C.I.A. Chief Warned Rice on Al Qaeda

The New York Times
C.I.A. Chief Warned Rice on Al Qaeda
By PHILIP SHENON and MARK MAZZETTI


President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and George J. Tenet met after the Sept. 11 attacks. An earlier meeting by Ms. Rice and Mr. Tenet, who have long had a contentious relationship, is now the subject of dispute.

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 — A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

The account by the spokesman, Sean McCormack, came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was “incomprehensible” to suggest she had ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. McCormack also said records showed that the Sept. 11 commission had been informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.

When details of the meeting emerged last week in a new book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, Bush administration officials questioned Mr. Woodward’s reporting.

Now, after several days, both current and former Bush administration officials have confirmed parts of Mr. Woodward’s account.

Officials now agree that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so alarmed about intelligence pointing to an impending attack by Al Qaeda that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Ms. Rice and her National Security Council staff.

According to two former intelligence officials, Mr. Tenet told those assembled at the White House about the growing body of intelligence the C.I.A. had collected suggesting an attack was in the works.

But both current and former officials, including allies of Mr. Tenet, took issue with Mr. Woodward’s account that he and his aides had left the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had ignored them.

Earlier this week, some members of the Sept. 11 commission said they could not recall being told about a meeting like the one described by Mr. Woodward.

On Monday, officials said Mr. Tenet had told members of the commission about the July 10 meeting when they interviewed him in early 2004, but committee members said he never indicated he had left the White House with the impression that he had been ignored.

“Tenet never told us that he was brushed off,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission. “We certainly would have followed that up.”

Mr. McCormack said the records showed that far from ignoring Mr. Tenet’s warnings, Ms. Rice acted on the intelligence and requested that Mr. Tenet make the same presentation to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general.

But Mr. Ashcroft said by telephone on Monday evening that he never received a briefing that summer from Mr. Tenet.

“Frankly, I’m disappointed that I didn’t get that kind of briefing,” he said. “I’m surprised he didn’t think it was important enough to come by and tell me.”

Government investigations have shown that Mr. Ashcroft was briefed by other C.I.A. officials in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The dispute that has played out in recent days gives further evidence of an escalating battle between the White House and Mr. Tenet over who should take the blame for the failure to stop the Sept. 11 attacks and assertions by Bush administration officials that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and cultivating ties to Al Qaeda.

Mr. Tenet resigned as director of central intelligence in the summer of 2004 and was honored that December with a Presidential Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony. Since leaving the C.I.A., Mr. Tenet has stayed out of the public eye, largely declining to defend his record even after several government investigations assailed the faulty intelligence that helped build the case for the Iraq war.

Mr. Tenet is now completing work on a memoir that is scheduled to be published early next year. It is unclear how much he will use the book to settle old scores, although recent books have portrayed him both as dubious about the need to invade Iraq and angry that the White House has made the C.I.A. the primary scapegoat for the war.

In his book “The One Percent Doctrine,” the journalist and author Ron Suskind quotes Mr. Tenet’s former deputy at the C.I.A., John McLaughlin, as saying Mr. Tenet “wishes he could give that damn medal back.”

In his own book, Mr. Woodward wrote that over time Mr. Tenet developed a particular dislike for Ms. Rice, and that the former C.I.A. director was furious when she publicly blamed the agency for allowing President Bush to make the false claim in the 2003 State of the Union address that Mr. Hussein was pursuing nuclear materials in Niger.

“If the C.I.A., the director of central intelligence, had said, ‘Take this out of the speech,’ it would have been gone, without question,” Ms. Rice told reporters in July 2003.

In fact, the C.I.A. had told the White House months before that the intelligence about Niger was dubious, and had managed to keep the claim out of an October 2002 speech that Mr. Bush gave in Cincinnati.

More recently, Mr. Tenet has told friends he was particularly angry when, appearing recently on Sunday talk shows, both Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney cited Mr. Tenet as the reason that Bush administration officials asserted that Mr. Hussein had stockpiles of banned weapons and ties to Al Qaeda.

Mr. Cheney recalled in an appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sept. 10: “George Tenet sat in the Oval Office and the president of the United States asked him directly, he said, ‘George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?’ The director of the C.I.A. said, ‘It’s a slam dunk, Mr. President, it’s a slam dunk,’ ”

Philip Shenon reported from Jidda, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

Read More...

Summary only...

House Republicans grapple with sex scandal

Reuters
House Republicans grapple with sex scandal
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House of Representatives Republican leaders, already facing a tough election fight to keep control of the U.S. Congress, struggled on Monday to contain a mushrooming sex scandal just five weeks before the November 7 vote.

Former Republican Rep. Mark Foley, under FBI investigation for sending sexually explicit Internet messages to underage male congressional pages, reportedly checked into an alcohol rehabilitation facility over the weekend after resigning from Congress on Friday.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, responding to questions about what and when Republican leaders learned about the scandal, strongly denied knowing the explicit sexual nature of Foley's messages until they surfaced on Friday.

"No one in the Republican leadership ... saw those messages until last Friday when ABC News released them to the public," Hastert told reporters at the Capitol.

Hastert and other top House Republicans said over the weekend they knew of e-mail traffic between Foley and a 16-year-old boy, which was described to them as "over-friendly," but were not made aware of the explicit nature of messages sent to other pages.

Some members of both parties suggested any congressional leader who knew about the content of the messages and failed to take action should step down.

"Congressman Foley duped a lot of people," Hastert said. "He deceived me too."

The scandal put Republicans on the defensive in the final month of a close election campaign, with Democrats looking to pick up the 15 House seats and six Senate seats needed to regain control of each chamber.

President George W. Bush and the White House tried to stay above the fray. "The House has to clean up the mess, to the extent there is a mess," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Foley, a six-term veteran and chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children, resigned after the sexually explicit messages to current and former congressional pages were made public.

The FBI, Florida state investigators and House ethics investigators are all looking into Foley's communications with pages, who are teenagers assigned to answer telephones, deliver documents and run other errands for members of Congress.

Florida Republicans on Monday picked state Rep. Joe Negron to replace Foley in the November House race against Democrat Tim Mahoney, but it was too late to take Foley's name off the ballot. Negron will serve in Congress if Foley wins the most votes, state officials said.

The scandal not only created a ripe takeover target in Foley's previously safe Florida district for Democrats, but gave them renewed ammunition for charges that congressional Republicans have abused their power.

"This leadership, which has been so terribly wrong on so many policies, now seems willing to cover up events to protect its members," said Dianne Farrell, a Democrat challenging Republican Rep. Christopher Shays in Connecticut in one of the country's top races.

Democrats questioned traditional Republican claims to be protectors of family values.

"As a citizen and a voter, I am mortified by this latest turn of events. As someone running for Congress, I believe it is yet another reminder that we need to restore honor and dignity to the House," said Democrat Lois Murphy, who is challenging Republican Rep. James Gerlach in Pennsylvania in another top race.

The scandal erupted just as Bush's approval ratings were starting to climb slightly and Republicans felt more hopeful about retaining congressional majorities.

"Just as the Republicans were beginning to feel a little more confident, this happens," said Cal Jillson, a political analyst at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. "It could remind voters of why they were dissatisfied with Republican control of Congress to begin with."

CNN quoted Foley's lawyer as confirming the authenticity of a letter sent a Florida television on Sunday saying he was checking into a rehabilitation facility for "alcohol and emotional difficulties."

Read More...

Summary only...

No Bill Too Small for GOP Incumbents in Tight Elections; House Leaders Rush Through Measures to Win Voters

washingtonpost.com
No Bill Too Small for GOP Incumbents in Tight Elections
House Leaders Rush Through Measures to Win Voters
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer

In a bid to help embattled incumbents win tough reelection campaigns in November, House Republican leaders last week muscled through more than 165 bills that their members can use to win over voters back home -- and deflect attention from the scandals they left behind in Washington.

The scandal brewing around former Florida representative Mark Foley's inappropriate e-mails to teenage boys is only the latest in a series of indictments, resignations and accusations to rock Washington. In the face of such ill winds, House Republican leaders have urged GOP candidates to focus their campaigns on local issues and personal accomplishments. The last days of legislating were devoted to giving the candidates the specifics to run on.

Dozens of the made-to-order bills that flew through the House bear the names of the endangered lawmakers, from Pennsylvania Rep. Jim Gerlach's Open Space and Farmland Preservation Act to Connecticut Rep. Christopher Shays's reauthorization of the HOPE VI housing program, to measures to preserve Native American languages and assist in water planning for Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.).

"If you've got people with must-do pieces of legislation, you want to help them out," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), the vice chairman of the House Republican Conference.

To be sure, larding up bills for endangered incumbents is nothing new. But with money tight and only two spending bills completed, this year's efforts focused less on home-district spending and more on substantive measures tailored to specific constituents -- a "suburban agenda" for embattled Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia, bills to appeal to Christian conservatives for troubled Midwestern Republicans and expressions of independence for Republicans from districts that have turned against President Bush.

Kingston said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), in his first end-of-session rush in that post, proved masterful at filling blank spots on the House's agenda with long-sought legislation.

The name of Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.), one of the most threatened incumbents, was blazed across the Public Expression of Religion Act, which passed the House Tuesday and would deny legal fees to anyone winning a lawsuit to block the display of religious symbols in public places. The little-noticed "GOP Suburban Agenda" that cleared the House in recent weeks included eight bills, seven of which were authored by Republicans in jeopardy.

"People care about these issues," said Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), an endangered freshman who returned to Bucks County over the weekend to tout an "online predators" bill and a measure to promote charitable giving for open-space preservation to counter Democratic attacks that have been fixated on the war in Iraq.

"I've got the quintessential suburban district," Fitzpatrick said. "When I go home and go to the ball fields with my wife, this is what people want to talk about, parklands and 'my space.' "

On the campaign trail, such small-bore bills are likely to be featured far more prominently than the measures that captured more headlines in Congress's last days, such as legislation creating military commissions to try suspected terrorists, a House-passed bill authorizing Bush's warrantless wiretapping, final approval of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border, and bills covering port security, defense policy, military spending and homeland security funding.

Democratic campaign chiefs remain confident that such local measures will have little impact in an election year that they say remains a referendum on the president's leadership.

"There are forces bigger and more powerful at work," shrugged Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Democratic leaders have not let up in criticizing what they call a "do-nothing Congress," which has delayed action on a legion of big-ticket items. Despite personal promises from Republican leaders in the wake of influence-peddling scandals, changes to the rules governing lobbying were never made. Nine of 11 annual spending bills haven't passed. High-profile efforts to authorize Bush's warrantless wiretapping, open offshore areas to oil drilling and reform the rules on foreign investment after the Dubai ports fiasco all fell short of a presidential signing ceremony.

Bush's top three domestic priorities -- a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws, a remaking of Social Security and simplification of the tax code -- went nowhere. The minimum wage has not been raised for a decade. And the last, best chance for conservatives to virtually eliminate the estate tax permanently may have passed if Democrats gain seats in the House and Senate in November.

But in a year when National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.) has implored candidates to resist national themes in their campaigns, major legislation may be beside the point, GOP aides say. Not when Rep. Chris Chocola (R-Ind.) will get money to deal with leaking underground storage tanks in his district, when Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-N.Y.) will get to tout his National Dam Safety Act and when Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.) can claim bragging rights for the transfer of national forest land to the towns of Laona and Wabeno, Wis., as he campaigns for governor.

"I asked for help and I got it," Gerlach said of the leadership's last-minute scheduling of a vote on his open spaces and farmland preservation bill. "It was legislation my district wants. It was something my legislative district has a need for."

The effort to achieve such successes went to extraordinary lengths last week, even almost bringing down a major defense policy bill. House and Senate negotiators nearly failed to reach agreement on the defense bill, not because of issues such as the prohibition on torture that held up the bill last year, but because of an issue that had nothing to do with national defense -- a measure to clamp down on illegal immigrant gangs.

During a rare news conference, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) publicly challenged Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), saying he would not bring the defense policy bill to the House floor without the gang provision. Asked why Hastert had singled out the gang measure for his stand, one senior House leadership aide pointed to the person standing next to the speaker: freshman Rep. David G. Reichert (R-Wash.), the provision's author, who is running neck-and-neck with Microsoft executive Darcy Burner.

In the end, Hastert relented, but he offered Reichert a promise to be used on the campaign trail. The gang measure will be one of the first revisited when Congress returns after the election.

Read More...

Summary only...

There He Goes Again!

Reuters
Bush attacks Democrats on national security votes
By Steve Holland

RENO, Nevada (Reuters) - President Bush, opening a Western campaign swing, attacked Democrats on Monday for voting against legislation authorizing the wiretapping of terrorism suspects and setting rules for their interrogation.

Bush said in a fund-raising speech that the way the Democrats voted on the legislation last week, it seems the opposition party wants to wait "until we're attacked again" before responding to threats.

"I want you all to remember when you got to the polls here in Nevada, what political party supported the president to make sure we have the tools necessary to protect the American people, and which political party didn't," Bush said.

It is a theme he is expected to step up on Tuesday with a political speech in Stockton, California.

Although Republican majorities propelled the legislation to the president's desk for signing, large numbers of Democrats voted against them, and Bush planned to use those votes as a sign of the opposition party's weakness in the war on Islamic militants.

"Democrats say that they share the goal of fighting the war on terror aggressively but their votes in the Senate and the House often tell a different story and a vote is a statement," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

With five weeks left to persuade voters to stick with Republican control of the U.S. Congress, Bush opened a three-day Western campaign trip in Nevada by helping Republican congressional candidate Dean Heller raise $360,000.

He will also travel to California, Arizona and Colorado before returning to Washington on Wednesday.

Republican hopes of hanging on to control of the House of Representatives have been jolted by a sex scandal that prompted the resignation of Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley and led to Democratic charges that House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois should have acted swifter when told of suspicious e-mails Foley was sending to a teenage staffer.

Bush is trying to assist his party retain control of the House and the Senate with visits to congressional districts where Republican candidates need his fund-raising prowess despite his unpopularity due to the Iraq war.

He is looking to rebound from a difficult week in which a National Intelligence Estimate was made public that declared the Iraq war was furthering a global Islamist militant movement and a new book by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward accused Bush of misleading Americans about the conflict.

Bush did not mention the Woodward book in his speech and gave his usual defense of the Iraq war, differing with Democrats who call it a distraction from the broader war against terrorism.

Heller is running against Democrat Jill Derby for the House seat being vacated by Republican Rep. Jim Gibbons, who is running for state governor.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria)

Read More...

Summary only...

Consumers cut spending in August while inflation jumps

USA TODAY
Consumers cut spending in August while inflation jumps

WASHINGTON (AP) — Battered consumers, faced with weak income growth and rising inflation, trimmed their spending in August by the largest amount in nearly a year.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that consumer spending, after adjusting for inflation, dropped 0.1% last month, the first decline since a 0.3% fall in September 2005, a month when business activity was disrupted by Hurricane Katrina.

Core inflation, which excludes energy and food, was up a worrisome 2.5% compared to a year ago, the biggest year-over-year increase in more than a decade.

Core inflation rose 0.2% in August from July.

That 2.5% increase is well above the Federal Reserve's comfort range of core inflation increases from 1% to 2%. However, many economists believe the central bank, after raising rates for 17 consecutive times over two years, is through with its credit tightening, believing that a slowing economy will restrain inflation pressures going forward.

Incomes, reflecting lackluster gains in employment, rose just 0.3% in August, the weakest performance in nine months.

The report underscored how much the economy is slowing this year as consumers have been battered by record-high gasoline prices and a cooling housing market. Falling home prices are making Americans more cautious about spending money because they feel less wealthy.

The overall economy grew at an annual rate of just 2.6% in the April-June quarter, the government reported Thursday, and the report on consumer spending indicates that growth will likely slow even more in the current quarter.

However, most economists believe the country will be able to escape an outright recession, in part because trends in recent weeks have been more favorable with gasoline prices falling rapidly, helping to boost consumer confidence.

That development is expected to bolster consumer spending in the final months of this year, giving retailers a decent holiday sales season. Consumer spending is closely watched because it accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity.

Consumer spending before adjusting for inflation showed a tiny 0.1% rise, far below the 0.8% jump in the previous month.

The 0.1% decline in spending after adjusting for inflation followed a 0.5% rise in July. Much of the slowdown reflected a drop in auto sales in August following a strong July.

The 0.3% rise in incomes followed a 0.5% July gain and was the weakest showing since incomes edged up just 0.2% last November.

After-tax incomes were up 0.4% in August, the weakest increase since a similar 0.4% gain in May.

Americans' savings rate came in at a minus 0.5%, compared to a minus 0.7% in July. That marked the 17th consecutive month that the savings rate has been in negative territory. That means that Americans are spending all of their after-tax incomes and dipping into savings or borrowing to finance their purchases.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/inflation/2006-09-29-economy_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

Congress adjourns for election with work unfinished

Reuters
Congress adjourns for election with work unfinished
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leaving behind a pile of unfinished work, members of the scandal-rocked U.S. Congress adjourned and went home on Saturday to ask voters to re-elect them in five weeks.

With polls showing President George W. Bush's fellow Republicans could lose control of Congress in the November 7 contests, their leaders even decided to depart a week early to give members more time to campaign.

"It's been a ghastly congressional session, particularly the last year," said Stephen Hess, a congressional scholar the Brookings Institution. "They figure the best thing to do is get out of town. They aren't doing anything here."

Congress has been dogged by low approval ratings, huge federal deficits, the increasingly unpopular Iraq war and a string of scandals. At the top of the list was the departure of indicted former House of Representatives Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas and an investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who, according to a congressional report this week, had frequent contact with the White House.

On Friday, there was another case. Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida resigned after reports he sent sexually inappropriate e-mails to congressional interns.

Foley was the third Republican House member to resign under pressure in the past two years. A fourth, Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, abandoned a re-election bid before agreeing to plead guilty in the influence-peddling scandal that snared Abramoff and some associates.

Aside from the ethics issues, critics have called this a "do-nothing Congress," citing its failure on legislation to clean up how it does business, revamp the nation's immigration laws and overhaul the Social Security retirement program.

Lawmakers couldn't even agree on a new budget and have to return after the election to finish a number of must-pass federal spending bills.

WHAT THEY DID

Still the House and Senate passed a Bush-backed bill for tough interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists. But they have not yet agreed on a bill to give his warrantless domestic spying program congressional authorization.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist cited as accomplishments confirmation of two U.S. Supreme Court nominees and passage of legislation to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, renew the anti-terror Patriot Act and bolster port security.

"I'm very pleased where we are," said Frist, a Tennessee Republican who is retiring from Congress and eyeing a possible 2008 presidential bid.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who could lead the body if Democrats win control in November, said this has been "a make-matters-worse Congress for the working family in America."

Senate Republican Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky countered: "A lot of Americans have forgotten what Democrats do when they are in the majority. We are going to remind them."

If they seize control, Democrats vow to hold oversight hearings on such matters as whether the president manipulated facts to build support for Iraq war.

A survey released on Friday found broad public dissatisfaction with Congress as well as demand for action on such matters as global warming, immigration, energy, health care, Social Security and even old roads and bridges.

"If members of the next Congress want to be remembered as members of a 'Do-Something Congress' it must address these issues," Paul Light of New York University's Center for the Study of Congress said in releasing its report.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan and Vicki Allen)

Read More...

Summary only...

Derelictions Of Duty: How George Bush Has Disrespected Commanders and Hurt Our Troops

Huffington Post
Brent Budowsky
Derelictions Of Duty: How George Bush Has Disrespected Commanders and Hurt Our Troops

George W. Bush has now made one of the most appalling speeches in presidential history, comparing himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman and making charges against his opponents that should not be dignified by repeating.

It is time to set the record straight. Those who President Bush was really attacking were his commanders, his former Secretary of State, leaders of the NATO alliance among many others who have warned him of dangers and urged him to change course.

Time and time again, itemized in detail below, George Bush has shown contempt for his commanders, disrespected their advice, demeaned them publicly and privately, and taken action after action that directly harmed the safety of our troops and caused great damage to the mission and our national security.

In the Washington Post of September 26 I was both honored and outraged to read four full pages of American heroes lost in action in Iraq.

Honored because these young men and women, many of them 18 to 21 years of age, black, white, hispanic, asian, are truly the best that America has to offer. There are not words to fully express the honor they bring in the long line of American patriots, from the days of the Continental Army until every next morning in the America they defend for us.

Outraged because these American heroes deserved a damn sight better than they have gotten from the politicians in Washington and the nation that celebrates its tax cuts and housing bubbles while their blood is shed in the sands of the Middle East

What we have witnessed on a massive scale is a dereliction of duty of unparalleled proportion, from those who sent these young men and women to war, where they heroically did their duty, while politicians used them as cannon fodder for partisanship while committing derelictions of duty that did them great harm.

On issue after issue our hyper-partisan president has abused both the chain of command and his trust as commander in chief.

Congress should conduct televised public hearings, now, that would bring every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, every commander of the Iraq mission, and a significant number of enlisted men and women who have served in Iraq, to testify publicly and fully about what they truly believe about what should be done now.

They should be put under oath, not to question their truthfulness, but to protect them from any more abusive pressure or misrepresentation from civilians in the Administration or Congress.

And if Congress and our President can agree on any one thing, they should award a special and subtantial hardship bonus to every man and woman who has served in Iraq and in the cases of those who have left us, to their families who honor them, and make us proud to be their neighbors and fellow patriots.

It's high time we end this abuse of command influence, these attempts by the President and Secretary of Defense to ignore the advice of commanders, and to threaten or intimidate them into not speaking out, and then to publicly misrepresent their views.

I dare any Republican, I dare any conservative, I dare any neoconservative to put their name on paper and challenge any one of these blunt and true assertions:

This whole Iraq venture began when our commanders presented a war plan that would have required 400,000 troops.

I challenge the President and his partisans:

Is it not true that our commanders were bullied, beaten down and rudely and unprofessionally treated to force them into a war plan that they believed had far too troops for the mission?

Did our commanders not despise the shameful, unethical, and abusive treatment of General Eric Shinseki when he tried to warn us and was treated with ridicule and abuse by the neocons and our President?

Did it not do real damage for morale when General Shinseki was forced into early retirement while George Tenet and others who failed were given the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

Did not our commanders repeatedly, time and again throughout this venture, advise against inadequate troop strength, then be ordered to stop advocating what they believe is right, and read in the newspapers our President promising, falsely, that he always gives the commanders the troop levels they believe they need?

Do you not admit that at the very beginning of this unfortunate venture, grave damage was done to this mission by ignorant words and ignorant policies by a smirking President and arrogant Secretary of Defense when they spoke of Old Europe, when they made snide and condescending comments about NATO, when they guaranteed that this mission would never have the support that President George Herbert Walker Bush, who they also demeaned in the media at that time, achieved for the first Gulf War.

Do you not now admit with humble apologies you committed a grave injustice, and did real harm to our troops, when those with zero combat experience insulted a long list of retired generals as "armchair generals", when they spoke truth to power, and in fact spoke for a majority of active duty generals, despite false statements by ideologues and partisans to the contrary.

Did not our commanders warn against the failure to provide equipment that was so extreme and so dangerous that the Marine Corps pathologist found that up to 70% of our casualties were preventable, meaning their serious injuries and deaths were not caused by their mistakes, or the enemy's success, but by derelictions of duty on a massive scale by those who sent them to war but disrespected the advice of commanders.

Is it not true that our commanders time and again sought help, which was denied, to provide body armor, fortified vehicles, helmets, bandages and other equipment that civilian officials failed to provide, despite repeated, and false, claims that they always gave the commanders what those commanders sought.

Did our commanders not unanimously and aggressively oppose the use of torture which they unanimously and aggressively believe creates danger for our troops, tarnishes our reputation around the world, creates new terrorists and violates cardinal rules of war that they hold sacred?

Is it not 100% true that the torture practices advocated by this President directly disrespect two centuries of good advice and military ethics and directly violate the advice and good judgment of commanders today?

Is it not true that our commanders were repeatedly and aggressively subject to abusive interference, and pressure from civilians that would be grounds for court martial, if it did not come from the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense?

Is it not true that every commander is appalled and sickened by proposals to cut spending for brain injuries for wounded troops?

Is it not true that commanders and enlisted men are disgusted that civilian leaders have allowed a situation to continue that almost 20% of active duty troops face such extreme financial hardship they are forced to pay predatory lenders interest rates from 300% to nearly 800%?

Do you not confess that it is an unpardonable dereliction of duty that this is ever allowed to happen, to even one man or woman who wears the uniform of our country?

Is it not true that commanders were disgusted and appalled that they were ordered to never again say our leaders needed a post war plan for Iraq, and privately disgusted that they were threatened and bullied and told they would be fired by those who started a war with too few troops, and continued an occupation with too much corruption, and then demeaned the commanders who proposed a plan?

Is it not true that our commanders were appalled by the misuse and misrepresentation of intelligence that is so essential in deciding whether to wage war, and how conduct it, once it begins?

Do you deny that our commanders urgently requested reinforcements at Tora Bora when we could have killed Bin Laden and were outraged when the cavalry did not come to finish the kill, but were sent to Iraq instead by a President who always claimed, falsely, that he followed his commanders advice and now claims, falsely, that his political opponents offer nothing but cut and run which he, himself, did at Tora Bora?

Do you dispute that from day one commanders urged a far more visionary and serious effort for reconstruction of Afghanistan and warned, correctly, that if this were not forthcoming, which it was not, that the Taliban would come back, and the war lords and drug lords would triumph, which they have?

Do you not admit that our commanders were appalled that Republican operatives and Republican contributors were chosen for lucrative Iraq Reconstruction projects that saw at least $10 billion wasted, stolen and lost?

Do you not confess that our troops were gravely hurt by stolen money in corrupt contracts and crony deals, when that money should have gone to protect our troops, and help Iraqis who's hearts and minds we need to win?

Do you not admit that our commanders are appalled by scandal and negligence so rampant that the Iraqi police academy will have to be torn apart because urine and feces drip down on recruits, while corruption runs rampant among Iraqi police where many do not do their jobs, others shoot to kill Americans, and our troops suffer casualties doing the jobs that Iraqi police have refused to do, for all these years of the misbegotten venture?

Do you not confess that our commanders are appalled that Iraqi politicians are unwilling and unable to deal with murdering militias, who have stepped into the void created by the failure of Iraq police to stand up, and who spend half their time committing sectarian murder against each other, and the other half planning the murder of American troops?

Do you believe it serves democracy, our commanders or our troops when more than 60% of Iraqis support the killing of American troops, and more than 70% want our troops to leave within range of a year?

Do you question my assertion that time and time again, on issue after issue, at great cost to the mission and the troops, commanders faced political pressure and abuse, and were threatened not to speak their minds, while civilian leaders put on their American flag pins and went to their 4 of July picnics and stated, falsely, shamefully, that the commanders agree with every decision the civilians made, and get everything they privately ask for?

Is it not true today, that our commanders believe we need more American and NATO forces in Afghanistan?

Is it not true today, that our commanders will be forced to even greater distortions of troop rotations in Iraq, and that if the status quo continues unabated, some of the ten year old children we see on playgrounds today, will someday serve in Iraq based on the "stay the course" contingency plans that remain active today?

Do you not admit that the Senate Intelligence Committee report that you want covered up until after the election will countless false statements by high level officials who failed to tell the truth, about what was in the true interest of our troops?

Do you not agree that because of the stresses and distortions of our global force structures from this misbegotten and mismanaged venture our commanders believe there are major dangers in trouble spots around the world, that we could be unable to address under current conditions?

Do you concede that our current Chief of Staff of the Army is courageously resisting political pressures and refusing to support a budget he believes is bogus, and is fighting with honor for what he believes our troops in fact need?

Do you not admit that our commanders are asking for far more money than you have told the public, to replace outworn and often destroyed equipment that must urgently be replaced to protect the security of the Nation, and maintain a credible military deterrent, around the world.

Do you not accept the incontrovertible fact that our entire American intelligence community believes that the current Iraq war strategy is creating new terrorists, more terrorists, and great dangers and that our commanders have long been fighting like hell for policies that address political, diplomatic, economic and humanitarian issues that have been so devastatingly neglected by civilian leaders, over the objection of our commanders?

Do you not agree that our commanders are deeply offended by the spectacle of the leader of one our major "allies", Pakistan, making a deal that gives sanctuary to terrorists in parts of his nation, and then comes to Washington, and refuses to answer questions, because he has a book deal with his publisher, which takes priority over American lives?

Do you admit that the commanders and officer corps who have long advocated more effective reconstruction for Afghanistan are disgusted to see a Presidential dinner where leaders of two of our most important "allies" insult and demean each other, while our President sits at the table between them, five years after 9-11, looking like a pitiful and helpless spectator?

And do you not confess and admit that our commanders are appalled that ideologues run to talk shows and political speeches, and blow the winds of war from the lips of those who have done enough damage to our military for a lifetime, who have no experience in war themselves, but talk of a new war here, and a new war there, as though war is a dinner party discussion, or cheap talk show talk?

Do you not admit that it would be better for our commanders, for our troops, for our security if our entire nation was asked to contribute to whatever war effort we undertake together?

Do you not agree is it shameful that 1% of our country makes close to 100% of the sacrifice, that some are asked to die in Arabia while others guzzle gas in their cars, that some give their lives and limbs for our country while others enjoy tax cuts, discuss housing bubbles, and watch oil executives pocket hundreds of millions of dollars of personal wealth?

I am madder than hell because on issue after issue, the commanders have been right, the civilians have been wrong, the commanders have been ignored or disrespected, while the civilians use the troops as partisan weapons, then fail to provide the troops what they need, an inexcusable dereliction.

I dare any conservative, I dare any Republican, I dare any neoconservative to put pen to paper, and stand up with honor, and put your name and reputation behind it, and tell me which of these assertions you claim is not true.

Therefore: to initiate the long overdue debate and end these shameful derelictions of duty, Congress should call nationally televised hearings that would bring our Joint Chiefs of Staff, our commanders and representative enlisted men and women to public testimony to tell the country what they really believe.

With no more political influence, no more spin and no more pressure, no more partisan abuse and no more threats, no more lies and no more speeches by our president that demean the presidency, and divide the Nation, and further endanger the troops, and further alienate and anger the free world.

Now with the intelligence estimate made public for all the world to see, we know the facts they truly believe. With a new book coming out by Bob Woodward, which will add to the tales of misrepresentation, failure and abuse. With a country that hungers for leadership and for integrity and honor in Washington, let us end this dereliction of duty that has gone on, for far too long, at too great a cost, with too much blood, with too many dead, with too much damage done to our country.

We owe a debt to every man and woman who has ever served our country, to every man and woman who serves anywhere in the world today, and to every man and woman who will ever serve as guardian of our freedom to be the best that we can be ourselves, and to be the best that we can be, for them.

We must not be remembered as a generation that fell to dereliction, we should aspire to be a generation that will pay the price to reach for greatness, to leave the young who follow us, the world that they deserve.

Read More...

Summary only...

Who's a terrorist?

Read More...

Summary only...

Neoconomics

Read More...

Summary only...

Story of Osama's demise

Read More...

Summary only...

Geneva, um, suggestions

Read More...

Summary only...

John McCain 2000: The Swiftboaters First Mission

Huffington Post
Dave Johnson
John McCain 2000: The Swiftboaters First Mission

This piece originally appeared on The Patriot Project

Imagine that it's 1997, and you're a strategist trying to figure out how to get George W. Bush, of all people, into the White House. Your candidate's record is, to put it mildly, not so great: he had been elected Governor of Texas in 1994 and before that ... well ... never mind.

His term as government is marked by cronyism and corruption, and if elected to the nation's highest office it promises to be more of the same.

If you're going to win this you will need to mask your candidate's record and agenda. You need a strategy that turns your opponents' advantages into disadvantages, and, most important, that distracts everyone from your own candidate's awful record. And to accomplish this you need a team that is willing and cynical enough to do what it is going to take to sell your guy. Bush's top strategist Karl Rove learned his licks alongside Lee Atwater. Rove and Atwater went back a long ways,

Back in 1972, the 22-year-old Rove was a candidate for chairman of the College Republicans. The rambunctious Atwater was his Southern regional coordinator.

What kind of campaigning schooling did Rove receive? In 1981 Atwater, then a Reagan strategist, said in an interview,

You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.

In 1988, Atwater ran Bush's father's campaign against Michael Dukakis,

During the election, a number of false rumors were reported in the media about Dukakis, including the claim by Idaho Republican Senator Steve Symms that Dukakis's wife Kitty had burned an American flag to protest the Vietnam War, as well as the claim that Dukakis himself had been treated for a mental illness.

Rove's own background follows a similarly questionable ethical path,

Rove's first foray into politics involved gaining entry to the office of Alan Dixon--a candidate for state treasurer in Illinois in 1970--stealing some campaign stationery and printing and distributing a fake invitation to Dixon's campaign headquarters, promising "free beer, free food, girls, and a good time."

Later, working for Nixon's "dirty tricks" team,

...Rove infiltrated Democratic organizations on behalf of Nixon's infamous 1972 campaign. Rove's formidable talents came to the attention of George Bush Senior, then incoming Republican National Committee chairman, and the rest is history.

Finally, in Texas,

In 1986, Rove, by then in Texas, announced that his office had been bugged by Democrats during a gubernatorial race. The accusation, which spurred an FBI investigation, never panned out, leading some critics to charge that Rove had bugged his own phone.

So you've got your Rove on. Next, you line up your operatives - people like Tom Synhorst and Ralph Reed. If you've got a stinker to sell, it's a good idea turn to the very best at selling real stinkers. Tobacco marketers were so good that they could convince people to kill themselves with your product and hand over their money to you in the process!

Before moving into political consulting, Tom Synhorst had been employed by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company coordinating RJR's "grassroots" efforts. Later he had worked on George W Bush's 1994 campaign for Governor of Texas. Mother Jones, in 1996's groundbreaking story Tobacco Dole,

Synhorst ... illustrate[s] an important aspect of the tobacco industry's survival plan: Create grassroots front groups to make pro-tobacco legislation handed down by state and national politicians appear to be the public's will. These groups, many posing as "anti-tax" organizations, are key to the tobacco industry's efforts to win over the anti-big government segment of the electorate.

Known as the "Johnny Appleseed of Astroturf," Synhorst founded the firm Direct Connect, Inc., or DCI in 1988. DCI continued to work for tobacco companies as well as political campaigns and the NRA, specializing in "strategic message development and delivery," and using Astroturf methods to make it appear to members of Congress that there was popular support for their positions.

Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition (and now implicated as part of the Abramoff lobbying/corruption ring) is a help, because at some point you want to get your candidate in front of the leaders and followers of the theocratic Right - and especially get their machine behind you. Reed was probably helpful in facilitating a relationship between Bush and the Council for National Policy. (See here, here, here, here and here)

(And if you want to mask Reed's involvement, just "park" him at Enron and Microsoft. (see also) According to CNN,

The White House acknowledged Friday that in 1997, as George W. Bush was deciding whether to run for president, his senior political adviser Karl Rove recommended GOP strategist Ralph Reed for a consulting job with Enron Corp. Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, went to work for Enron as a strategist, making from $10,000 to $20,000 a month, according to The New York Times.

After you've got your operative ducks in a row there's those pesky primaries to get through (ask Joe Lieberman about that). In the primaries you face John McCain, an experienced Senator, a man perceived as a military hero who had spent five years as a POW, and as an honest "straight talker." If you are a strategist for George W. Bush, of all people, how do you go up against that?

And following the primaries you still have the general election where you'll be up against Al Gore, the most involved Vice President in history, coming from four years of peace and prosperity, a former seminary student, Vietnam veteran, with one of the strongest records of any Senator.

One of the advantages you have for the coming campaign is... almost all the money in the world.

Turning McCain's record into a liability - how they did it.

If you're really, really cynical, why not turn a record of honorable record of military service and dedication to America into a liability!

From Patriot Project's The Swiftboaters Are Back in the Water,

... Bush surrogates (several later involved in the Kerry swiftboating effort) skillfully turned McCain's service record against him (thereby deflecting questions about Bush's own service record.) They planted stories that the torture McCain suffered as a POW had brought about mental instability, including rumors that he had been programmed as a "Manchurian candidate" who "collaborated with the enemy." No longer could McCain use the fact that he had endured torture as evidence of dedication to serving his country.

And as explained in Patriot Project's Did Paul Galanti Sell His Medals,

In the 2000 South Carolina Presidential primary Bush surrogates circulated stories that McCain's five years as a POW had made him "mentally unstable," gave him a "loose screw," that he "committed treason while a POW" and "came home and forgot us." The stories also called McCain "the fag candidate," called his wife a drug addict, said McCain "chose to sire children without marriage" and had "a black child" (the actual wording of that last smear from the flyers and e-mails that circulated is not printable here).

And when McCain responded by asking whether this kind of smear campaign showed that voters should think twice about trusting Bush, saying Bush was "twisting the truth like Clinton," Rove was able to turn that against McCain¸ by accusing McCain of "going negative." Unlike Rove and Bush, McCain hadn't understood the value of attacking with surrogates.

This information was passed using flyers, e-mails, word-of-mouth and "push polls." As McCain's campaign manager, Richard H. Davis, later wrote in his article about what happened, The anatomy of a smear campaign that,

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

But other Bush surrogates threw smoke into the air, accusing the media of making up the whole story

Synhorst's firm specialized in push-polling. According to a Feb. 11, 2000 Washington Post story,

[Bush campaign spokesman Ari] Fleischer said the advocacy calls were being made by the firm of Feathers, Hodges, Larson and Synhorst, a Phoenix-based company that has worked extensively for the Bush campaign to identify and turn out voters in key states.

Reed also had his own background in nasty, smearing push polling. According to Josh Marshall,

Back in 1996 Reed was the one who helped save Bob Dole in Iowa by orchestrating a campaign of so-called "push-polls" attacking rival candidate Steve Forbes for, among other things, tolerating his father's "alternative lifestyle."

And, also according to Marshall,

Reed's frequent partner in "astroturf" work is Tom Synhorst. Let's run through some of his exploits in the "astroturf" biz. Synhorst's main shop is Direct Connect Inc., DCI. DCI did the "astroturf" work for the 'Health Benefits Coalition,' trying to kill the Health Care Bill of Rights back in 1998 (Nat. Journal July 11, '98); DCI also spearheaded various efforts by the tobacco industry and the NRA; it also helped set up Americans for Competitive Technology and Americans for Technology Leadership, two Microsoft front groups agitating against the Justice Department's antitrust suit.

(Remember that Reed working for Microsoft at the same time as he was employed as a Bush campaign strategist.)

And finally, let's bring in the Wyly Brothers. The Wyly Brothers ran their own smear-McCain operation. According to the Dallas Morning News,

During Mr. Bush's 2000 primary fight with John McCain, the [Wyly] brothers backed a $2.5 million television ad campaign praising Mr. Bush's environmental record in Texas and attacking Mr. McCain's Senate votes. Until that point, it was Mr. Bush whose record had come under fire from environmental groups.
The ad's sponsor was identified only as "Republicans for Clean Air," a new group at the time...

So what is up with McCain today, turning around and joining up with the very foes who smeared him in 2000?

From the Dallas News story,

Earlier this year, the Wylys' relationship with Mr. McCain took a surprising turn. They each sent $10,000 checks to his political action committee and were set to co-sponsor a Dallas fundraiser on his behalf.

And from ABC's April 23, 06 story, Gearing Up for '08? McCain Befriends Old Enemies,

Also co-chairing the [McCain] event are Rob Allyn, a Texas PR man who was paid $46,000 to produce the Wylys' "Republicans for Clean Air" ads, and businessmen Albert Huddleston and Harold Simmons, who gave $100,000 and $3 million respectively to the controversial independent group, "Swift Vets & POWs for Truth." McCain called "dishonest and dishonorable" the "Swift Vets" group's 2004 campaign ads that helped sink the presidential chances of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

... Also co-chairing the event are Rob Allyn, a Texas PR man who was paid $46,000 to produce the Wylys' "Republicans for Clean Air" ads, and businessmen Albert Huddleston and Harold Simmons, who gave $100,000 and $3 million respectively to the controversial independent group, "Swift Vets & POWs for Truth." McCain called "dishonest and dishonorable" the "Swift Vets" group's 2004 campaign ads that helped sink the presidential chances of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

... McCain has been criticized by many liberals and pundits in recent weeks for agreeing to speak on May 13 at Liberty University, the school founded by Christian conservative Rev. Jerry Falwell, who McCain in 2000 labeled "an agent of intolerance." McCain told NBC's Tim Russert earlier this month that he no longer held that opinion.
"The, quote, 'Christian Right' has a major role to play in the Republican Party," McCain said. "One reason is because they're so active, and their followers are."

Interestingly the Wyly Brothers may have gotten the money to smear McCain from Texas taxpayers, with Bush's help. But that's a story for later...

John Dean, in the preface to his book Conservatives Without Conscience, writes,

How do people - particularly those who have never put their life on the line fot their country - engage in, or condone, attacks on Senator John McCain's life-defining experiences as a Vietnam POW or question Senator Ma Cleland's courage in building a new life after his loss of three limbs in Vietnam? What causes them to dispute Senator John Kerry's valor during voluntary combat duty in Vietnam or to contest Representative Jack Murtha's war record in Vietnam? ... These questions have clear answers. ... In fact, these people cannot be trusted to exercise the powers of government responsibly.


The Patriot Project is working to expose the front groups, their funding, their connections and their tactics.

Read More...

Summary only...

CREW Calls For House To Appoint Outside Counsel To Investigate Foley Page Scandal

CREW Calls For House To Appoint Outside Counsel To Investigate Foley Page Scandal

Contact: Naomi Seligman Steiner of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 202-841-5096; http://www.citizensforethics.org

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today called upon the House of Representatives to appoint an outside counsel to investigate the House leadership's role in covering up Rep. Mark Foley's (R-FL) inappropriate email exchanges with a sixteen-year-old former House page.

Several members of the Republican leadership have now admitted to knowing for nearly a year that Rep. Foley engaged in email exchanges with a sixteen-year-old former House page. These members, including Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Reps. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), John Shimkus (R-IL) and Tom Reynolds (R-NY) have all claimed that they failed to take action because the boy's parents did not want to pursue the matter. The decision not to investigate further left other House pages unprotected and vulnerable to a potential sexual predator.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) decision to have Rep. Shimkus review the page system is particularly ludicrous, given that it was Rep. Shimkus who, despite having been made aware that the boy and his parents were concerned about Rep. Foley's emails, readily accepted Rep. Foley's explanation that he was merely mentoring the boy. Rep. Shimkus is the chairman of the House page board.

Although the matter allegedly was raised before the House page board, the failure to insulate pages from further contact with Rep. Foley and the failure to implement measures to protect the pages suggests that the leadership failed to take the matter seriously.

Because the House leadership has demonstrated a shocking lack of judgment in dealing with Rep. Foley's conduct, those in charge cannot now be trusted to examine the matter candidly. To ensure a thorough investigation of this sordid episode and the roles of everyone involved, it is imperative that the House immediately appoint an outside counsel. To that end, the chairman and the ranking member of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Reps. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Howard Berman (D-CA) respectively, should jointly choose an outside counsel with prosecutorial experience to get to the bottom of this sorry affair. It is the very least the House can do for the teenagers entrusted to its care.

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said today, "It is horrifying to learn that some members of Congress were more concerned with covering up a potentially embarrassing situation than with protecting the teenage pages." Sloan continued, "the American people, and particularly the parents of other pages, have a right to know if congressional leaders put politics above the safety of children."

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

Read More...

Summary only...

Congress Approves Reid/Clinton Legislation Requiring Bush Administration to Report Regularly on Conditions in Darfur

Congress Approves Reid/Clinton Legislation Requiring Bush Administration to Report Regularly on Conditions in Darfur

Contact: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939, both of the Office of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid; or Sen. Clinton's Press Office, 202-224-2243

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Legislation authored by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) requiring the Administration to report regularly on violations of the peace and on U.S. assistance to peacekeeping in Darfur was included in the Department of Defense Authorization Act conference report. The Reid-Clinton measure combined amendments that were authored independently by Senators Reid and Clinton earlier this year, largely to sustain U.S. engagement on the crisis in Darfur. "The situation in Darfur is one of the most pressing humanitarian crises we face," said Reid. "The Defense Appropriations Bill included the funding needed for security, but we must make sure Congress has the information necessary to ensure that there is sustained U.S. engagement on this issue. Hopefully, this legislation will be another step towards bringing a comprehensive peace to the region." "The continued suffering of children and families in Darfur is unacceptable. More than 200,000 civilians have lost their lives and as many as three to four million now depend on aid.

The President of Sudan continues to defy the U.N. Security Council, the African Union, and even other Sudanese officials. Meanwhile, we continue to receive reports of a major Sudanese offensive that violates international laws. While we push for action to stop the violence, this reporting will help sustain attention to this crisis," said Senator Clinton. The first Darfur report is expected in 90 days, and like subsequent reports, it requires the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretary of State to describe (1) violations of the Darfur Peace Agreement and delays in its implementation, including those related to demobilization of the Janjaweed, returns of displaced people, and security for relief operations; (2) the African Union Mission in Sudan's (AMIS) ability to perform its duties; (3) U.S. assistance to the AMIS and possible U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur; and (4) U.S. efforts to amass peacekeepers from other countries for the U.N. mission in Darfur. Senators Reid and Clinton also applauded Congressional passage of legislation they co-sponsored with Senators Obama and Durbin, providing an additional $20 million to peacekeepers in Sudan. This legislation was part of a Department of Defense Appropriations bill that will soon be signed into law by the President.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

Read More...

Summary only...

Report Says Rove Aide Accepted Abramoff Gifts

washingtonpost.com
Report Says Rove Aide Accepted Abramoff Gifts
By James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers

A top aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove passed along inside White House information to superlobbyist Jack Abramoff at a time when she was also accepting his tickets to nine sports and entertainment events, according to e-mails released yesterday in a bipartisan congressional report.

The e-mails, released by the House Government Reform Committee, show that Susan Ralston also on occasion discussed possible business ventures with Abramoff. Ralston had worked for Abramoff before joining Rove in the White House in 2001.

White House contacts with Abramoff have been the focus of heated interest in Washington since he pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges earlier this year. Although the committee report documents that Abramoff's lobbying team billed their clients for more than 400 contacts with White House officials over three years, it remains unclear what results Abramoff obtained.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) seized on the report yesterday: "A disgraced lobbyist traded perks and campaign contributions for special access to the Bush White House."

But White House press secretary Tony Snow disagreed.

"Jack Abramoff was an exuberant practitioner of sleaze to the point that it's very difficult within the report itself to figure out how many actual contacts there are," Snow said.

The report identified 66 Abramoff contacts with the White House, more than half of them with Ralston. Members of Abramoff's lobbying team at Greenberg Traurig LLP contacted Ralston 69 times.

Ralston has declined to comment on the report.

The report indicates that Abramoff was largely ineffective at placing people in key positions in the administration, apparently failing to win any of the appointments he sought.

When Ralston came through for Abramoff, it often was in relatively minor ways. On Oct. 21, 2001, Ralston e-mailed Abramoff that Rove had read an Abramoff memo about a political endorsement in an obscure race in the Mariana Islands. Ralston reported back to Abramoff that Rove had agreed, writing in an e-mail the next day: "You win :)"

Ralston also informed the Abramoff team about possible political appointees. But there is no evidence that Rove knew or approved of Ralston's actions.

She told Abramoff and his associates that she passed messages and documents to Rove, but the committee report did not confirm that she had done so. On Feb. 21, 2001, Ralston e-mailed Abramoff lobbyist Todd A. Boulanger: "Thanks for breakfast. I showed KR the binder. . . . He gave the binder to Mehlman to read cover to cover and to be prepared." Ken Mehlman was then the White House political director.

Mehlman, now the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said yesterday that he talked on occasion with members of the Abramoff team but does not specifically recall the issues raised. "When they come to me with ideas and issues, I would let relevant policymakers know," he said. "The job of the political director is to meet with interested parties."

Mehlman said everything he engaged in "was aboveboard, all stuff that was appropriate."

Ralston also helped Rove get tickets from Abramoff for a game in the NCAA basketball tournament, but Ralston told Abramoff that he "has to pay." The White House confirmed yesterday that Rove paid for the tickets.

But Ralston apparently did not pay for tickets she accepted to MCI Center events -- including two concerts featuring rocker Bruce Springsteen and singer Andrea Bocelli, three Capitals hockey games and a Wizards basketball game -- and seats at a Baltimore Orioles baseball game at Camden Yards.

On seven occasions, Ralston requested tickets, the report said. "You got 'em," Abramoff e-mailed Ralston when she asked in December 2001 for four prime Wizards tickets valued at $1,300, the report said.

In 2004, Ralston e-mailed Abramoff that she was "willing to pay" for Capitals tickets, but he replied, "No problem, and you don't have to pay!" In 2003, she thanked him for his "generosity" in providing Orioles tickets.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the counsel's office is examining the report to determine whether ethics regulations were violated. Rules prohibit the acceptance of gifts worth more than $20 from anyone doing business with the government.

Ralston and Abramoff also discussed future business plans at least twice, the report said.

In February 2002, Ralston, Abramoff and Ben Waldman, an Abramoff business partner in his fraudulent purchase of a casino cruise line in Florida, exchanged e-mails about an aircraft leasing venture. In November 2002, Ralston and Abramoff exchanged e-mails about an idea to form a defense or homeland security contracting company.

Ralston expressed interest but said she thought it would take a lot of research to get the company off the ground. But she was committed to the White House, she said. "It would take a serious amount of money for me to be lured away so unless you're really serious and can make it worth my while, let's wait until 2005." Abramoff agreed, writing, "I am not in a position to offer you serious money for this right now."

Read More...

Summary only...

Fox Chief's Tables Are Turned and Attitude is Different; Roger Ailes Aided Bush 41 in Famous Dan Rather Interview

ABC News
Fox Chief's Tables Are Turned and Attitude is Different
Roger Ailes Aided Bush 41 in Famous Dan Rather Interview
By DEAN REYNOLDS

Sept. 29, 2006 — - Fox News Chief Roger Ailes says Bill Clinton's response to Fox anchor Chris Wallace's question about efforts he made to pursue Osama Bin Laden was an "assault on all journalists."

"If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," Ailes said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. "All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, `hold on a second.'"

But Mr. Ailes is no stranger to interview subjects who fire back at journalists.

The year was 1988. Vice President George H. W. Bush was getting ready to run for the presidency, occupied for 8 years by Ronald Reagan.

Bush had been a good vice president -- meaning he had never gotten out of Reagan's shadow. That's when a big opportunity presented itself.

The CBS News beckoned. Anchorman Dan Rather was offering prime exposure: a live interview on the Evening News for Bush. It was too good to pass up.

And too dangerous not to be fully, and I mean fully, prepared.

So when the hour approached for the interview, Bush sat down with his campaign guru Roger Ailes (Yes, the same Ailes who now runs Fox News) and mapped out how the interview should go. Literally.

As ABC's Howard Rosenberg, then of CBS News, recalls:

"I was co-producer of the set-up piece for that interview. Not only was Ailes cuing then VP Bush, the former President himself told Sam Donaldson in an interview in 2000 that his campaign had a person on the inside at CBS who was feeding them intelligence about what questions Rather was going to ask.

"Bush's feigned surprise at the questioning about Iran-Contra (the scandal involving arms for hostages that almost capsized the Reagan presidency) set up the infamous assault on Rather.

Note: Rather was vulnerable because of his infamous departure from the Evening News set when the network permitted a televised tennis match to run into news time. When the match ended and the network switched to the Evening News, there was no Rather -- for many uncomfortable minutes.

So when Rather pressed Bush on his role, if any, in the scandal, the vice president pounced:

Reading from cue cards Ailes was holding up for him, Bush asked, "How would you like your whole career judged by that seven minutes when you walked off the set in Miami?"

Rather never really recovered.

Read More...

Summary only...

Powell Tried to Warn Bush on Iraq, Book Says

The New York Times
Powell Tried to Warn Bush on Iraq, Book Says
By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — Colin L. Powell, in his last face-to-face meeting with President Bush before stepping down as secretary of state in January 2005, tried to impress upon him one last time the dangers he saw the United States facing in Iraq, according to a new Powell biography.

The insurgency was growing and the country was spiraling into sectarian bloodshed, Mr. Powell warned. Elections in Iraq would not solve the problems, and the president’s ability to act decisively was being crippled by divisions within his own administration, according to the account in "Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell" (Knopf, 2006) by Karen DeYoung, an associate editor at The Washington Post. Mr. Bush appeared disengaged, the book says, and brushed off Mr. Powell’s complaints about dysfunction in his government.

The book is among the latest accounts of the divisions in the administration as it hurtled toward war and stumbled through its aftermath. The Powell biography provides further detail on his early misgivings about the war and the size of the force assembled to fight it, doubts that have been reported in several other books, including those by Ms. DeYoung’s colleague at The Post, Bob Woodward.

Despite his doubts, however, Mr. Powell never threatened to resign or go public with his complaints, according to these accounts, because such acts would betray the ethic of the loyal soldier he felt he was.

A 7,600-word excerpt from the Powell biography appears in Sunday’s Washington Post Magazine. The book’s publication date is Oct. 10.

Mr. Powell, who gave Ms. DeYoung several interviews for her book and encouraged others to cooperate, said in a telephone interview on Saturday that he had not read the book or the excerpts. He did not take issue with portions read to him, except to question the context of one anecdote involving an exchange with Vice President Dick Cheney.

“The real issue right now is not the various books that are out but how things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Mr. Powell said. He would not share his views on the current state of affairs there, however.

A White House spokesman said officials there had not read the book and would not comment.

Since leaving office last year, Mr. Powell has kept his views to himself, with a few notable exceptions. He was openly critical of the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina last year and weighed in vigorously in the debate over treatment of detainees in the war on terror.

He has quietly cooperated with Ms. DeYoung, Mr. Woodward and other authors, while keeping his counsel in public on Iraq, the broader war on terrorism and the diplomatic struggles of his successor at the State Department, Condoleezza Rice. He does not want to undermine the president, but he also wants to make sure that his point of view is accurately reflected in histories, associates said.

“It’s a matter of behaving with dignity when you’re out of office,” said Richard L. Armitage, Mr. Powell’s former deputy and his closest confidant. “You don’t want to be seen as criticizing those who took your place. On differences of principle, like the Geneva Conventions, he will speak out. On differences of approach, he probably will not.”

In answer to those who ask why he has not been more outspoken, Mr. Powell generally replies, “There’s a war on.”

The common thread of many of the recent accounts is of warnings ignored about flaws in the prewar intelligence, in the war-fighting doctrine and in plans for occupying the shattered country. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, dismissed some of these accounts as the grumblings of people on the losing side of internal arguments.

The Powell biography fleshes out a tale already widely known in Washington of infighting among Mr. Powell, Mr. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense. Mr. Powell, who served as secretary of state through Mr. Bush’s first term, came out on the losing end of the majority of their arguments.

The book provides an inside account of the preparation for Mr. Powell’s pivotal presentation before the United Nations six weeks before the start of the Iraq war in March 2003. Mr. Powell told Ms. DeYoung that he spent much of the five days he had to prepare for the presentation “trimming the garbage” that Mr. Cheney’s staff had provided by way of evidence of Iraq’s weapons programs and ties to Al Qaeda.

Mr. Powell later conceded that the United Nations speech was full of falsehoods and distorted intelligence and was a “blot” on his record.

Running throughout this book and other recent accounts are the defeats and humiliations Mr. Powell suffered in service to Mr. Bush. Though Mr. Powell remained an admired figure in America, it was not enough to protect him against attacks.

“There are people who would like to take me down,” he is quoted as saying while motioning toward the White House during his last year in office. “It’s been the case since I was appointed. By take down, I mean, ‘keep him in his place.’ ”

Read More...

Summary only...

Reid: America Deserves Better on Port, Transit Security

Reid: America Deserves Better on Port, Transit Security

Contact: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939, both of the Office of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement, which was entered into the Congressional Record.

"Mr. President, the days before a long recess are always a hectic time as we scramble to complete our work. This conference took a lot longer then it needed to take and the events leading up to the filing of this report represents an abuse of the process. The Senate passed this bill three weeks ago, but the House waited until yesterday to appoint conferees. The conferees held one perfunctory public meeting last night where no bill language was provided, no amendments allowed and no votes taken in public. In fact, there seemed to be more interest by the majority conferees in determining what additional unrelated bills could be jammed into this conference overnight and not on improving our homeland security.

"These types of shenanigans really show a lack of respect for the members of this institution and a disregard for the serious task at hand.

"I was encouraged when this bill passed the Senate three weeks ago. Senators from both sides of the aisle worked together to pass a transportation security bill for seaports, mass transit, freight rail, and commercial aviation systems and actually extended expiring customs fees in an attempt to pay for some of the new port security initiatives.

"Three weeks later after negotiations with the House, all but the port security initiatives were dropped at the insistence of the House Republicans, despite overwhelming support in the Senate. The new initiatives for mass transit and freight rail systems would have fulfilled an important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Report, which recommended that the Federal Government address a much broader range of transportation security issues in addition to those undertaken in commercial aviation.

"A Democratic amendment adopted in the Senate also would have provided a source of funding to fund some of the new port initiatives in the bill, given the fact that we are not adequately funding current port security programs. This meager attempt to begin to fund these programs was also dropped at the insistence of the House Republicans.

"It has now been five years since the attack on the World Trade Center and little has been done to make our transportation systems more secure other then the obvious improvements in commercial aviation. There is no urgency by this Administration. One gets the feeling that they believe these transportation security issues are really not a federal responsibility and instead should be funded by state and local governments or the private sector. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff scoffed at the idea of spending money to protect Americans who use mass transit, noting that a bomb in a subway car would kill only 30 people. Other Republicans, including Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Henkey, have said that they think rail and transit security should be a state and local or private responsibility.

"Democrats believe government cannot 'pass the buck' on protecting Americans from the threat of a deadly terrorist attack to the private sector or to our already-squeezed state and local governments.

"The U.S. mass transit industry has said it needs $5.2 billion in capital expenditures from the federal government to protect American citizens from deadly terrorist attacks. But, since 2003, the federal government has only invested a total of roughly $400 million in transit and rail security for the entire country, compared to $20 billion on aviation security during that same period. President Bush's FY2007 budget completely eliminated rail and transit security grants and intercity bus grants, which were funded at paltry amounts in 2006.

"This is just another example of misplaced priorities. According to the RAND Corporation, there are about 30 terrorist attacks on trains and rail-related targets per year. Our close allies in Britain, Spain, and India have been the victims of deadly terrorist attacks on rail and transit targets in recent years. Yet Republicans stripped rail security out of this bill so they could add unrelated provisions.

"I am proud of the work of the Democratic caucus on this bill and on earlier homeland security measures. It was a Democratically controlled Senate that passed a landmark aviation security bill and a comprehensive port security bill immediately after 9/11 -- over the objections of the Republican controlled House and the White House. These bills acknowledged for the first time that securing our maritime trade and our commercial air passenger system were national security responsibilities of the federal government and should not be relegated to contractors or the private sector. Similarly, Democrats have led the way in developing and pushing security measures during this Congress related to ports, freight rail, aviation and mass transit and I am proud of the work the caucus has done on this bill.

"The port security provisions in here reflect a lot of hard work and bipartisan effort, so are worthy of our support. But, I don't take a lot of pride in giving the American people half a loaf when it comes to security. I think all in all, this is another time that the Republican majority has let the American people down. And I hope that the American people are sick of half a loaf and will agree with me on the need for a new direction."

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

Read More...

Summary only...

One Year After Florida Law Took Effect, Six Dead, Two Others Wounded, and Killers Hoping to Walk Away Scot Free

One Year After Florida Law Took Effect, Six Dead, Two Others Wounded, and Killers Hoping to Walk Away Scot Free

Contact: Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 202-289-5792

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

A year ago, when Florida became the first state in America to implement what the gun lobby calls the "Stand Your Ground" law and what others called the "Shoot First" law, opponents of the law said it would empower overly aggressive individuals to use more force than necessary, and because it could also weaken the criminal penalties against some individuals who ought to be punished severely for their actions.

Both those assertions have proven true. In five highly questionable Florida deaths, the law is being used by killers in efforts to avoid conviction for a crime, and one of those deaths predated the law by almost a year. Another homicide, in Kentucky, was downgraded to manslaughter after that state followed Florida's lead and passed an identical statute. In that case, a crack addict used the law to get off with a lighter sentence after beating his drug dealer to death with a lamp.

In Florida, two gang members are using it to avoid conviction for shooting a nine year old girl, a tow truck driver is using it to avoid a murder conviction after shooting an unarmed man whose car had been towed, another man shot a neighbor twice for putting too much garbage out at the curb and a shop owner shot a suspicious character in his store five times. Just two weeks ago, a South Florida man shot his neighbor for walking his dog on his lawn. He's been charged with murder but intends to use a "shoot first" defense.

In another case, a taxi driver who killed an unarmed, nearly incoherently drunk passenger for not getting out of his cab fast enough nearly a year before Florida's law took effect is hoping to be able to use it as a defense because it might get him acquitted

The parents of a young Miami girl who was caught in the crossfire of a gang shootout say they want to collect enough signatures on a petition to get the law repealed, and a Tampa man who is still stunned that the neighbor who shot him hasn't been charged wants to become an activist also. "I want, with every fiber in my being, to have this law changed," wrote Jason Rosenbloom, 30. "It is too vague and too dangerous and allows not only civilians the freedom to shoot, but sociopaths, also."

Following are summaries of most of the cases so far.

-- Sherdavia Jenkins, 9, of Liberty City, Miami died July 1, 2006. Sherdavia was shot on her front porch by a stray bullet from a gunfight between two men. Defendants Damon "Red Rock" Darling and Leroy "Yellowman" Larose intend to use the Shoot First Law as their defense at trial: Since they were firing at each other, whichever is charged with firing the bullet that struck Sherdavia is expected to use the law's blessing of accidentally shooting bystanders while defending oneself to avoid conviction. ( Miami Herald, 8-22-06, http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15329156.htm )

-- James Adam Clem, 27, beat Keith Newberg to death with a bronze lamp in Clem's apartment on August 9, 2004 in Lexington, Kentucky. This summer, he accepted a manslaughter deal and will be eligible for parole in several months. "One of our concerns was, if we couldn't understand it (the law) ourselves, how are we going to get a jury to understand it?" said Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Kimberly Henderson Baird. (Lexington Herald Leader, 8-3-06)

-- Robert Lee Smiley Jr. a West Palm Beach taxi driver who killed a drunk fare, Jimmie Morningstar, 43 in November 2004. His first trial ended in a hung jury in June. He is now to start a retrial in December and awaits a Florida Supreme Court ruling next year on whether "Shoot First" applies retroactively. Smiley is arguing the shooting was in self-defense. The prosecutor disagrees "'What he is is a killer,' (prosecutor Andy) Slater told jurors. 'Mr. Smiley was an agitated, angry man with a short fuse.'" (Palm Beach Post, 7-1-06)

-- Kenneth Allen, 58, twice shot his neighbor, Jason Rosenbloom, 30, in early June 2006. Rosenbloom went to Allen's house to complain that Allen had complained to the local government about trash and debris in Rosenbloom's yard. "I was no threat. I had no weapon... He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn't even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest," Rosenbloom told the New York Times. (New York Times, 8-7-06)

-- Doug Freeman, shot Vincent Hudson, 26, five times in his electronics store in Jacksonville May 31, 2006 because he was reaching for a bulge in his pocket. Hudson survived. Freeman says he shot and killed another man in self-defense 10 years ago, a shooting in which he wounded his wife. Duval County State Attorney Harry Shorstein has sided with Hudson but said the new law played a role in the decision not to prosecute. "It's caused a general expansion of self defense, which makes all issues of self defense more favorable to the defendant or the suspect than ever before. It's also created a greater propensity to use deadly force than existed before. There's a lesser sensitivity to gun violence and death, and that's not good. The last thing we need in Jacksonville is a greater use of deadly force." ( Florida Times-Union, www.jacksonville.com/tu- online/stories/071006/met_22294481.shtml )

-- Michael Brady, 43, shot and killed Justin Boyette, 23, a drunk man, on his lawn in Winter Haven, Florida on April 12, 2006. Boyette's friend, Eric Wagner, said Boyette was not going to strike Brady, but wanted to shake his hand. "A lot of people are going to die as soon as people figure out this law. All you have to say is 'I was afraid,' and you can blow someone away." Brady said "I'm having a hard time dealing with this psychologically. Unfortunately, I had to make a decision that day that changed my life forever. I wish I could turn back time." (Orlando Sentinel, 6-11-06)

-- Donald Montanez, 45, a Tampa tow truck driver, shot and killed Glen Demar Rich in a tow lot Jan. 8, 2006. He was charged with second-degree murder and intends to defend himself under the year-old law. (Tampa Tribune, 2-4-06) "When the victim and three friends arrived to retrieve the car, Montanez pointed a handgun at them. The victim unlocked his vehicle and attempted to drive away. Montanez then fired his weapon - a .40-caliber Sig Sauer with laser sights - shattering the front passenger window and hitting the victim under his right arm." (Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office press release)

-- Christopher Cote, 19, of The Acreage, Florida was shot twice with a shotgun and killed by his neighbor, Jose Tapanes, 62, September 17 after an argument began when Cote walked his dog on Tapanes' property. Tapanes has been charged with first-degree murder and intends to defend himself under the young law. "Tapanes' behavior has concerned (neighbor Wade) Taylor for years. Like the time Tapanes said he thought Osama Bin Laden lived in the home next door. Or when Tapanes yelled at Taylor for cutting his grass because Tapanes wanted it to grow wild so snakes could live there." (Miami Herald, 9-18-06, http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15545041.htm)

As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, working with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

Read More...

Summary only...

New video shows 9/11 hijackers in Afghanistan

Reuters
New video shows 9/11 hijackers in Afghanistan

LONDON (Reuters) - A new video tape has emerged which shows two of the September 11 hijackers, including ringleader Mohammed Atta, at a hideout of Osama bin Laden's in Afghanistan, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported.

The paper said it had obtained a copy of the video through "a previously tested channel", without giving details.

It said U.S. and al Qaeda sources had verified the authenticity of the tape, which it said would be available on its Web site www.timesonline.co.uk/sundaytimes from noon (1100 GMT) on Sunday.

The paper said the video showed Egyptian-born Atta alongside another of the hijackers, Lebanese Ziad Jarrah.

Jarrah piloted United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001.

The two men are seen laughing and joking and then apparently reading their wills to camera. There is no sound on the tape and lip-readers have failed to decipher their words, the paper said.

The Sunday Times said the footage, dated January 18, 2000, was the first to show Atta and Jarrah together, and helped fill in a gap in the chronology of Atta's life.

Until now, investigators had not known where he had been in early 2000, but the tape shows he was in Afghanistan at bin Laden's Tarnak Farm hideout, the paper said.

The footage also shows bin Laden addressing a crowd of around 100 al Qaeda members on January 8, 2000 -- 10 days before the footage of the hijackers.

Many similar video tapes have surfaced on Web sites used by Islamist militant groups since the September 11 attacks, lots of them showing the al Qaeda leader in person.

At least 36 messages have been broadcast since Arabic television station Al Jazeera aired the first statement by bin Laden in 2001.

Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri are believed to be hiding in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. terrorism trials face court challenges

Reuters
U.S. terrorism trials face court challenges
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New military trial rules for terrorism suspects that President George W. Bush endorsed and Congress approved will draw vigorous court challenges and could be struck down for violating rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, critics and legal experts said.

The legal battle will likely be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which could be troubled the rules unconstitutionally restrict the suspects' rights, they said.

They cited the bill's provisions that strip foreign suspects of the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts, the broad definition of enemy combatants and what they described as unfair rules for military trials, including some use of hearsay and coerced evidence.

"I have no doubt that this is headed for the Supreme Court. Once again, the administration has overreached, and that makes it more likely that the court will strike it down," Stanford University law professor Jenny Martinez said.

"It allows the use of coerced evidence, which our laws have rejected since the founding of this country. It also denies noncitizens, including those in the U.S., access to court for fundamental human rights violations like torture," she said.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse defended the legislation as "plainly constitutional" and denied it foreclosed all judicial review.

'FAIR AND EFFECTIVE TRIALS'

"The military commissions established under the act provide the accused with the fundamental rights that will ensure fair and effective trials that fully satisfy all applicable standards under the Geneva Convention and our Constitution," he said.

The Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote on June 29, struck down as illegal Bush's original system of military trials established after the September 11 attacks for prisoners at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ruling said the administration could either rely on the traditional U.S. court-martial system or seek congressional approval of rules to prosecute and interrogate the prisoners. The issue has become a major political battle before the November 7 elections in which control of Congress is at stake.

Democrats and even some Republican lawmakers said taking away the prisoners' right to have habeas corpus hearings in federal court was unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. The experts agreed.

"I believe that the court will conclude that the habeas- stripping provision is unconstitutional," said Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington attorney and military law expert who is president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

The bill expands the definition of "enemy combatants" to those who provide weapons, money and other support to terrorist groups. It defines conspiracy as a war crime, although four Supreme Court members in the majority in June said it was not a war crime.

"Just because Congress puts a stamp of approval on something, it does not necessarily mean it will pass constitutional muster before the Supreme Court," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor and executive director at its Center on Law Ethics and National Security.

He predicted the legality of the new rules would be a close issue for the courts. At the Supreme Court, it could come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote with four liberals and four conservatives.

Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, vowed to challenge the removal of the habeas corpus rights.

Ratner said such an opportunity could arise when the administration moves to dismiss pending Guantanamo cases in order to apply the new rules. Defense lawyers could then respond by challenging the rules' constitutionality.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. homework outsourced to India as "e-tutoring" grows

Yahoo! News
U.S. homework outsourced as "e-tutoring" grows
By Jason Szep

Private tutors are a luxury many American families cannot afford, costing anywhere between $25 to $100 an hour. But California mother Denise Robison found one online for $2.50 an hour -- in India.

"It's made the biggest difference. My daughter is literally at the top of every single one of her classes and she has never done that before," said Robison, a single mother from Modesto.

Her 13-year-old daughter, Taylor, is one of 1,100 Americans enrolled in Bangalore-based TutorVista, which launched U.S. services last November with a staff of 150 "e-tutors" mostly in India with a fee of $100 a month for unlimited hours.

Taylor took two-hour sessions each day for five days a week in math and English -- a cost that tallies to $2.50 an hour, a fraction of the $40 an hour charged by U.S.-based online tutors such as market leader Tutor.com that draw on North American teachers, or the usual $100 an hour for face-to-face sessions.

"I like to tell people I did private tutoring every day for the cost of a fast-food meal or a Starbucks' coffee," Robison said. "We did our own form of summer school all summer."

The outsourcing trend that fueled a boom in Asian call centers staffed by educated, low-paid workers manning phones around the clock for U.S. banks and other industries is moving fast into an area at the heart of U.S. culture: education.

It comes at a difficult time for the U.S. education system: only two-thirds of teenagers graduate from high school, a proportion that slides to 50 percent for black Americans and Hispanics, according to government statistics.

China and India, meanwhile, are producing the world's largest number of science and engineering graduates -- at least five times as many as in the United States, where the number has fallen since the early 1980s.

Parents using schools like Taylor's say they are doing whatever they can to give children an edge that can lead to better marks, better colleges and a better future, even if it comes with an Indian accent about 9,000 miles away.

SLANG & AMERICAN ACCENTS

"We've changed the paradigm of tutoring," said Krishnan Ganesh, founder and chairman of TutorVista, which offers subjects ranging from grammar to geometry for children as young as 6 years old to adults in college.

"It's not that the U.S. education system is not good. It's just that it's impossible to give personalized education at an affordable cost unless you use technology, unless you use the Internet and unless you can use lower-cost job centers like India," he said over a crackly Internet-phone line from Bangalore. "We can deliver that."

Many of the tutors have masters degrees in their subjects, said Ganesh. On average, they have taught for 10 years. Each undergoes 60 hours of training, including lessons on how to speak in a U.S. accent and how to decipher American slang.

They are schooled on U.S. history and state curricula, and work in mini-call centers or from their homes across India. One operates out of Hong Kong, teaching the Chinese language.

As with other Indian e-tutoring firms such as Growing Stars Inc., students log on to TutorVista's Web site and are assigned lessons by tutors who communicate using voice-over-Internet technology and an instant messaging window. They share a simulated whiteboard on their computers.

Denise Robison said Taylor had trouble understanding her tutor's accent at first. "Now that she is used to it, it doesn't bother her at all," she said.

TutorVista launched a British service in August and Ganesh said he plans to expand into China in December to tap demand for English lessons from China's booming middle class. In 2007, he plans to launch Spanish-language lessons and build on Chinese and French lessons already offered.

A New Delhi tutoring company, Educomp Solutions Ltd., estimates the U.S. tutoring market at $8 billion and growing. Online companies, both from the United States and India, are looking to tap millions of dollars available to firms under the U.S. No Child Left Behind Act for remedial tutoring.

Teachers unions hope to stop that from happening.

"Tutoring providers must keep in frequent touch with not only parents but classroom teachers and we believe there is greater difficulty in an offshore tutor doing that," said Nancy Van Meter, a director at the American Federation of Teachers.

But No Child Left Behind, a signature Bush administration policy, encourages competition among tutoring agencies and leaves the door open for offshore tutors, said Diane Stark Rentner of the Center on Education Policy in Washington.

"The big test is whether the kids are actually learning. Until you answer that, I don't know if you can pass judgment on whether this is a good or bad way to go," she said.

Read More...

Summary only...