving coverage under the Medicare drug program. Of those, about 8.1 million have signed up voluntarily for the new program and the rest transferred from other programs or have coverage through former jobs.

If the May 15 deadline is not extended, those who were eligible and enrolled late can sign up again between November 15 and December 31, but would face a permanent penalty fee.

Republicans in Congress recently have been touting the success of the new drug insurance program, saying that early problems have been ironed out and seniors are happy with their lower drug costs.

Families USA, a nonprofit consumer health-care group, is set to release a report on Tuesday that says the new Medicare prescription drug plan is failing to reach four out of five low-income seniors.


Read More...

Monday, May 08, 2006

Music: Sounding Off on Bush

Music: Sounding Off on Bush
Newsweek

May 15, 2006 issue - Mr. President, how do you sleep at night while the rest of us cry?" asks Pink on her new album, "I'm Not Dead." George W. Bush has yet to answer the pop star's question, but he may as well brace himself: Pink's acoustic number is part of an anti-establishment avalanche in music, and this time it's personal. The protest songs of the Vietnam era railed against the war and The Man, but the new wave of dissent is aimed directly at Bush. On his new album Living With War, Neil Young sings, "Let's impeach the president, for hijacking our religion and using it to get elected/Dividing our country into colors, and still leaving black people neglected." Songs on upcoming CDs by Merle Haggard, Dashboard Confessional and Paul Simon (Surprise) deal more blows against the war and Bush. Even The Boss's new CD We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions, featuring Springsteen's own renditions of protest songs by Pete Seeger, is clearly more than an ode to the folk hero; it's an arrow aimed directly at the White House. "This whole idea that we have to temper our moral outrage over what's going on here and in Iraq is ridiculous," says Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder. On the band's single "Worldwide Suicide," off its new CD, he sings, "Medals on a wooden mantel, next to a handsome face/That the president took for granted, writing checks that others pay." "I am a citizen who cares about what happens to this country," says Vedder, "and right now things are really bad."

When the Dixie Chicks spoke out against Bush onstage three years ago, they were all but dropped from country-music radio. But with the president's approval ratings at a record low, criticizing Bush or op-posing the war in song isn't quite as risky. "There's a greater political intensity now than there's been in years," says Danny Goldberg, a music-industry veteran who's now vice chairman of Air America Radio. "These artists are expressing what a lot of the country is feeling—a growing disenchantment with the way this government is doing things."

Musical ire against the White House has been growing since the invasion of Iraq. Eminem blasted Bush on the eve of the last election in the song "Mosh" ("Strap him with an AK-47, let him go fight his own war") on the CD Encore (Deluxe Edition); the punk trio Green Day's 2005 multiplatinum CD "American Idiot" told stories of people ruined by the current administration's social policies, and even Madonna recently got in on the act. During a dance set in the DJ tent of the Coachella music festival, the diva changed the lyrics in her song "I Love New York": "Just go to Texas," she sang, "and suck George Bush's d---." Not all protest songs are eloquent.

—Lorraine Ali


Read More...

Ten U.S. soldiers killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan on Friday were from Fort Drum in New York

USA TODAY
Once again, Fort Drum hit hard by fatal crash
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

Ten U.S. soldiers killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan on Friday were from Fort Drum in New York, reviving memories of a fatal helicopter crash at the infantry post three years ago.

Eleven soldiers were killed in March 2003 when their Black Hawk helicopter went down during a training exercise at the post near Watertown, N.Y.

Fort Drum spokesman Benjamin Abel said Sunday that the names and units of the 10 soldiers had not been released. He said he did not know whether relatives of all the soldiers had been notified.

"Our hearts and prayers go out to the families and comrades of the soldiers who were involved in this crash," Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, commander of Combined Joint Task Force 76 in Afghanistan, said in a written statement.

The accident Friday, like the one in 2003, killed soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division. They died when their CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter crashed near Asadabad in Afghanistan's Kunar province, according to the Pentagon.

The crash at the mountaintop landing zone was not the result of enemy action, said Air Force Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Pentagon spokesman on Afghanistan. An investigation into the cause was underway, Vician said.

Abel said 5,800 servicemembers from Fort Drum are in Afghanistan.

Vician said there have been 224 U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and 2,415 in Iraq, as of May 5 reports, which do not include the deaths in the Chinook helicopter crash.

The accident Friday nearly doubled Fort Drum's number of deaths in Afghanistan, which had stood at 11.

Spokesman Abel noted that the 2003 helicopter crash occurred during training, not combat.

"There are similarities in the loss of life, but they are not parallel," he said.

The Rev. Vance Mann, a rector at Trinity Episcopal Church in Watertown, said Sunday that some of the church's congregants spoke to him of the recent crash and asked him to pray for the victims.

"People seem concerned," Mann said. "But they are not overly concerned. There is no hysteria."

He said he was told that some soldiers had called home to let families know they were not involved in the crash.

Mann said, "The families I've had contact with try to maintain a sense of normalcy" as they worry about soldiers away in combat.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-07-afghanistan-ftdrum_x.htm





Read More...

Ground Zero Memorial in Jeopardy; Critics Assail Cost, Design and Symbolism of 'Reflecting Absence'

washingtonpost.com
Ground Zero Memorial in Jeopardy
Critics Assail Cost, Design and Symbolism of 'Reflecting Absence'
By Amy Westfeldt
Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Twenty stories above Ground Zero, a Web camera pointed at the foundations of the destroyed World Trade Center takes pictures on the hour, recording the first signs of construction of the memorial to the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Workers began painstakingly clearing off the tower footprints in March, hoping to pour concrete this month for the two reflecting pools planned for the center of the design.

But progress on the tribute is being threatened by controversies over the planned memorial's safety, cost, layout and symbolism.

Last week, as the memorial's cost spiraled toward $1 billion, the mayor and the governors of New York and New Jersey, who control the interstate Port Authority that owns the site, said the price would have to be halved.

Opponents of the "Reflecting Absence" design, led by some of the Sept. 11, 2001, victims' families, say the proposed layout will be unsafe, obliterate the last vestiges of the destroyed Trade Center towers and send the wrong symbolic message by directing mourners to an underground memorial.

"This does total dishonor to the lives and deaths of these people by burying this under the ground," said Sally Regenhard, mother of a firefighter killed in the attacks. "It's so insulting."

"Reflecting Absence," chosen by a jury from thousands of submissions in 2004, would fill eight of Ground Zero's 16 acres with two reflecting pools marking the spots where the towers stood. Water would cascade from the pools, in a plaza dotted with oak trees, to a level about 30 feet below the surface, where the names of the nearly 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and in the 1993 truck bombing at the trade center would be inscribed.

Lower still, parts of the original tower foundations would be preserved, and unidentified victims' remains would be stored in a special chamber accessible to families only.

Also below street level would be a Sept. 11 museum, which officials expect will draw more than 5 million visitors a year.

Families are circulating a petition with more than 12,000 signatures to members of Congress and other politicians seeking a change to an above-ground memorial.

Security experts and Sept. 11 family members say the number of ramps leading to the lower levels -- two instead of the four in the original design -- would make it hard to evacuate.

"It cuts the possibility of escape by a half, or it could double the evacuation time," said Jake Pauls, a security consultant who is participating in Sept. 11-related studies about evacuation.

John Gallagher, a spokesman for the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the agency managing the memorial design, said the agency's security experts are confident the ramps and more than eight stairwell exits "will allow for safe and speedy evacuation."

James K. Kallstrom, a former FBI assistant director who leads a task force developing security plans for Ground Zero, said the entire 16-acre site is vulnerable to terrorism. He has asked for modifications to enhance security.

"The whole site, particularly the memorial, particularly the sacred footprints and anything to do with the old-world World Trade Center and the tragedy has a lot of symbolism," Kallstrom said. "Whether or not terrorists decide that that's their target, . . . I think it would be less than professional not to recognize the symbolism here."

Gallagher said the agency would work to follow Kallstrom's recommendations.

The memorial and museum had been budgeted at $490 million, but a contractor has estimated the cost at $972 million. Maintenance would be an additional $50 million to $60 million a year.

However, the nonprofit World Trade Center Memorial Foundation has raised $130 million from private donors, even though its board includes some of the biggest corporate executives and philanthropists. The federal government has promised about $300 million.

The memorial to the 168 people killed in Oklahoma City when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was blown apart in 1995 cost $29.1 million.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R), New York Gov. George E. Pataki (R) and New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) said the trade center memorial can cost no more than $500 million.

Gallagher said the LMDC has followed a goal of provide "meaningful access" to the site. Designers put parts of the memorial below street level after families said they wanted access to the bedrock at the bottom of the towers, where a majority of the victims' remains were found.

But Anthony Gardner, whose family group filed the lawsuit, said the families only wanted to visit the footprints underground, not the whole memorial.

"Don't blame us for a below-ground memorial," Gardner said. "We didn't want a below-ground memorial."



Read More...

Lawmakers Want More Data on Contracting Out Intelligence

washingtonpost.com
Lawmakers Want More Data on Contracting Out Intelligence
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer

Congress is taking its first steps to oversee the Defense Department's rapidly growing activities in the foreign and domestic intelligence fields, focusing also on the growing practice of contracting out intelligence analysis to former military personnel.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in its version of the fiscal 2007 intelligence authorization bill, has called for enhanced reporting requirements on the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the Pentagon's newest and fastest-growing intelligence agency.

While the House Armed Services Committee approved an unusually large Pentagon request to increase by 50 the number of supergrade defense intelligence Senior Executive Service personnel, the Senate Armed Services Committee last week ordered expanded reporting on defense contractor employment of former senior Defense Department officials and interagency contracting.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 2, John Gannon, a former CIA deputy director for intelligence and later the first staff director of the House Homeland Security Committee, joined others who have raised questions about the growth of contracting and its possible negative effects.

The House intelligence panel said one trigger for its study was the disclosure that CIFA "failed to follow policies regarding the collection and retention of information about U.S. persons." It noted that CIFA, in its classified database of 13,000 records of threats to defense facilities, had included 260 records that "improperly contained information relating to U.S. persons." The Defense Department has ordered "refresher training" for those collecting such files, and the committee requested that the Pentagon's inspector general submit a report on the CIFA records by next Feb. 1.

The Defense Department would not identify where its new 50 civilians would be employed, according to spokesman Cmdr. Greg Hicks. The positions were approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, according to an official from that office.

The post-Sept. 11 restructuring of the intelligence community under legislation in 2004 "unintentionally encouraged the stretching of scarce analytic resources literally to the breaking point, the dispersal of valuable expertise, and an unprecedented reliance on the contracting community for analytic staffing, workforce management, and training," said Gannon, who spent 24 years at the CIA and now is a vice president for global analysis of BAE Systems Information Technology.

Last year, contractors were "a significant majority" of analysts working at the new National Counterterroism Center (NCTC), which has primary responsibility for providing the White House and others with analysis based on foreign and domestic information, Gannon said. The proportion is even greater at CIFA, the Pentagon's new agency coordinating "force protection" at Defense Department facilities. CIFA officials have told The Washington Post that 70 percent of their workers are contractors.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asked whether "the Department of Defense . . . moving into these fields with widespread expansion of powers" is "consistent with having a Director of National Intelligence?"

"What is bothersome," Gannon replied, "is that that movement that you're talking about is taking place without any supervision beyond the Department of Defense, and I think it is needed from the DNI, but also from the White House."

A greater problem, Gannon added, is that with the CIA, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security working on the civilian side, and the Pentagon expanding within its own realm, "it has confused civilian and military roles and raised alarms about the military involvement."

Growth in the military areas, however, continues. Even Athena Innovative Solutions Inc., the successor organization to MZM Inc., whose president was caught giving bribes in the criminal investigation that led to conviction of former representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), has been successful in maintaining and expanding its Pentagon contracts.

According to an internal document made available to The Post, Athena reported in January it has maintained two CIFA contracts that could add 43 jobs to its payroll. Calls to Athena's press spokesman for comment were not returned. The Pentagon's U.S. Central Command (Centcom) is advertising for contract employees to work on intelligence, including some jobs in Iraq.

An online ad by Lockheed Martin Information Technology-Professional Services seeks a counterintelligence analyst to work in Iraq doing research on intelligence capabilities of countries in areas of operations under the Central Command. Additional work, according to the ad, would be "on substantive intelligence matters involving terrorist groups and networks . . . Centcom experience is a plus," the ad notes.



Read More...

President Bush says his best moment in office was the time he caught a 7 1/2-pound largemouth bass

ABC News
Bush Jokes About Best Moment As President
Bush Jokes That His Best Moment As President Was the Time He Caught a 7 1/2-Pound Largemouth Bass
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush says his best moment in office was the time he caught a 7 1/2-pound largemouth bass.

During his more than five years in office, Bush has traveled the world's most impressive cities, met with world leaders and entertained celebrities.

But when the German newspaper Bild asked him to name his best and worst moments as president, Bush gave an offbeat answer about the best moment, while giving a more predictable response about his worst.

"The most awful moment was September the 11th, 2001," Bush said, adding that it took time to understand the depth of the terrorist attacks on the United States. "I would say the toughest moment of all was after the whole reality sunk in and I was trying to help the nation understand what was going on, and at the same time, be empathetic for those who had lost lives."

Bush admitted it was not easy to pick a best moment because "I've had a lot of great moments," according to a transcript of the Friday interview released Sunday.

"I would say the best moment was when I caught a 7 1/2-pound largemouth bass on my lake," Bush said, laughing.



Read More...

Republicans Stoke an Old Fire: Judicial Nominations

The New York Times
Republicans Stoke an Old Fire: Judicial Nominations
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, May 7 — Republicans are itching for a good election-year fight. Now they are about to get one: a reprise of last year's Senate showdown over judges.

It has been a year since a bipartisan group of 14 senators, the Gang of 14, reached a compromise that smoothed the way for confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees, including two Supreme Court justices. Conservatives, eager to stir some enthusiasm among their base in an otherwise gloomy election year, have spent months prodding the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, to take up candidates left out of that deal.

Mr. Frist, of Tennessee, is doing just that. On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the confirmation of Brett M. Kavanaugh, a White House aide, whose nomination to a federal appeals court has been stalled for three years. Mr. Frist has promised a vote on Mr. Kavanaugh this month. Conservatives are also pushing for a vote on an even more contentious nominee, Judge Terrence W. Boyle, a longtime federal district judge in North Carolina.

With Democrats promising to question Mr. Kavanaugh extensively and threatening to block Judge Boyle by filibuster, Republicans say they could not be happier.

"A good fight on judges does nothing but energize our base," said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, who made judicial nominations a theme of his 2004 campaign against Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader. "Right now our folks are feeling a little flat. They need a reason to get engaged, and fights over judges will do that."

Another conservative Republican, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, said: "I think this is excellent timing. From a political standpoint, when we talk about judges, we win."

Conservative commentators and advocates have spent months arguing that very point. Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, which advocates for the confirmation of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees, said his group and other conservative organizations had been pushing Mr. Frist to reopen the issue since Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was confirmed to the Supreme Court in January.

With Republicans divided over issues like immigration and federal spending, Mr. Rushton said a revival of the long-running clash over judges could provide a unifying theme. It could swing independent votes, he said, in the close-fought re-election campaigns of Republicans like Senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Mike DeWine of Ohio, and in races like the one in Michigan, where Republicans are trying to unseat a Democratic incumbent, Senator Debbie Stabenow.

"I would argue that it's more than a base issue," Mr. Rushton said. "It's an issue that reminds people that while they may not love Republicans, they can't trust Democrats."

Some say the topic of judges could help Mr. Bush as well. Last month, Rich Lowry, an editor of National Review, listed seven ways the president could revive his flagging second term. Fifth on the list: "Push for the confirmation of his circuit judges that are pending. Talk about them by name. The G.O.P. wins judiciary fights."

Conservative talk-show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, have picked up the theme, as has the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, a reliable barometer of conservative sentiment.

"A filibuster fight," The Journal said in an editorial on Thursday, "would be exactly the sort of political battle Republicans need to energize conservative voters after their recent months of despond."

The central question, beyond whether the nominees are confirmed, is whether Democrats should be permitted to continue using the filibuster to block judicial candidates. Democrats cast the debate as one of protecting minority rights. But if Democrats try a filibuster, Republicans, led by Mr. Frist, have promised to invoke the so-called nuclear option, a rules change that would permanently ban judicial filibusters in the Senate.

Last year's agreement averted the nuclear option showdown when the 14 senators — seven Democrats and seven Republicans — agreed that filibusters against judges were warranted only in "extraordinary circumstances." The group plans to meet Tuesday to discuss the Kavanaugh nomination.

If there is a filibuster, Judge Boyle, who has been nominated to an appeals court position, is a more likely target. The judge arouses the ire of minority groups and many Democrats, who say his rulings on civil rights and disability cases have repeatedly been overturned.

Complicating his case are accusations of conflict of interest published recently in the online magazine Salon, which reported that Judge Boyle, 60, had decided cases in which he had had a financial interest.

The Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, vowed last week to filibuster Judge Boyle if the nomination came up for a vote. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview on Sunday that he was investigating the accusation.

"That's a disqualifier if it's true," Mr. Specter said.

A filibuster is unlikely against Mr. Kavanaugh, though Democrats say he lacks the judicial credentials to serve on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the same court that produced Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

At 41, Mr. Kavanaugh is staff secretary to Mr. Bush and a former member of the staff of Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. His résumé clearly rankles Democrats, who regard him as "a political partisan warrior," in the words of Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

The Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday will be Mr. Kavanaugh's second. After his first hearing, in April 2004, Democrats complained that he had been evasive.

Last week, the seven Democrats in the Gang of 14 urged Mr. Specter to hold a second hearing. In agreeing to do so, Mr. Specter aroused the ire of conservatives who simply wanted the Senate to vote.

"That's why my job is so difficult," Mr. Specter said, "to avoid the fight, because there are so many people hankering for one."



Read More...

Rove Is Using Threat of Loss to Stir G.O.P.

The New York Times
Rove Is Using Threat of Loss to Stir G.O.P.
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, May 5 — To anyone who doubts the stakes for the White House in this year's midterm Congressional elections, consider that Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the Democrat who would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee if his party recaptured the House, has called for an inquiry into the possible impeachment of President Bush over the war in Iraq.

Or listen to Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who would run the Senate Judiciary Committee if the Democrats took the Senate. Mr. Leahy vowed in a recent interview to subpoena top administration officials, if he got the chance, to answer more questions about their secret eavesdropping program and what he considers faulty prewar intelligence.

The prospect of the administration spending its last two years being grilled by angry Democrats under the heat of partisan spotlights has added urgency to the efforts by Karl Rove and Mr. Bush's political team to hang on to the Republican majorities in Congress.

Newly shorn of the daily policymaking duties he took on after the 2004 campaign and now refocused on his role as Mr. Bush's chief strategist, Mr. Rove is facing an increasingly difficult climate for Republicans, and an increasingly assertive Democratic Party.

The ambitious second-term agenda he helped develop has faltered even with a Republican Congress. His once-grand plans for creating a broadened and permanent Republican majority have given way to a goal of clinging to control of the House and Senate.

The prospect of Democrats capturing either, however, may be one of the best weapons Mr. Rove has as he turns to what he has traditionally done best: motivating his party's conservative base to turn out on Election Day.

Heading into the election, many conservatives are disheartened by the war in Iraq, upset at what they see as a White House tolerance for bigger government and escalating federal spending, and divided over issues like immigration. The abrupt resignation on Friday of the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Porter J. Goss, promised to feed the impression of an administration that is off balance.

But White House and Republican officials, trying to turn vulnerability to advantage, say conservatives could be united and re-energized by the possibility that Democrats could put Mr. Bush and his policies on political trial by winning control of even one chamber of Congress.

Senate Republicans sent out a fund-raising letter this week seeking to use that possibility to fire up the base, warning that a Democratic majority would put fighting terrorism "on the back burner" and that "our worst fears" could be realized.

The appeal is just one indication of how hard the White House and its Republican allies are likely to fight from now through Nov. 7 and of the challenge Mr. Rove faces in what could be the last campaign he orchestrates with the party.

At stake is not just what remains of Mr. Bush's hopes of making a permanent imprint on policy, but also whether Democrats will have a platform to define his presidency for history.

With so much on the line, Mr. Rove has taken to traveling the country to form strategies with individual candidates and local parties while brainstorming with the president's political and policy teams on broad items the White House can pursue to help Republicans everywhere. He is focusing on only the major planks of Mr. Bush's agenda and not the minutiae of policy that had consumed hours of his day.

In regular West Wing breakfast sessions catered by the White House mess, Mr. Rove and the White House political director, Sara Taylor, have already been reaching out to nervous and vulnerable Republicans, three at a time, laying out an emerging three-prong attack on Democrats over national security, taxes and health care.

In meetings at the White House, aboard Air Force One and in candidates' home states, Mr. Rove is trying to rally Republicans to stand by the president and his agenda.

He has focused in particular on uniting them behind the administration's proposals to overhaul immigration, which include guest worker provisions that conservatives despise; the Iraq war, which has driven Mr. Bush's poll numbers sharply downward; and the Medicare prescription drug program, which the administration says will cost $872 billion from 2006 to 2014 and which Mr. Bush backed enthusiastically despite complaints from conservatives that it was a vast expansion of the social welfare state.

Democrats need a net gain of six seats to win control of the Senate, and 15 for the House. With the overall outcome potentially coming down to one or two races, nearly every district and state seems to be getting some attention from Mr. Rove. He enlisted the president, and called on his own, to persuade Representative Elton Gallegly of California, a 10-term veteran, to reconsider a decision to drop his planned re-election campaign because of health worries.

Mr. Gallegly's decision threatened to jeopardize a seat the White House could otherwise count as safe. Mr. Gallegly quoted Mr. Rove as saying, "You know how important this election is going to be to be to all of us."

Mr. Gallegly acquiesced and said his health fear had ultimately proved unfounded anyway.

Mr. Rove's playbook is drawn straight from the one that worked for him in 2004: first, get conservatives fired up enough to vote, a particularly important goal in a midterm election, in which turnout is usually quite low. Second, make sure the election is not just about Mr. Bush's performance, but also about the choice between a Republican Party defined on its own terms and a Democratic Party defined on Mr. Rove's.

"We need to be really aggressive in explaining the sharp differences that exist between our candidates and their candidates on issues like taxes," Mr. Rove said in a telephone interview on Thursday as he headed to address a Republican dinner in Lancaster, Pa. "We have to do a better job of pressing advantages that we have on Medicare, prescription drugs."

Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said Mr. Rove's task was tough but overdue. "Part of the problem is, I don't think there's been that kind of communication or the attempt to build political consensus within the party," Mr. Cornyn said, while voicing confidence in Mr. Rove's ability to pull it off.

Mr. Rove is also working in close contact with Ms. Taylor and the Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, to put in motion the get-out-the-vote machinery Mr. Mehlman masterminded in 2004. They are refining state "victory programs" to identify potentially friendly voters who can be expected to receive messages about how the Democrats are ill prepared to fight terrorism or will undo tax cuts the president wants to make permanent.

Democrats say that is an old ploy that will not work this year. "The only things they can bring back this year are the old saws," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "They just won't play. We're in a new world."

At this point in the last midterm elections four years ago, Mr. Bush's approval ratings were around 70 percent, making him a huge asset on the campaign trail for his party.

Now the president's approval ratings are half that. The war has cast a shadow over the rest of the administration's agenda, and Democrats say some of the accomplishments Mr. Rove wants to highlight, like the prescription drug benefit, have troubled histories that make them less than ideal centerpieces for a campaign. And Mr. Rove remains embroiled in the federal criminal investigation into the disclosure of a C.I.A. officer's identity.

But Republican and White House officials say that as the kinks subside the prescription drug plan will be a net positive for the party come November, just as Mr. Rove said that the passage of a sweeping overhaul of immigration law would please voters who wanted action from Washington.

Republican and White House officials are also telling fellow Republicans that criticizing the president risks bringing the party down with him. At the same time, party officials have said they do not want the election to be a referendum on Mr. Bush.

Democrats are determined to make it just that. They say they believe that talk of their plans to demand answers from the administration is a rallying cry for their core voters.

"I think when the Congress finally joins the American people, this president is going to have to not just show how stubborn he is by sticking out his jaw," said Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, who would be in line for the chairmanship of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee if Democrats took the House. "He's going to have to answer some questions."

Mr. Rove said he was not worried. "We won't see how that plays out because they're not going to win," he said.





Read More...

Car bombs kill 30 in Iraq as govt talks progress

Reuters
Car bombs kill 30 in Iraq as govt talks progress
By Alastair Macdonald

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Car bombs killed 30 people in Iraq on Sunday and wounded more than 70 in one of the bloodiest spasms of violence of recent weeks as political leaders sought a deal to form a national unity government.

The southern city of Basra was quiet as British forces examined the wreck of a helicopter, apparently shot down on Saturday with the loss of up to five British military personnel. Five Iraqis died in hours of violence after the crash as soldiers clashed with youths chanting Shi'ite militia slogans.

At least 21 people were killed and 52 wounded when a suicide bomber blew up a car on a crowded street in the Shi'ite holy city of Kerbala, south of Baghdad, police and doctors said.

Iraqi and U.S. leaders have branded such attacks Sunni al Qaeda ploys to spark a sectarian war with Shi'ite Muslims.

About the same time, two cars exploded in the capital.

A suicide car bomber hit an Iraqi army patrol in the restive Sunni district of Aadhamiya, killing eight people and wounding 15. Soldiers and civilians were among the casualties.

Iraqi and U.S. forces had conducted a sweep for Sunni guerrillas in the area on Saturday, the U.S. military said.

Also in north Baghdad, a second car bomb exploded at a busy intersection near the offices of a government-funded newspaper, killing one civilian and wounding five, police sources said.

In east Baghdad's Rusafa district, a home-made bomb exploded in the basement of a mosque, killing one presumed bombmaker and wounding two, the U.S. military said. Firefighters tackling the resulting blaze found six more bombs.

In Kerbala, the police chief told a news conference only two people had died in the bombing. However, police and medical officials who declined to be identified stood by their casualty figures.

The blast ripped into crowds going about their business at the start of the working week, close to a partially built Shi'ite mosque and 500 metres from the main bus station. A dozen other vehicles were burned out as a result of the explosion.

SECTARIAN VIOLENCE

Interior Ministry sources said 42 bodies had been found in the past 24 hours in the capital alone, including eight dumped near Kindi hospital in central Baghdad. The figure is in line with levels of violence seen since sectarian bloodshed rose sharply after the bombing of a Shi'ite shrine on February 22.

More than 100,000 people have registered with the government as refugees since then and the number is rising, officials said. Many others have fled homes without informing the authorities.

Sunni leaders blame pro-government Shi'ite militias and the Shi'ite-dominated police for some of the sectarian killing. Militia leaders speak of a need to respond to three years of violence by insurgents from the once-dominant Sunni minority.

Interior Minister Bayan Jabor, fighting to keep his job in a new government after criticism that he has not done enough to clean up his department, said on Sunday a general from the ministry had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in kidnappings and death squads.

He told Al Jazeera television a "terror squad" had been uncovered. It was not clear if those caught were from the army or the police force.

Sectarian bloodshed has prompted warnings Iraq is sliding toward civil war, and added urgency to efforts by political leaders to form a unity government that can reverse the trend.

Nuri al-Maliki, a Shi'ite Islamist nominated as prime minister two weeks ago after months of stalemate following December's election, says he expects to name a cabinet shortly.

On Saturday, the Shi'ite vice president said he expected a deal "in the next few days". Many leaders were in the Kurdish capital Arbil on Sunday, to inaugurate a regional government.

Senior officials said it was unlikely Maliki would have a cabinet ready by the time parliament next meets on Wednesday.

Maliki met a group of U.S. congressmen who said they urged him to produce results in overcoming Iraqis' violent divisions.

"Americans are frustrated," said Rep. Jim Costa, a California Democrat, adding that "showing success in the near term (is) essential".

The White House seems keen to start withdrawing some of the 133,000 U.S. troops before congressional elections in November.

PROPAGANDA VIDEO

The U.S. military said last week that Sunni Islamist hardliners around al Qaeda figurehead Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were stepping up car bombings and other violence around Baghdad, aimed at derailing the efforts to forge a consensus government.

Zarqawi, who issued a propaganda video last week, has in the past declared war on Shi'ites, who were oppressed under Saddam Hussein but now dominate the new parliament.

Iraq's Shi'ite second city, Basra, was calmer on Sunday after a curfew and with a heavy security presence.

Youths chanting slogans in favor of the Mehdi Army militia of anti-occupation Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr had thrown rocks and petrol bombs at British troops cordoning off the site where the Lynx helicopter came down.

A local health service official said five Iraqis had been killed and 42 wounded in the clashes on Saturday.

Some casualties were caused by mortars, witnesses said. Troops fired plastic bullets and also some live rounds, they said.

Defense Secretary Des Browne said up to five Britons died in the helicopter crash. Iraqi police said it had been shot down but there was no British confirmation of this.

The U.S. military said a Marine died in combat on Sunday.

(Additional reporting by Aref Mohammed in Basra, Sami al- Jumaili in Kerbala and Mussab Al-Khairalla, Ahmed Rasheed and Aseel Kami in Baghdad)



Read More...