Tuesday, October 17, 2006

NAACP to Monitor Elections in 10 States Following Primary Problems

ABC News
NAACP to Monitor Elections in 10 States
NAACP to Monitor Elections Following Primary Problems
By ALEX DOMINGUEZ
The Associated Press

BALTIMORE - The NAACP said Monday that it will monitor voting in 10 states next month, sending observers to polling places, taking citizen complaints and notifying the Justice Department of any serious problems.

The states were chosen based on those with pivotal elections, states with concentrations of black voters, and those with a history of polling problems, according to the Baltimore-based civil rights organization.

President Bruce Gordon urged voters to persist in trying to cast ballots.

"While the NAACP will take steps to counter obstacles to voter participation, we are encouraging our communities to cast their votes, even if it requires extra effort," he said in a statement released before a news conference at the group's headquarters.

"Civil rights activists went to extraordinary lengths to earn the right for black Americans to vote. Some lost their lives. We owe it to them and ourselves to honor their sacrifice by voting, no matter what challenges we face."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People plans to have hundreds of volunteers monitoring elections in Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

On the Net:

NAACP: http://www.naacp.org



Read More...

Second U.S. lawmaker faces misconduct allegations

Reuters
Second U.S. lawmaker faces misconduct allegations

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. congressional board which oversees a Capitol Hill internship program rocked by a sex scandal, discussed allegations on Monday involving a second lawmaker, said Rep. Dale Kildee, a Michigan Democrat.

Kildee made the comment as he emerged from a closed-door meeting of a House ethics committee, which has been focused on the case of former Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida, who resigned last month following disclosure he sent inappropriate electronic messages to male teenage interns, known as pages.

"It's only been allegations made," Kildee told reporters of the House page board's discussion about a second lawmaker, who he declined to identify.

Kildee said he and other board members had a conference call earlier in the day about "other allegations, not about Mr. Foley." Kildee also indicated the page board had talked about the matter with the second lawmaker.

Last week, a law enforcement official confirmed a report by NBC News that the U.S. attorney's office and the FBI in Arizona were conducting a "preliminary look" into a camping trip Rep. Jim Kolbe took with two teenage pages and others 10 years ago.

The official, who asked not to be identified, said federal investigators were responding to a "single allegation" about Kolbe of Arizona. The official refused to say who made the allegation or what was being alleged.

Kolbe's office denied any wrongdoing.

"The rafting trip back in 1996 consisted of five current staff, two former pages and his sister," a spokeswoman for Kolbe said. "There is absolutely no basis and no truth to any (allegations of) inappropriate behavior."

As part of the ethics committee's investigation of Foley, it is trying to determine if any other House members demonstrated troubling behavior toward teenage interns.

With reports that some Republican House members or staff were told about Foley's troubling conduct months or even years ago, the panel is also trying to determine if there was a cover-up -- who knew what and when about Foley and what, if anything, they did about it.




Read More...

Study: IT job cuts up sharply in Q3

ComputerWorld
Study: IT job cuts up sharply in Q3
Todd R. Weiss

October 16, 2006 (Computerworld) Just three months after U.S. IT job cuts reached their lowest levels since 2000, a new study has found that planned workforce cuts are again heading upward as recent corporate restructuring, mergers and other events are reducing the number of available jobs.

The study, released today by Chicago-based global outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., found that planned IT job cuts increased 74% in the third quarter to 50,957, up from 29,226 this past June 30, when the number of IT job cuts had dropped to its lowest level since the third quarter of 2000.

The seven-page study, "Tech Spending Slowdown on the Horizon?" concludes that the third-quarter job cuts are attributable mostly to cost-cutting and restructuring, which accounted for 33,373, or 65%, of the cuts in the quarter that ended Sept. 30. Overall for the year, corporate mergers have been cited for 29% of the tech job cuts through September, according to the study. Also affecting job cut levels are business competition, reduced sales and product demand, company closings and outsourcing.

"These numbers are a clear indication that tech companies see a slowdown on the horizon," said John A. Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, in a statement. "The economy seems relatively stable now but corporate leaders have been less than optimistic about the outlook for 2007. For technology companies, this translates into lower business-to-business and consumer sales."

The Challenger study found that third-quarter job cuts by employers in the telecommunications, electronics, computer and e-commerce industries were 23% higher than the 41,439 cuts announced a year ago.

Most of the third-quarter job cuts occurred in the computer sector, the study said, with 30,511 cuts. That's more than the 30,342 announced in the first six months of this year.

Even with the higher job-cut figures in the third quarter, the total of 119,562 IT job cuts for the year so far remains 15% below the 140,696 cuts for the same period in 2005, according to the study.

Other related data from Challenger shows that technology companies have announced plans to hire just 5,764 new workers in the third quarter, down from 14,090 in the second quarter, according to the study.


Read More...

Monday, October 16, 2006

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Hits 53 So Far This Month

The New York Times
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Hits 53 So Far This Month
By KIRK SEMPLE

BAGHDAD, Oct. 15 — Two marines were killed by insurgents in Anbar Province on Sunday, the American military command said, and three American soldiers died a day earlier in a bombing in southern Baghdad, bringing the total number of American troop deaths in Iraq this month to at least 53, an extraordinarily high midmonth tally.

At the current rate of American deaths — more than 3.5 a day — October is on track to be the third deadliest month of the entire Iraq war for American forces, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent Web site that tracks war-related casualties.

In a series of attacks on Sunday against Iraqi civilian and government targets in the northern city of Kirkuk, seven bombs, including three suicide car bombs, exploded within a few hours of each other, killing at least 17 people and wounding at least 73, according to police officials.

The rising American military death toll, which comes in spite of improvements in armor and other defenses, follows a recent decision by the American military to raise the profile of American troops in Baghdad and increase their combat operations.

Beginning last year, American commanders reduced the number of American patrols and pushed Iraqi forces to take over more responsibility for securing the capital.

But in late July, amid escalating sectarian violence that threatened to engulf the city and shove the country into full-scale civil war, American commanders decided to reverse their strategy, shift thousands of American troops to Baghdad from elsewhere in the country and abandon a plan to reduce troop strength significantly by the end of the year.

A cornerstone of the new approach has been the house-to-house sweeps of the capital’s most troubled areas, intended to ferret out militia networks, fighters and armaments. To date, the Americans, with Iraqi assistance, have swept eight districts.

Simultaneously, the American and Iraqi military have more aggressively pursued Shiite death squads, including elements of the Mahdi Army, the militia that loosely operates under the authority of the militant cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

Since the neighborhood sweeps began at the beginning of August, guerrilla attacks — against military and civilian targets alike — have risen about 23 percent across the capital, according to American military statistics.

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, a senior military spokesman here, attributed the spike in attacks — and resulting American troop deaths — to the military’s retooled strategy to quell the city’s violence.

“We are out more aggressively engaged in the city at this point than we were just a month ago,” he said at a news conference on Thursday. “Coalition forces are being much more active in going out and looking for these folks, these death squads and elements that are associated with the sectarian violence.”

According to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which collates statistics distributed in Pentagon press releases, the number of American deaths in Baghdad has sharply increased since the American-led crackdown began in early August.

That month, 20 American troops died in or near the capital, up from 12 in July and 15 in June. The number rose again last month, to 29.

Meanwhile, in Anbar Province, the western insurgent stronghold where the military has suffered its highest number of casualties since the beginning of the war, American troops have continued to face fierce resistance. At least 19 troops have died there this month, and 60 over the last two months.

Some troops were shifted from that desert region to Baghdad to bolster the new security push, further stretching American forces there.

The deadliest months for American troops since the beginning of the war have been associated with major offensives.

Some 137 American troops died in November 2004, the same month as the second siege of Falluja, when the Americans battled Sunni Arab rebels. In April 2004, a bloody month that saw the first siege of Falluja and pitched battles between the Americans and Mr. Sadr’s militia in Najaf, 135 American troops died.

In contrast, the American military has not conducted any major operations this month: the military has not initiated a new urban cordon-and-search operation for more than two weeks. Instead, it has focused on patrolling the areas already swept, officials say.

In recent weeks, the number of troops wounded in action, a figure that usually parallels the number of fatalities, has also seen a sharp increase. In a two-week period that began on Sept. 28, some 428 American troops were wounded, one of the highest fortnightly tolls of the entire conflict, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.

In September, 776 troops were wounded, the fourth-highest monthly total since the American invasion.

In the multiple car bombings in Kirkuk, a city bitterly contested by several ethnic and religious groups, three suicide car bombers, including one driving a van packed with chickens and explosives, detonated their payloads throughout the city, killing 13 people and wounding at least 34, according to Maj. Gen. Turhan Yusuf, chief of the Kirkuk police department. One blew himself up near a girls’ academy, killing two school girls.

Four other bombs, including two unattended car bombs, killed four civilians and wounded at least 19 others, police officials said. Most of the bombs were apparently directed at Iraqi security forces.

In Baghdad on Sunday, the authorities recovered at least 30 bodies dumped around the city, an Interior Ministry official said.

Two bombs exploded near the convoy of the chief of financial affairs for the Interior Ministry, killing seven people, although the administrator escaped unscathed, the ministry official said. Another bomb exploded in the Amel neighborhood of the capital, killing one civilian and wounding two others, the official said.

In Tal Afar, near Mosul, a suicide bomber wrapped in explosives wandered into a local market and detonated himself near a police checkpoint, killing a child and wounding five other people, including two police officers, hospital and police officials said.

In Mosul, five members of a family were killed when gunmen burst into their home and opened fire, officials said, and gunmen assassinated Raad al-Haiali, a provincial official and a member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni Arab group.

The tribunal trying Saddam Hussein and his associates said on Sunday that it was postponing the date for verdicts from Monday, as originally planned, to Nov. 5, according to a senior court official who requested anonymity since he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

Other court officials have said in recent days that a major reason for the delay is that after nine months of hearings, the five judges in the case have so far failed to reach agreement on a sentence for Mr. Hussein and appeared to be undecided between a death sentence for him or a penalty of life imprisonment.

The 68-year-old former Iraqi ruler faces a possible sentence of death by hanging for his role in the execution of 148 men and boys from the mostly Shiite town of Dujail after a reputed assassination attempt against Mr. Hussein in 1982.

Reporting was contributed by John F. Burns and Khalid al-Ansary from Baghdad, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Kirkuk and Mosul.




Read More...

If You're Gonna Cheat -- Cheat With A Smile!

Huffington Post
Bob Cesca
If You're Gonna Cheat -- Cheat With A Smile!

I'd like to present the following pictorial as a corollary to Sunday's Washington Post article, White House Upbeat About GOP Prospects, in which we're presented with this ominous lead:

"Amid widespread panic in the Republican establishment about the coming midterm elections, there are two people whose confidence about GOP prospects strikes even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove."

"Inexplicably upbeat," Michael Abramowitz wrote. The Post went further by reporting that Rove believes the Democrats will only gain a few seats -- nowhere near the 15 needed to attain a majority in the House of Representatives.

Here now is the face of a man who is mysteriously, eerily, "inexplicably" and almost frighteningly upbeat about his and the GOP's prospects next month:









These images were taken from the official White House video of last week's press conference during the following exchange:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Since you last held a news conference here in the Rose Garden, about a month ago, Republicans across the country have seen races that were once safe tighten, with the tide turning, according to several polls, towards the Democrats. Understanding that you don't lead by looking at polls --

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, sir, thank you. Finally.

Q -- as you've said many times, are you still confident Republicans will hold the House and the Senate?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am.

Of course I didn't expect President Bush to break into tears, but look at those photos again. Am I insane or does that grin make it seem as if he knows something we don't? It's certainly not the face of a man who's bearing down on the very real prospect of being investigated up the bunghole for the next two-plus years.

What does he know? What does Rove know that makes them so confident?

Firstly, it goes without saying that despite the efforts of Brad Blog, Mark Crispin Miller, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Thom Hartmann and others that widespread election fraud is bound to take place on and before Election Day. And those of us who are familiar with Rove's history of dirty tricks, rat fuckings and the like, understand that he has is pasty pink fingers on the pulse of the whole operation. At the very least the whisper campaigns are his direct responsibility. Diebold and others will handle the rest by electronically moving Democratic votes to independent candidates; friendly operatives state-by-state will purge Democratic voters from the registration rolls; and Democratic precincts will have fewer voting machines than Republican precincts. The same playbook from 2000, 2002 and 2004 recycled for this year.

But the tide of Republican blunders and the ongoing tragedy of the Iraq War could be enough to overcome the cheating machines and voter purges. Rove isn't an idiot and knows this, so what's the wild card? Temporarily low gas prices thanks to Bandar Bush, the president's Saudi bunkmate, and a nationwide ad campaign -- direct mail and television -- telling voters that the Democrats WILL raise your taxes. Underscore will.

I give you the president's own words shortly after his above go-with-a-smile Joker grin:

"Matter of fact, I would like to keep the -- make the tax cuts we pass permanent. And the Democrats will raise taxes. Now, I know they say only on rich people, but that's -- in my judgment, having been around here long enough to know, it's just code word. They're going to raise them on whoever they can raise them on."

Love that Joker. Sadly for the president, most voters are smart enough to know (we hope) that the only way Congress can pass anything is if the president signs said anything into law. So even if a Democratic House takes a stab at rolling back the tax cuts for Paris Hilton and Dick Cheney, it'll be vetoed by the president. Yet the president and the GOP are implying that the Democrats have somehow discovered a way to circumvent the president's signature.

You and I both know that the president won't sign any legislation raising taxes on the rich. No Bush would ever do that. Nah. Gah. Dah. Read his lips.

Ah, that was unfair. But I enjoyed it. Anyway, take my home district, the PA-6th for example and the preface that this is happening in many competitive districts. Congressman Gerlach and the NRCC have collectively spent piles of cash spooking voters in Montgomery, Chester and Berks Counties into believing that Democratic challenger Lois Murphy will magically raise taxes on everyone. Not just the rich, but everyone by two-thousand-some-odd-dollars each. So if you earn $2500 next year, you'll owe the government all of it. And of course it's a lie bigger than Karl Rove's bulbous forehead.

However, it's not nearly a lie the size of this one... In a recent ad here, the NRCC claimed Lois Murphy magically voted against a spending bill that provided body armor for the troops (the spending bill, by the way, was attached to a bill opening AWR for oil drilling). Magical indeed. Lois Murphy has never been a member of Congress and thus was unable to cast votes on military spending bills. Or any bills whatsoever. Comcast thankfully pulled the ad from television, but only after it had been aired.

Sorry. It's easy to digress when discussing GOP lies. Lies, though, are the only shot they have. Lying, cheating, stealing, subverting democracy. The usual bucket of rats. But it's enough to allow the president, in the face of two years of shit, to grin as if he's eating said shit. And it's that grin which ought to motivate you and I to get out the vote and make sure we have enough turnout to overcome their overconfidence.

Read More...

The Myth of the 'Values' Voter

The Myth of the 'Values' Voter
The term is loaded and unfair. It implies that people who 'do not share our values' aren't just wrong but morally inferior.
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

Oct. 23, 2006 issue - Lenny Bruce had a bit in his old stand-up act where he said we should all say the N word (though of course he didn't use that euphemism) over and over, and soon enough the slur would lose its meaning and ability to hurt people. I'd like a similar fate for the V word—values—at least as applied to a political context, and it may be that the House page scandal can help. "Values voters"—descended from "Joe Six-Pack" and "soccer moms" and other products of the market segmenters who have invaded our politics—are not all wing nuts. Most are principled Americans with legitimate gripes about what's happened to old-fashioned notions of decency. But the term is loaded and unfair, and was popularized by lazy-minded journalists. It implies that people on the other side—those who, in the smug cliché of the day, "do not share our values"—aren't just wrong but morally inferior.

While the political value of "values" has been known for decades, the concept got a big boost from exit polls after the 2004 election. In an otherwise close race, John Kerry lost to President Bush, 59 to 40 percent, among voters who are married with children. And exit polls showed that 22 percent of voters cited "moral values" as their top concern. Democrats had mostly themselves to blame. They'd forgotten that millions of parents really do fight a daily war with crude popular culture for their children's attention. And it looked as if anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives would lead to armies of conservative voters storming to the polls to vote Republican. Forever.

But a funny thing happened on the way back to Pleasantville. A closer look at the exit polls showed that security in fact trumped values in 2004 (those citing Iraq and terrorism totaled 39 percent), and Iraq is obviously a much bigger issue this November. At the same time, social conservatives like James Dobson have begun charging that Bush was merely paying lip service to their priorities. (A new book by former White House aide David Kuo argues that Bush's team was indeed cynical about the uses of religious voters.) With the exception of Bush's veto of the embryonic-stem-cell bill, the "traditional values agenda"—including constitutional amendments banning abortion and gay marriage—remains unfulfilled.

Now fallout from the Mark Foley story is giving the GOP establishment a taste of its own sanctimonious medicine, as Democrats tsk-tsk their way back into power. While it's hard to imagine many incumbents losing their seats over the Foley issue alone, the lingering subtext will likely dampen conservative turnout and could help tip close races. Publicity about an influential gay Republican subculture in Washington makes the GOP's pandering on gay marriage less persuasive. And the story adds to the overall sense that the current congressional leadership has failed to offer oversight on a series of moral issues, from corruption to burdening our children with debt to protecting minors from predators in what is supposed to be the "Daddy" party.

Most important, after years of obtuse elitism, the Democrats are finally getting in the values game. Al Gore describes his fight against global warming as a moral imperative. Progressives from the Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine ("When did Jesus become pro-war? When did Jesus become pro-rich?") to Sen. Barack Obama are finding an audience for their message: that liberals have a tradition of sensibly integrating faith and politics. Obama's new book, "The Audacity of Hope," published this week, may kick off a 2008 presidential campaign (the odds of his running are now about 50-50) that would offer Democrats their best chance yet to grab "values" back from the right.

More likely, the word will turn into a political football pulled so hard by each team that it finally deflates. Good. That could help lead us back to the hard policy choices we face and the values we have in common. Consider the new book "Applebee's America," a cross-aisle collaboration among President Bush's pollster, Matthew Dowd, President Bill Clinton's political director, Douglas Sosnik, and Ron Fournier, formerly of the Associated Press. While full of pop sociology and business-world bromides, the book does help strip "values" of partisan coloration. The authors argue that success from politics to religion to the restaurant industry comes to those who tap into the most powerful American value of all: the hunger for community.

This represents a welcome return to platitude-land. "Values" should be a slice of American apple pie, not a wedge. When all voters are "values voters," the term will lose its sting, just as Lenny Bruce would have wanted.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15266550/site/newsweek/



Read More...

Conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia defends views at annual ACLU meeting

USA TODAY
Conservative justice defends views at annual ACLU meeting
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A feisty Justice Antonin Scalia defended his conservative view of a rigid unchanging Constitution at an unusual forum Sunday, the American Civil Liberties Union's annual meeting.

The high court's most outspoken justice, whose views generally put him at odds with the ACLU, scoffed at the notion that the Constitution should adapt to meet the needs of contemporary society.

"If you fall in love with an evolving Constitution," he said, "do not think that it will evolve in only one direction."

He warned ACLU President Nadine Strossen, with whom he shared the stage before an audience of 1,500, that justices could become more conservative in time and interpret the Constitution to retrench on individual liberties. Strossen said that was unlikely and termed the current court quite conservative.

During an hour-long session, Scalia also defended his opinions in favor of public displays of religion and against gay rights. On affirmative action in education, he said, "The Constitution very clearly forbids government to discriminate on the basis of race. You cannot use race (for) diversity. That's how I read the Constitution."

Scalia dissented in 2003 when the justices upheld a policy at the University of Michigan law school that favored minority applicants in an effort to boost campus diversity. A new case testing racial-diversity policies in elementary and secondary schools will be heard by the court this fall.

This was Scalia's first appearance at the ACLU's annual meeting. A 1986 Ronald Reagan appointee, Scalia is fond of saying that it is no fun to simply "preach to the choir" and that "part of my charm is telling people what they don't like to hear."

Overall, it was a tame crowd and the session was more conversation than debate.

Scalia, whose "originalist" theory asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted in its 18th-century context, believes in a limited right of privacy. He is against the right to abortion, which was first declared by the Supreme Court in 1973. Such a question, he says, should be up to the people and their elected legislators. "I apply the limitations on American democracy that the American people have adopted," he said. The rights of homosexual people, too, he said, should be left to the people rather than courts.

Scalia has ruled in a handful of cases the ACLU favored, particularly on free speech. In 1989, he voted with a narrow majority to allow flag burning as a form of free expression. "That's how I read the First Amendment," Scalia said, then he quipped, "I don't necessarily like the way I come out in cases."



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-15-scalia-aclu_x.htm?csp=34





Read More...

Press Secretary Raising Money, and Eyebrows

The New York Times
Press Secretary Raising Money, and Eyebrows
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

ST. CHARLES, Ill., Oct. 15 — Tony Snow draped his lanky frame across a wooden lectern, leaned forward and gazed out at 850 adoring Republicans who had paid $175 apiece to hear him speak. There was a conspiratorial gleam in his eye, as if he was about to reveal some deep inner secret from his new life as the White House press secretary.

“Yesterday,” Mr. Snow declared, “I was in the Oval Office with the president ——”

He cut himself off, took a perfectly calibrated three-second pause and switched into an aw-shucks voice for dramatic effect: “I just looove saying that! Yeaaah, I was in the Oval Office. Just meeee and the president. Nooooobody else.” The crowd lapped it up.

Live from the suburbs of Chicago — It’s the Tony Snow Outside-the-Beltway Hour! Memo to White House press corps: you can’t catch this show in the briefing room.

In the six months since Mr. Bush enlisted him to resuscitate a White House press operation that was barely breathing, Mr. Snow, a former Fox News television and radio host and a conservative commentator, has reinvented the job with his snappy sound bites and knack for deflecting tough questions with a smile.

Now, he is reinventing it yet again, by breaking away from the briefing room to raise money for Republicans, as he did here on Saturday night for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.

Mr. Snow, who will make 16 such appearances before Election Day, acknowledged he had entered “terra incognita”; to his knowledge, no other White House press secretary has raised money for political candidates while in the job. But with his star power from television and his conservative credentials, Mr. Snow, unlike his predecessors, is in hot demand.

His booking agent is the White House political shop, run by Karl Rove, the president’s chief strategist. The White House is not keeping track of how much money Mr. Snow raises.

His talks — Saturday night’s was a cross between a one-man show and a religious revival — have attracted little scrutiny so far, but they are giving a much-needed boost to a party whose midterm fortunes appear increasingly bleak.

Yet even as the Republican establishment revels in his celebrity — “It’s like Mick Jagger at a rock concert,” Mr. Rove said — Mr. Snow’s extracurricular activities are making some veteran Washington hands, including those with strong Republican ties, deeply uneasy.

“The principal job of the press secretary is to present information to reporters, not propaganda,” said David R. Gergen, who served in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations and also advised President Bill Clinton. “If he is seen as wearing two hats, reporters as well as the public will inevitably wonder: is he speaking to us now as the traditional press secretary, or is he speaking to us as a political partisan?”

Indeed, Mr. Snow, whose commentary was so sharply critical of Mr. Bush that six months before he was hired, he referred to Mr. Bush as “something of an embarrassment,” got the White House job in part because his independence gave him credibility with reporters. Kenneth J. Duberstein, former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan, said Mr. Snow must be careful not to damage that credibility.

“His profile should not be a political profile,” Mr. Duberstein said, “but a press profile on behalf of the president.”

But of course, press secretaries are naturally partisans; to think otherwise would be naïve. Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush’s first press secretary, said he saw nothing wrong with fund-raising appearances, “so long as you don’t make yourself into red meat.”

There was, for the record, not a shred of red meat in Mr. Snow’s whirlwind performance Saturday night. For 28 minutes, Mr. Snow paced the stage, hands gesticulating, eyebrows arching, voice rising and falling, as he held forth without notes on the greatness of his job, his president and the American people.

Here was Mr. Snow on working in the White House: “The most exciting, intellectually aerobic job I’m ever going to have.”

On the nature of the American soul after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11: “There is an ember of greatness burning in every heart.” On the intellectual acumen of his boss: “He reminds me of one of those guys at the gym who plays about 40 chessboards at once.”

There were no mean words about Democrats. Mr. Snow, aware of his delicate balancing act, has vowed to “stick to factual defenses and advocacy for the president.”

But as the keynote speaker, of course, he got to choose which facts to defend. There was no mention of Mark Foley, the Florida congressman who resigned in late September amid revelations he had sent sexually explicit e-mail to teenage pages, or Jack Abramoff, the corrupt lobbyist, or anybody else who makes Republicans cringe.

That did not sit well with the local news media, which have been following accusations that Mr. Hastert’s aides knew of the Foley scandal several years ago. Just two days earlier, Mr. Bush had been in Chicago to give the speaker his support.

After his talk, Mr. Snow gave a mini news conference, and was asked why he failed to raise the Foley issue, “to reassure the people who are paying 175 bucks a plate here tonight.”

“Because,” Mr. Snow shot back tartly, “last time I checked Mark Foley didn’t represent the people of this district.”

Back in Washington, Mr. Snow has gained a reputation for such witty, if biting, repartee. Sound bites seem to flow from his tongue like water tumbling downstream.

Once, he accused the veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, who is 86 and has been covering presidents since Mr. Snow, 51, was in grade school, of “pestering the teacher.” And when Bob Woodward painted a portrait of a dysfunctional Bush White House in his new book, “State of Denial,” Mr. Snow dismissed it out of hand. “Sort of like cotton candy — it melts on contact,” he said.

Jim Axelrod, chief White House correspondent for CBS News, said of Mr. Snow, “He’s velvet glove and iron fist.”

But when Mr. Snow missed a day of work to attend a fund-raiser after a leading Republican senator raised questions about the president’s Iraq policy, Mr. Axelrod was critical. “This is the kind of thing you would expect the press secretary to be handling square on,” he said.

Mr. Snow said his deputy handled the questions just fine.

It is often said that the White House press secretary serves two masters: the president and the press, which relies on the press secretary to advocate for the release of information. Mr. Snow believes that is true — to a point.

“The press secretary serves two masters,” he said, “but not all masters are equal.”

That gets back to his decision to headline fund-raisers, a decision he says he made only after soliciting the advice of colleagues, including the White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers. Mr. Snow said he set his own ground rules and would quit raising money if it interfered with his day job.

How will he know? “I have the feeling that all of us will know,” he said. “You kind of know it when you see it.”

Mr. Gergen sees this as the final “blurring of the lines between politics and news and entertainment.” Mr. Fleischer says those lines blurred long ago.

“The modern-day briefing is not a briefing but a TV show,” he said, “and Tony is the star.”

Mr. Snow said his stardom was only “the reflected glory of the president.” But on Saturday night, as he basked in the spotlight, his face beaming out at the crowd from six oversize screens, he looked awfully happy when he said, “Let me bring you greetings from the president of the United States.”




Read More...

Bill Clinton: Republican extremists divided country

Reuters
Clinton says Republican extremists divided country
By Kay Henderson

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton told Iowa's Democratic Party faithful on Saturday that the actions of "an extreme sliver" of the Republican Party have backfired and "profoundly divided" the country.

"We've got a big responsibility. Forget about 2008. Forget about the politics. Just go out and find somebody and look them dead in the eye and say 'You know, this is not right'...This is America," Clinton said. "We can do better and this year, it's a job that Democrats have to do alone."

More than 3,500 Iowa Democrats paid $100 each to attend the fund-raising banquet that kicked off with Clinton's speech. About 50 people paid $10,000 per couple to attend a private reception with Clinton beforehand.

Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, Clinton charged "paint themselves as pure and the rest of us who don't agree with them as stained" in order to divide the country and stay in power.

"People know things are out of whack, that fundamentally the order of, the rhythm of public life and our common life as Americans has been severely disturbed," he said.

Clinton criticized the tax cuts President George W. Bush pushed through Congress and urged Democrats running for office this year to promise to correct the imbalance -- and promise not to raise taxes in the process.

"You cannot blame the entire Republican party for this reason. The entire government of the United States, the Congress, the White House and increasingly the courts for the last six years has been in the total control not of the Republican party but of the most ideological, the most right wing, the most extreme sliver of the Republican Party."

Clinton did not talk about his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's potential White House bid, but 'Clinton for President -- votehillary.org" placards were on display in the streets surrounding the banquet hall and volunteers handed out blue stickers bearing the name "Hillary."

"I've always liked her and admired her," said Marilyn Chido, a longtime party activist from Des Moines who put her "Hillary" sticker on her purse. "I think she'd be a great president."

If Sen. Clinton, who did not attend the fund-raiser, does seek the White House in 2008 and actively campaigns in Iowa she will be departing from her husband's path who as Arkansas governor made just one appearance in the state before the 1992 Iowa Democratic Caucuses.

"The interesting question is exactly how Senator Clinton is going to approach Iowa," said Peverill Squire, a University of Iowa political science professor.

"Other candidates have put a lot more time and energy into the state and there's some evidence from polls ... that people have some reservations about whether Senator Clinton's electable. I think she has to begin to think seriously about how she can reassure people that if she does run, she can win."

Dick Meyers, a retired Iowa City businessman, who was once the Democratic leader in the Iowa House, said most Democrats are focused on the November 6 congressional election, not the presidential election in 2008.



Read More...

Politicians caught on Internet candid cameras

Reuters
Politicians caught on Internet candid cameras
By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Want to catch a senator napping during a congressional hearing? Or letting a possible racial slur slip out at a campaign rally?

Then log on to Internet video-sharing Web sites like YouTube.com -- the latest weapon in U.S. politics where a candidate's missteps can be viewed by hundreds of thousands of people.

Political campaigns for the November 7 congressional elections have sent out mass e-mails with links to videos of opponents in unscripted, often embarrassing, situations.

Some campaigns have even dispatched young staffers known as "trackers" armed with video cameras. Their sole job is to track a rival candidate's every move and make sure their cameras are rolling in case the politician makes a gaffe.

Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia got some unwanted publicity when at a political rally he pointed to a tracker sent by rival James Webb's campaign and called the young man a "macaca" -- an African monkey and sometimes a racial slur.

The video of Allen's remarks to S.R. Sidarth, a 20-year-old U.S. college student, spread swiftly on the Internet (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9G7gq7GQ71c), drew the attention of Democratic activists and boosted Webb's campaign.

"If you guys had written it down, it wouldn't have had nearly the impact," Webb campaign spokeswoman Kristian Denny Todd told Reuters. "But what you saw with the video was, you saw his demeanor, the way he repeated it, the way he did it laughingly. That's stuff that can't be captured in words. People have got to see it for themselves."

Other videos that have made the rounds include one of Republican Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana napping during a Senate hearing (http://youtube.com/watch?v=a_B0i2LukP4) to the tune of "Happy Trails".

'MACACA' PHENOMENON

Internet experts call the trend of sending around unscripted video clips a "macaca" and predict new media such as YouTube will have a great impact on campaigns.

"The Internet and new technology are radically changing every part of our lives, and politics is no different," said Phil Noble, the head of PoliticsOnline, a political Internet site. "It's happening in a big way and it's going to be many, many, many times bigger than it has been so far. It's going to radically change everything."

"Anybody with a video camera, a little bit of technology and some great creativity and energy and luck or skill can become an important player in the political process," he added. "And that's the power, that's what makes it so radical."

Carol Darr, director of George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet, said one reason the amateur videos are so popular is that they do not include traditional political rhetoric.

"You break through that clutter with something that's real and human, and you're going to get people's attention," she said. "So I think it's going to be a huge deal."

Darr said inexpensive video equipment is readily available and some people even use cellphones to capture videos.

Amateur video as a propaganda tool has an impact on how campaigns are managed.

"It limits the ability of candidates to go out in small groups of people to refine their message to see what works and what doesn't," Darr said. "Because now it's all going to be on tape and they're going to be accused of flip-flopping."

Experts predict that video-sharing and "social networking" sites like MySpace.com and Facebook.com, which are just starting to be used by politicians, will play an even bigger role in the 2008 presidential election.

"If you've got a brain you've got to" use the sites, Noble said. "There are always people who ignore the technology, and if they ignore it long enough they'll get beat."




Read More...

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Can't Shake The Nagging Feeling We're Missing Something

Read More...

Now Let Us All Now Sing Hymn 503

Read More...

i need 2 see u on election day

Read More...

Fool Me Once . . .

Read More...

It Was Never About the Weapons of Mass Destruction

Huffington Post
Cenk Uygur
It Was Never About the Weapons of Mass Destruction

North Korea is proof positive that the Bush administration never cared about weapons of mass destruction. If that was really their main concern, clearly North Korea would have been their top priority. As it was, North Korea was so low on the priority list that we paid almost no attention to them for six years while they built and tested nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, we invaded a country that had no biological or chemical weapons, let alone even a hint of a nuclear weapons program. Cheney and the rest of the administration looked so far and so wide to find any evidence, questionable or otherwise, to link Iraq to WMD. If they were so concerned about WMD, why didn't they obsess about far, far clearer evidence of WMD in North Korea?

The answer is obvious. They never cared about weapons of mass destruction. That was just a convenient excuse to invade a country they wanted to invade since the first day they stepped into office. One of the main architects of the war, Paul Wolfowitz, pretty much admitted it to Vanity Fair, saying it was the most convenient reason they could use. Paul O'Neill explained that the White House was holding meetings on invading Iraq ten days after inauguration - and eight months before September 11th.

There are some that even argue that the Bush administration eased up on the weapons inspection requirements for North Korea (they argue that because it's true). There are some that argue that the Bush White House stopped an investigation of the financing behind nuclear weapons proliferation, which led to North Korea having the bomb.

But you don't have to believe any of that to understand the indisputable fact that the whole weapons of mass destruction excuse they used to attack Iraq was nothing but a clear and unequivocal lie. There isn't one person on earth that can justify an invasion of Iraq (and now a complete obsession with Iran) while totally ignoring North Korea - if you're real concern was weapons of mass destruction.

Some people are now using North Korea as an excuse to go further down the road of military action against Iran. What?! How does that make any sense? Iran doesn't have any WMD and couldn't possibly have any for another five years. North Korea has them now. So, why six party talks for North Korea and military options for Iran?

Why didn't we do six party talks for Iraq if they're such a great idea for North Korea? Because six party talks is another way of saying, "I don't really care and I just want to avoid this topic until my administration ends."

You might think all of this is painfully obvious (and you would be right). But then why are we still seriously talking about Iran's nuclear program as if that's the real reason we're interested in Iran. Could it be that we are obsessed with Iran and couldn't care less about North Korea because one has oil and the other has absolutely no natural resources.

It's definitely not about the weapons of mass destruction. That is now abundantly clear. So, you tell me what the difference is? Why did we invade Iraq and now threaten military action against Iran and couldn't care less about North Korea?

Read More...

UN Sanctions: Bush's Election-Eve Conversion

Huffington Post
Craig Crawford
UN Sanctions: Bush's Election-Eve Conversion

You almost have to laugh at President Bush touting United Nations sanctions against North Korea as "swift and tough," considering how he once derided similar sanctions against Iraq as ineffective (when arguing for an invasion). Now that his own team is behind a nearly identical UN move against North Korea, suddenly he is on board with this approach?

There are just as many loopholes in the North Korean sanctions as there were in those against Iraq. And it was Saddam Hussein's exploitation of those loopholes that Bush often cited as the reason why he saw no purpose in a sanctions-based policy against the bad guys. The difference now is that White House political strategists want to look tough in the final weeks of an election campaign, even though they would be ridiculing these measures as wimpy diplomacy if Democrats had proposed them. How ironic that the UN Security Council, which Bush once mocked as nothing but a "debating club," is now his cover for looking like he is doing something meaningful.

Read More...

Tip Off: New Book Says Comment By Porter Goss Alerted Journalist To CIA's Controversial Rendition Program

Newsweek
Tip Off
A new book says that a comment by former CIA director Porter Goss alerted a journalist to the agency’s controversial rendition program.

Oct. 12, 2006 - An unsolicited remark from Porter Goss, then chairman House Intelligence Committee, led a British journalist to unravel many of the details of the CIA’s controversial “extraordinary rendition” program, according to a new book. The disclosure of this highly sensitive operation later prompted a major leak investigation that roiled the agency.

The surprising role of Goss, who later became director of the CIA, in setting London-based reporter Stephen Grey on the trail of the rendition program is revealed in “Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program,” to be published this week by St. Martin’s Press.

Grey’s dogged legwork—which started by tracing the tail numbers of mysterious aircraft ultimately linked to the CIA—eventually enabled him to piece together the story of how agency officials were abducting terror suspects and flying them to secret prisons around the world.

Yet, in an ironic twist, Grey reports that his initial tip-off to what the CIA was doing came during a Dec. 14, 2001, interview he had with Florida Congressman Goss on Capitol Hill about the war on terror. At the time, Grey, a veteran reporter who wrote for The Sunday Times of London, asked the House Intelligence Committee chairman about the prospect that Osama bin Laden might be captured and turned over to the U.S. government.

“It’s called a rendition,” Goss replied. “Do you know that?”

“No,” Grey replied, according to a transcript of the interview that Grey made available to NEWSWEEK and portions of which are cited in “Ghost Plane.”

“Well, there is a polite way to take people out of action and bring them to some type of justice,” Goss then says. “It’s generally referred to as a rendition. It's what I would have preferred to do with [former Yugoslavian president Slobodan] Milosevic instead of bombing the hell out of a sovereign nation we're not at war with. It probably would have been smarter to think of a rendition."

Grey writes that it was this offhand comment by Goss that alerted him to the existence of the highly classified CIA program of “snatches and imprisonment that operates outside normal rules.”

“It gave me the germ of the idea,” Grey said in an interview. “This is where I heard about it. He set me on the trail.”

Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a spokeswoman for Goss, dismissed the idea that Goss had disclosed anything classified or sensitive when he made his remark about rendition to Grey.

“Although that may have been the first time Mr. Grey heard the term, it certainly is not the first time the U.S. government publicly discussed this decades-old tool,” she said in an e-mail response to NEWSWEEK.

“In the ’80’s, [director of Central Intelligence William] Webster discussed rendering terrorists with The Washington Post,” Dyck continued. “During public testimony in 2000, which is easily found on CIA’s public website, Director [George] Tenet openly touted the work done with foreign governments to render terrorists to justice including associates of Usama [sic] Bin Laden. And after 9-11, the U.S. has continued to publicly site [sic] renditions as a critical tool in the War on Terror.”

But the examples that Dyck cited in her response—as well as other public references to renditions prior to Goss’s comments to Grey—involved instances in which the practice was mentioned as a legal tool by which U.S. government agents in the FBI or the CIA apprehended suspects overseas and brought them back to the United States to stand trial in courts of law.

For example, Webster’s November 1989 comments to The Washington Post refer to the Justice Department’s efforts to apprehend suspects in the bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 over Scotland the previous year and bringing them back to stand trial in the United States. The paper’s report, based on an interview with Webster, reported that the Justice Department had created a new term—“rendition”—to describe the act of capturing and bringing back to the United States a “criminal suspect.”

Similarly, Tenet’s 2000 testimony on the CIA Web site refers to how the CIA, working with foreign governments worldwide, had “helped to render more than two dozen terrorists to justice.”

But as Grey documents in his book, and has been independently confirmed by numerous news organizations, as well as senior Bush administration officials, the CIA’s program after September 11 evolved into something very different and far more controversial. Under the post-9/11 CIA program, known as extraordinary rendition, agency officials have abducted terror suspects who had never been indicted for any crimes and then flown them to either secret agency prisons or to foreign countries such as Egypt or Syria where they have been allegedly interrogated using aggressive techniques that critics charge amounts to torture.

Rand Beers, a former top counterterror official in the Bush White House who later resigned and became a critic of the administration, says Goss, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, would likely have been briefed about some classified aspects of the emerging extraordinary-rendition program at the time he made his comments to Grey.

To be sure, Goss made no explicit reference to the details of extraordinary rendition in his comments to the British journalist and even the little he did say involved talk about rendering suspects in order to “bring them to some type of justice.” Still, the disclosure that Goss may have played any role at all in the disclosure of the CIA’s secret programs may well be pounced on by critics, given his fierce condemnation of any leaks at all when he was CIA director.

In Senate testimony last February, before he resigned as director, Goss said leaks had caused “severe damage” to the agency’s operations and called for full-fledged grand-jury investigations to find the leakers. "It is my aim, and it is my hope, that we will witness a grand-jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserves nothing less."

As part of an internal CIA probe into leaks about the CIA’s secret prison program, one senior officer, Mary O. McCarthy, was fired last April after agency officials said she acknowledged “unauthorized contacts with the media and discussion of classified information.” McCarthy’s lawyer, Ty Cobb, later denied she had been the source of the leak and no criminal charges have been filed against her.

Grey estimates in his book that there have been between 100 to 150 CIA renditions under the secret program, some of which have earned global notoriety. Indeed, in Italy prosecutors have filed criminal charges against more than a dozen suspected CIA officers accused of involvement in the rendition of an Islamic militant known as Abu Omar, who was allegedly apprehended off the streets in Milan and flown to Egypt. Prosecutors in Munich are conducting a similar inquiry into the case of Khalid al-Masri, a German citizen who was abducted while on vacation in Macedonia, held and questioned in a secret prison in Afghanistan and later released without explanation. A former German counterterrorism official recently told NEWSWEEK the abduction of al-Masri was a case of “mistaken identity” by the CIA; agency officials thought he was someone else.

Grey played a key role in assisting European governments and many Western journalists to discover the CIA’s role in these and other renditions through his investigative efforts. What Grey did was to take scraps of information about planes linked to the disappearances of Islamic militants around the world and vigorously trace the aircrafts’ origins. Local journalists in Sweden, for example, acquired the tail number of a plane believed to have been involved in the mysterious abduction of an Islamic militant in Stockholm in early December 2001. (Ironically this occurred only a few days after Grey interviewed Goss.)

Using the tail number and public databases—including databases maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration—Grey eventually was able to trace the ownership and licensing of the plane to companies and air-transport operations based at an obscure airport in North Carolina. Later, Grey acquired the numbers of other suspected CIA rendition aircraft, including a Boeing 737 passenger jet. He also managed to acquire unclassified flight-plan records tracking the movements, or at least the intended movements, of the suspected CIA planes around the world. By matching the dates of suspected renditions—or known disappearances—of Islamic militants with the flight plans of CIA planes, Grey not only put together detailed chronologies of how specific renditions apparently took place, but also built up a picture of how the agency moved suspects around the world, where they moved them to and how they apparently used sites in unlikely places—such as Eastern Europe—as part of the secret operation. The Washington Post later built on the raw information assembled by Grey to produce its now famous expose of alleged CIA secret prisons in Eastern Europe, which later triggered a major CIA leak investigation under Goss’s tenure as agency director.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15236104/site/newsweek/



Read More...

Secret Service questions teen over Web threats; California girl quizzed over threats to Bush she posted on MySpace page

MSNBC.com
Secret Service questions teen over Web threats
California girl quizzed over threats to Bush she posted on MySpace page
The Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Upset by the war in Iraq, Julia Wilson vented her frustrations with President Bush last spring on her Web page on MySpace.com.

She posted a picture of the president, scrawled “Kill Bush” across the top and drew a dagger stabbing his outstretched hand. She later replaced her page on the social-networking site after learning in her eighth-grade history class that such threats are a federal offense.

It was too late.

Federal authorities had found the page and placed Wilson on their checklist. They finally reached her this week in her molecular biology class.

The 14-year-old freshman was taken out of class Wednesday and questioned for about 15 minutes by two Secret Service agents. The incident has upset her parents, who said the agents should have included them when they questioned their daughter.

On Friday, the teenager said the agents’ questioning led her to tears.

“I wasn’t dangerous. I mean, look at what’s (stenciled) on my backpack — it’s a heart. I’m a very peace-loving person,” said Wilson, an honor student who describes herself as politically passionate. “I’m against the war in Iraq. I’m not going to kill the president.”

Her mother, Kirstie Wilson, said two agents showed up at the family’s home Wednesday afternoon, questioned her and promised to return once her daughter was home from school.

After they left, Kirstie Wilson sent a text message to her daughter’s cell phone, telling her to come straight home: “There are two men from the secret service that want to talk with you. Apparently you made some death threats against president bush.”

“Are you serious!?!? omg. Am I in a lot of trouble?” her daughter responded.

‘They yelled a lot’
Moments later, Kirstie Wilson received another text message from her daughter saying agents had pulled her out of class.

Julia Wilson said the agents threatened her by saying she could be sent to juvenile hall for making the threat.

“They yelled at me a lot,” she said. “They were unnecessarily mean.”

Spokesmen for the Secret Service in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., said they could not comment on the case.

Parents unhappy with questioning
Wilson and her parents said the agents were justified in questioning her over her MySpace.com posting. But they said they believe agents went too far by not waiting until she was out of school.

They also said the agents should have more quickly figured out they weren’t dealing with a real danger. Ultimately, the agents told the teen they would delete her investigation file.

Assistant Principal Paul Belluomini said the agents gave him the impression the girl’s mother knew they were planning to question her daughter at school. There is no legal requirement that parents be notified.

“This has been an ongoing problem,” said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco.

Former Govs. Pete Wilson and Gray Davis vetoed bills that would have required that parents give consent or be present when their children are questioned at school by law enforcement officers. A similar bill this year cleared the state Senate but died in the Assembly.

Julia Wilson plans to post a new MySpace.com page, this one devoted to organizing other students to protest the Iraq war.

“I decided today I think I will because it (the questioning) went too far,” she said.



Read More...

9/11 Federal Aid Program Filled with Fraud

Huffington Post
9/11 Federal Aid Program Filled with Fraud?

So says the NY Daily News in
a report of a House Homeland Security subcommittee's study of the more than $21 billion program.

Nuggetty highlights:

FEMA, which dispensed $8.8 billion - 41% of the total federal 9/11 aid package - paid for free air conditioners and other clean-air devices to tens of thousands of New Yorkers who lived nowhere near Ground Zero or the toxic plume from the World Trade Center.

"They have no map of the city? They have no clue how far the plume went?" said an outraged King. "Then people went and used their vouchers to buy stereos and God knows what."...

payment of $300,000 by FEMA and the city to a photographer who took video and photos while flying over Ground Zero, only to turn around and use some of the material in a documentary featuring topless women.

House investigators found that the photog's background and lack of experience was never checked...

"uncomplicated" eligibility rules established by the Empire State Development Corp. and its subsidiary, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., for small business recovery grants ended up "favoring large companies."

Of course, we all know New York City isn't as crooked as New Orleans, which must be why this story isn't national news.

Read More...

Report Says Nonprofits Sold Influence to Abramoff

washingtonpost.com
Report Says Nonprofits Sold Influence to Abramoff
By James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers

Five conservative nonprofit organizations, including one run by prominent Republican Grover Norquist, "appear to have perpetrated a fraud" on taxpayers by selling their clout to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Senate investigators said in a report issued yesterday.

The report includes previously unreleased e-mails between the now-disgraced lobbyist and officers of the nonprofit groups, showing that Abramoff funneled money from his clients to the groups. In exchange, the groups, among other things, produced ostensibly independent newspaper op-ed columns or news releases that favored the clients' positions.

Officers of the groups "were generally available to carry out Mr. Abramoff's requests for help with his clients in exchange for cash payments," said the report, issued by the Senate Finance Committee. The report was written by the Democratic staff after a yearlong investigation and authorized by the Republican chairman, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).

Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy and could go to prison as early as next month. Prosecution and defense lawyers jointly filed papers yesterday asking a judge to recommend that he be sent to a federal facility in Cumberland, Md., to make it easier for him to cooperate with the ongoing probe. The investigation has resulted in one conviction and seven guilty pleas -- including one from a lawmaker, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), who is to appear today before a federal judge in the District.

The Senate report released yesterday states that the nonprofit groups probably violated their tax-exempt status "by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff's clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff's clients."

The report bolstered earlier revelations that Abramoff laundered money through the nonprofits to pay for congressional trips and paid Norquist to arrange meetings for Abramoff's clients with government officials including White House senior adviser Karl Rove.

The groups named in the report are Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform; the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, which was co-founded by Norquist and Gale Norton before she became secretary of the interior; Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Center for Public Policy Research, a spinoff of the Heritage Foundation; and Toward Tradition, a Seattle-based religious group founded by Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

E-mails released by the committee show that Abramoff, often with the knowledge of the groups' leaders, exploited the tax-exempt status and leveraged the stature of the organizations to build support among conservatives for legislation or government action sought by clients including Microsoft Corp., mutual fund company DH2 Inc., Primedia Inc.'s Channel One Network, and Brown-Forman, maker of Jack Daniel's whiskey.

A spokesman for Norquist, John Kartch, called the report "political nonsense" pushed by Democrats close to the midterm elections.

Norquist's attorney, Cleta Mitchell, had told the Senate panel that, as long as Americans for Tax Reform spends funds in keeping with its general purpose, "there is no 'abuse' of ATR's tax status." Officials with the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy denied wrongdoing. Citizens Against Government Waste said the group did not abuse its tax status and always adhered to long-held positions.

Amy Ridenour of the National Center acknowledged in an interview with investigators that donations can have some sway with think tanks but denied that they were made in exchange for positions.

Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.), the Finance Committee's ranking Democrat, called on the IRS and the FBI to investigate. "These groups' dealings with Jack Abramoff certainly violated the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of the laws that give charitable and social welfare organizations a break for the good work they're supposed to do," Baucus said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for Grassley said the chairman did not co-write the report because he had hoped it would include a broader range of groups that he believes also breached their tax status. A Baucus aide said the Democratic staff did not object to a broader review.

The Abramoff scandal has bruised the image of Norquist, a friend of Abramoff's since their days in the College Republicans. Often consulted by Rove, Norquist for decades has convened a key Wednesday morning strategy session for conservative leaders, lobbyists and Republican lawmakers.

Abramoff traded on Norquist's cachet, at one point referring to him in an e-mail as a "hard-won asset" of his lobbying empire. In exchange for Norquist's opposition to taxes on Brown-Forman products, Norquist recommended that a $50,000 donation be made to Americans for Tax Reform, according to an Abramoff e-mail.

"What is most important, however, is that this matter is kept discreet," Abramoff wrote to a colleague at the Preston, Gates & Ellis law firm. "We do not want the opponents to think that we are trying to buy the taxpayer movement."

The e-mails show that Abramoff and Norquist explicitly discussed client donations to Norquist's group in exchange for Norquist's support. The group's advocacy "appears indistinguishable from lobbying undertaken by for-profit, taxable firms," the report said.

Among those who agreed to donate money for an opinion piece was DH2, which in 2004 pushed for tax breaks for its customers.

E-mails show that DH2 understood that Norquist's help came with a price tag. The tab was sent to DH2's managing director, Robert S. Rubin.

"I told Rubin he needs to round up some $$$ for ATR," wrote lobbyist Michael E. Williams to his boss, Abramoff.

"Get the money from Rubin in hand," Abramoff replied, "and then we'll call Grover."

How much, Williams asked.

"50K," Abramoff wrote.

Abramoff e-mailed Norquist on Feb. 10, 2004: "I have sent over a $50K contribution from DH2 (the mutual fund client). Any sense as to where we are on the op-ed placement?"

Replied Norquist: "The Wash Times told me they were running the piece. . . . I will nudge again."

The Washington Times has published about 50 Norquist op-eds since 1993 but apparently none on mutual funds. Norquist did write a letter in April 2004 to a congressman praising him for sponsoring "legislation that would finally allow mutual fund shareholders to defer their capital gains tax" and pledging that his group "is committed to helping you pass this legislation."

Norquist wrote an op-ed piece, published in the Washington Times, as part of an extensive Abramoff campaign for Channel One, which broadcasts educational programming and advertising into public school classrooms. An Abramoff e-mail to Norquist offered him $1,500 for an op-ed, and another e-mail exchange suggested up to $3,000 to buy an "economic analysis."

The Council for Republican Environmental Advocacy, founded by Norquist and Norton, who resigned as interior secretary earlier this year, also appeared to have been used "as an extension of Mr. Abramoff's lobbying organization," the report said.

Abramoff directed his client Indian tribes to donate a total of about $500,000 to the group, telling them that the donation was a way to cultivate Norton at the Interior Department, which oversees the tribes and their casinos. E-mails show that Abramoff told the tribes that they would be CREA's "trustees" and that Norton would "host" a series of CREA dinners. Interior Department documents obtained by The Washington Post suggest that Norton was an invited guest at a CREA dinner, not a host.

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.




Read More...

Conservatives Rally Against Bush Aide-Turned-Critic; Exposé of White House Scorn for Evangelicals Is Disputed

washingtonpost.com
Conservatives Rally Against Bush Aide-Turned-Critic
Exposé of White House Scorn for Evangelicals Is Disputed
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer

Conservative religious leaders described themselves as shocked yesterday by a new book's charge that Bush administration staffers privately dismissed evangelical Christian political activists as "nuts" and "goofy."

But their dismay was aimed at the book's author, former White House official David Kuo, rather than at President Bush or his senior advisers.

James Dobson, Charles W. Colson and other stalwarts of the conservative Christian movement defended the Bush administration and questioned the timing of the book's publication, a month before the midterm elections. Some suggested that Kuo had betrayed the White House.

"I feel sorry for him, because once you do something like this, you get your 15 minutes in the spotlight, but then after that nobody will touch you," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian advocacy group in Washington. "These kiss-and-tell books do more damage to the author than to the people they attack."

Kuo, who was deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in Bush's first term, alleges in the book, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," that the Bush administration used its funding of religious charities to court evangelical voters in Machiavellian fashion.

The book is being published at a pivotal moment not just for Republicans who are battling to maintain control of the House and Senate but also for conservative Christian voters, whose support for the GOP has dipped in recent polls.

At 7 p.m. Sunday, evangelical leaders including Perkins and Dobson plan to broadcast a 90-minute television special from a Boston church to hundreds of other churches across the country in an attempt to keep religious conservatives from sitting out the election.

Called "Liberty Sunday," it will "highlight specific cases and stories where people's religious liberties have been threatened because of homosexual activism and gay marriage in Massachusetts," said Family Research Council spokeswoman Bethanie Swendsen.

At the same hour, CBS's "60 Minutes" will broadcast the first interview with Kuo about his book, which is scheduled to go on sale Monday. CBS and the book's publisher, Simon & Schuster, tried to keep a lid on the book's contents until the "60 Minutes" exclusive. But MSNBC host Keith Olbermann obtained a copy and began broadcasting excerpts Wednesday.

Conservative Christian leaders as well as present and former White House officials responded yesterday to the MSNBC report, noting that they had not yet seen the book itself.

White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that the book's "assumption or insinuation seems to be that the administration takes lightly faith-based groups." That is "false," he said.

Asked whether the president's "faith-based initiative" was used for political purposes, Snow said flatly: "No." Snow also read from a letter Kuo wrote to Bush when he left the administration in December 2003, saying he was "proud of all the initiative has accomplished."

In the book, Kuo asserts that the faith-based office was hurriedly set up after Bush took office in 2001 by a transition volunteer who was given less than a week to roll out the initiative.

Kuo asserts that evangelical leaders were called "the nuts" by people in White House political strategist Karl Rove's office. "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person, and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control' and just plain 'goofy,' " the book says, according to MSNBC.

Kuo previously has criticized the Bush administration for not carrying out the president's 2000 campaign promise to boost charitable giving at least $7 billion a year by extending charitable tax breaks to people who do not itemize income tax deductions.

In the book, he says the White House opted instead for cuts in the estate tax that eliminated the incentive for many wealthy people to make charitable donations. The "ultimate impact was to brutalize the very charities Mr. Bush once identified as his top priorities," Kuo says.

Beginning in 2002, the White House held ostensibly "nonpartisan" conferences about the availability of federal grants for religious charities. But Kuo alleges that the events were, in fact, designed to help vulnerable Republican incumbents.

Ken Mehlman, then the White House director of political affairs and now chairman of the Republican National Committee, "loved the idea and gave us our marching orders" to hold meetings in 20 congressional districts, the book says.

H. James Towey, who directed the faith-based office during Kuo's time there, said yesterday that "it sounds like he worked at a different White House than the one I worked for."

Towey added that he, not Mehlman, decided where to hold conferences. "If a congressman in a tight race invited me, I went," he said. "But that was true of Democrats as well as Republicans."

Dobson, the psychologist and radio host who heads the influential group Focus on the Family, issued a statement calling the book "a mix of sour grapes and political timing."

Colson, who founded Prison Fellowship Ministries, said he was "shocked and disappointed by what appears to be political timing to sell a book, and a very unfair characterization of the parties involved."

Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, a Christian women's group in Washington, said she sees "no reason to question the sincerity of this president" based on the accusations aired so far.

"So, in Rove's office people of faith are mocked? Well, who in Rove's office did the mocking? It's easy to make allegations like that if you don't give the name, date, time," she said.

Perkins of the Family Research Council said he would not be surprised if derisive comments were made behind Christian leaders' backs.

"I have no misconceptions about how people in the Republican Party and the establishment view social conservatives. They are dismissive. I see how they prefer to work with fiscal conservatives," he said. "Having said that, I see it really as a marriage of convenience. We are not without significant gains by working with this administration."



Read More...

Conn. Republican Rep. Christopher Shays Blames National Guard For Abu Ghraib; Says Abu Ghraib Abuses Were Sex Ring, Not Torture

ABC News
Republican Shays Blames National Guard For Abu Ghraib
Conn. Republican Rep. Christopher Shays Says Abu Ghraib Abuses Were Sex Ring, Not Torture
The Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. - Republican Rep. Christopher Shays said Friday the Abu Ghraib prison abuses were more about pornography than torture.

The congressman, who is in a tough re-election fight, said a National Guard unit was primarily responsible for the abuses.

"It was a National Guard unit run amok," Shays said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "It was torture because sex abuse is torture. It was gross and despicable ... This is more about pornography than torture."

In fact, the 372nd Military Police Company from Cresaptown, Md., is an Army Reserve unit not National Guard.

Shays sought to defuse controversy over previous comments suggesting the Abu Ghraib abuses weren't torture but instead involved a sex ring of troops.

"Now I've seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture," Shays said at a debate Wednesday.

"It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked," added Shays. "And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture."

The lawmaker's comments were in a transcript of the debate provided by his opponent, Diane Farrell. Shays' campaign, contacted Friday, did not dispute the comments.

Abu Ghraib is the Baghdad prison where abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers led to an international scandal. Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were brutalized and sexually humiliated by military police and intelligence agents in the fall of 2003. At least 11 U.S. soldiers have been convicted in the scandal.

In the debate, the congressman had been asked what the government should do to restore the nation's moral image in the wake of torture accusations at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay.

Shays said Friday he wished he had more fully explained his views at the debate.

"I was maybe not as expansive as I needed to be," he said. "Of course, the degrading of anyone is torture. We need to deal with it."

Shays said his debate comments reflected the disturbing photos he has seen of Abu Ghraib abuses: "Naked Iraqis, naked Americans, Americans having sex ... gross and despicable pictures."

Shays is waging a bruising re-election fight against Farrell.

"Once again, Chris is trying to back away from an earlier statement because it's politically expedient," Farrell said Friday. "It's typical Chris."

Shays stirred controversy recently when he defended House Speaker Dennis Hastert's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like at Chappaquiddick in 1969 when Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy was involved.




Read More...

Weldon faces probe on daughter's deals

Yahoo! News
Weldon faces probe on daughter's deals
By KIMBERLY HEFLING and LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

The FBI is investigating whether Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, two people familiar with the inquiry said Saturday.

The inquiry focuses on lobbying contracts worth $1 million that Weldon's daughter, Karen Weldon, obtained from foreign clients and whether they were assisted by the congressman, they said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the criminal investigation.

Weldon, a 10-term Republican from the Philadelphia suburbs, long has denied any wrongdoing, and his top aide said Saturday no one had notified him of an investigation.

"I think if there was an investigation, somebody would have contacted us," said Russ Caso, Weldon's chief of staff.

Caso said Weldon and his staff were "100 percent caught off guard" when they learned of the investigation, first reported late Friday by McClatchy Newspapers. This account cited two individuals with specific knowledge of the existence of the investigation; they declined to be identified because of the confidentiality of criminal investigations.

Caso, whose boss is in a tight race for re-election on Nov. 7 against Democrat Joe Sestak, tried to cast doubt on reports of the investigation. "Unidentified sources mean nothing," Caso said. "There's no substance in that story. It's a flimsy story."

Two people familiar with the investigation told the AP on Saturday that the inquiry was being handled by agents from the FBI's field offices in Washington and Philadelphia and was being coordinated by the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the FBI declined comment Saturday.

Those two people familiar with the investigation confirmed that federal agents were examining Weldon's work between 2002 and 2004 to help two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers connected to former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. They had hired Solutions North America Inc., a company operated by Karen Weldon and Charles Sexton, a Republican ally of the congressman.

Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services committee, is a Russian speaker regarded by some as a foreign policy expert who has clashed at times with the Bush administration.

Over the last few days, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has mailed fliers to voters in Weldon's district accusing Karen Weldon of getting help from her father on lobbying projects.

Michael Puppio, Weldon's campaign manager, questioned the timing of the mailing and published reports about the investigation. He accused Democrats of "attempting to smear the congressman and his entire family" in the final weeks of the campaign.

Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the DCCC, said it's "bizarre, paranoid and absurd" for the Weldon campaign to imply there's a link in the timing of the mailing and the published reports.

The Weldon investigation comes at a critical time for Republicans who are fighting to maintain a majority in the House of Representatives in a midst of scandals.

On Friday, Rep. Bob Ney (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, pleaded guilty in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, which has touched on federal lawmakers, former aides and members of the Bush administration.

At the same time, an inquiry is under way on Capitol Hill into whether Republican House leaders or their top aides covered up questionable behavior of former Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record) toward teenage males who worked as House pages.




Read More...

Bush Keeps Changing Reason For Iraq War

Yahoo! News
Bush keeps revising war justification
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S. is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to history-of-civilization stakes now.

Initially, the rationale was specific: to stop Saddam Hussein from using what Bush claimed were the Iraqi leader's weapons of mass destruction or from selling them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

But 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight and the war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, the justification has become far broader and now includes the expansive "struggle between good and evil."

Republicans seized on North Korea's reported nuclear test last week as further evidence that the need for strong U.S. leadership extends beyond Iraq.

Bush's changing rhetoric reflects increasing administration efforts to tie the war, increasingly unpopular at home, with the global fight against terrorism, still the president's strongest suit politically.

"We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West," Bush said in a news conference last week in the Rose Garden.

When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.

After Saddam's capture in December 2003, the rationale became helping to spread democracy through the Middle East. Then it was confronting terrorists in Iraq "so we do not have to face them here at home," and "making America safer," themes Bush pounds today.

"We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."

Vice President Dick Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the civilized world ride with us," Cheney tells audiences.

Except for the weapons of mass destruction argument, there is some validity in each of Bush's shifting rationales, said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution who initially supported the war effort.

"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it should be."

Andrew Card, Bush's first chief of staff, said Bush's evolving rhetoric, including his insistence that Iraq is a crucial part of the fight against terrorism, is part of an attempt to put the war in better perspective for Americans.

The administration recently has been "doing a much better job" in explaining the stakes, Card said in an interview. "We never said it was going to be easy. The president always told us it would be long and tough."

"I'm trying to do everything I can to remind people that the war on terror has the war in Iraq as a subset. It's critical we succeed in Iraq as part of the war on terror," said Card, who left the White House in March.

Bush at first sought to explain increasing insurgent and sectarian violence as a lead-up to Iraqi elections. But elections came and went, and a democratically elected government took over, and the sectarian violence increased.

Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up. He has likened the war to the 20th century struggles against fascism, Nazism and communism. He has called Iraq the "central front" in a global fight against radical jihadists.

Having jettisoned most of the earlier, upbeat claims of progress, Bush these days emphasizes consequences of setting even a limited withdrawal timetable: abandonment of the Iraqi people, destabilizing the Middle East and emboldening terrorists around the world.

The more ominous and determined his words, the more skeptical the American public appears, polls show, both on the war itself and over whether it is part of the larger fight against terrorism, as the administration insists.

Bush's approval rating, reflected by AP-Ipsos polls, has slid from the mid 60s at the outset of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 to the high 30s now. There were light jumps upward after the December 2003 capture of Saddam, Bush's re-election in November 2004 and each of three series of aggressive speeches over the past year. Those gains tended to vanish quickly.

With the war intruding on the fall elections, both parties have stepped up their rhetoric.

Republicans, who are also reeling from the congressional page scandal, are casting Democrats as seeking to "cut and run" and appease terrorists.

Democrats accuse Bush of failed leadership with his "stay the course" strategy. They cite a government intelligence assessment suggesting the Iraq war has helped recruit more terrorists, and a book by journalist Bob Woodward that portrays Bush as intransigent in his defense of the Iraq war and his advisers as bitterly divided.

Democrats say Iraq has become a distraction from the war against terrorism — not a central front. But they are divided among themselves on what strategy to pursue.

Republicans, too, increasingly are growing divided as U.S. casualties rise.

"I struggle with the fact that President Bush said, `As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.' But the fact is, this has not happened," said Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., a war supporter turned war skeptic.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, said after a recent visit to Iraq that Iraq was "drifting sideways." He urged consideration of a "change of course" if the Iraq government fails to restore order over the next two or three months.

More than 2,750 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war, most of them since Bush's May 2003 "mission accomplished" aircraft carrier speech. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died.

Recent events have been dispiriting.

The United States now has about 141,000 troops in Iraq, up from about 127,000 in July. Some military experts have suggested at least one additional U.S. division, or around 20,000 troops, is needed in western Iraq alone.

Dan Benjamin, a former Middle East specialist with the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, said the administration is overemphasizing the nature of the threat in an effort to bolster support.

"I think the administration has oversold the case that Iraq could become a jihadist state," said Benjamin, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "If the U.S. were to leave Iraq tomorrow, the result would be a bloodbath in which Sunnis and Shiites fight it out. But the jihadists would not be able to seek power."

Not all of Bush's rhetorical flourishes have had the intended consequences.

When the history of Iraq is finally written, the recent surge in sectarian violence is "going to be a comma," Bush said in several recent appearances.

Critics immediately complained that the remark appeared unsympathetic and dismissive of U.S. and Iraqi casualties, an assertion the White House disputed.

For a while last summer, Bush depicted the war as one against "Islamic fascism," borrowing a phrase from conservative commentators. The strategy backfired, further fanning anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world.

The "fascism" phrase abruptly disappeared from Bush's speeches, reportedly after he was talked out of it by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes, a longtime Bush confidant now with the State Department.

Hughes said she would not disclose private conversations with the president. But, she told the AP, she did not use the "fascism" phrase herself. "I use `violent extremist,'" she said.



Read More...

Ney convicted in lobbying scandal

Reuters
Ney convicted in lobbying scandal
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican congressman pleaded guilty on Friday in the Jack Abramoff political corruption investigation, becoming the first lawmaker convicted in an election-year scandal that has reached into Congress and the Bush administration.

Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio admitted he had illegally accepted trips, meals, drinks, tickets to concerts and sporting events and other items worth tens of thousands of dollars in return for official acts performed on behalf of the lobbyist Abramoff and his clients.

Ney, who abandoned his re-election race in August as the Justice Department investigated his links to the convicted Abramoff, said he was ashamed of the way his public service career was ending and will resign from Congress in the next few weeks.

But with the election less than a month away and with Democrats increasingly optimistic about winning control of Congress, the White House and House Republican leaders urged Ney to step down immediately.

"What Congressman Ney did was not a reflection of the Republican Party. It was a reflection of Congressman Ney and he ought to step down," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois and other Republican House leaders said they will move to expel Ney immediately as the first order of business when Congress resumes its legislative work in November, if Ney has not resigned.

"Bob Ney must be punished for the criminal actions he has acknowledged," they said in a statement. "He betrayed his oath of office and violated the trust of those he represented in the House. There is no place for him in this Congress."

Appearing at a federal court a few blocks from the Capitol, Ney stood before the judge during the 30-minute hearing and said, "I plead guilty your honor."

IN ALCOHOL TREATMENT

He gave brief answers to the judge's questions and said he has been in an alcohol treatment program during the past month.

In a statement issued after the hearing, Ney said, "I have made mistakes of judgment and acted in ways that I am not proud of."

The Abramoff scandal and the scandal involving lewd computer messages sent by disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley to young male congressional aides have hurt Republicans as they seek to keep control of Congress in the November 7 elections.

The Abramoff scandal also has reached into the White House, with the conviction of former Bush administration official David Safavian and last week's resignation of Susan Ralston, an aide to top presidential political adviser Karl Rove.

Ney, who reached a plea deal with prosecutors last month, admitted he conspired to commit fraud and other offenses and that he filed false financial disclosure forms.

"I accept responsibility for my actions and I am prepared to face the consequences of what I have done," he said in his statement.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told the 52-year-old Ney that he faced a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and that, as part of his plea deal, prosecutors recommended he get 27 months in prison.

Huvelle told Ney she was not bound by the government's recommendation and set sentencing for January 19.

Ney's lawyer, Mark Tuohey, requested that Ney be given treatment for his alcoholism while in prison.

Ney, who was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1994, said he will resign from Congress in the next few weeks once he makes sure "my staff members are OK and that any open constituent matters and obligations are taken care of."




Read More...

Government appeals wiretapping decision

Reuters
Government appeals wiretapping decision

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Friday appealed a federal judge's ruling this summer that a controversial post-September 11, 2001, domestic spying program was illegal.

The Justice Department, in documents filed with a federal court in Cincinnati, argued that President George W. Bush had acted within the law in authorizing the surveillance of domestic wiretaps of international telephone calls.

In its appeal, the government stated that the federal judge's ruling "dismantles a tool that already has helped detect and disrupt al Qaeda plots."

It stated that U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's direction to "proceed with great caution in resolving challenges in this extraordinarily sensitive context."

Nearly a year ago, media reports revealed the existence of the domestic spying by the National Security Agency.

Civil libertarians, including the ACLU, which brought the suit, have argued the government could gain the same type of intelligence information through warrants.

Judge Taylor ruled in August that NSA's five-year-old surveillance program, implemented as part of the government's war on terrorism, violates the civil rights of Americans because the government does not have to present justification for its monitoring in court and obtain a warrant.

In its appeal, the government argued the surveillance program was narrowly targeted and thus did not violate Americans' constitutional rights, while being an effective tool in stopping potential terrorist attacks.

The expedited appeal called for the government to submit its arguments to the appeals court by Friday, with a response due a month later.

The losing side is almost certain to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is likely to take up the case.

Earlier this month, an appeals court in Cincinnati ruled that the Bush administration's wiretap program can continue pending the government's appeal.

In late September, the House of Representatives passed legislation authorizing President George W. Bush's domestic spying program. But the measure stalled in the Senate and Congress is now on a long election-year recess.




Read More...