Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Crying Time

Huffington Post
Justin Frank
Crying Time

One of George W. Bush's deepest unconscious wishes has finally come true - he publicly brought down his own family, particularly his father. He had been building up to this point throughout his public and private life - most famously when he told Bob Woodward that he never consulted his father about invading Iraq, and that he preferred a "higher Father." To make matters worse he wouldn't let his father speak at the 2004 Republican Convention and soon thereafter consigned him to tour the world with the man who had defeated him in 1992 - Bill Clinton.

This time, W didn't have to do anything. He has already destroyed his father's legacy of international cooperation. He continues practice what Bush 41 once derisively labeled "voodoo economics", driving America into irrevocable debt. As usual, W was nowhere to be found when his father broke down while attempting to celebrate brother Jeb's career - Jeb, who may be the real man of the family.

When Bush 41 started talking about Jeb's 1994 gubernatorial loss in Florida he wept openly, sputtering that Jeb didn't whine or complain about losing; that how a person handles victory and defeat is the true measure of a man. He choked up on the word "defeat," a word he must feel applies to his entire dynasty.

For it is not simply that W is a failure, which he is. He is also a success - he breaks things more thoroughly than any president in history. And now W has branded his entire family as failures, Jeb's defeat becoming the prototype for future family humiliations. While Bush 41 defends his firstborn, he reveres his third-born. And in his heart of hearts he knows that the firstborn has murdered not only our sons and daughters, but his family's hope for a lasting legacy of honor, courage, and real public service.

Read More...

Afghan suicide bomb attack kills eight in south

Reuters
Afghan suicide bomb attack kills eight in south

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A suicide bomber attacked the office of a U.S.-owned security company in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday killing eight people, including two Americans, a government and company official said.

The blast took place at the office of the USPI security company in Kandahar, they said. The company provides guards to protect foreign companies working on construction and infrastructure projects.

The Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) said the bomber set off his explosives among a crowd of people standing outside the office waiting to go in to work.

Akhtar Mohammad, a USPI employee, said among those killed was the head of the company's Kandahar office, who he identified as Mr Jack, AIP reported.

Afghanistan this year has plunged into the bloodiest period of violence since U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban's radical Islamic government in 2001.

About 105 suicide bomb attacks this year have killed nearly 250 people, according to Afghanistan's NATO security force.



Read More...

Democrat says Bush wants to run out clock on Iraq

Reuters
Democrat says Bush wants to run out clock on Iraq
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic White House hopeful Tom Vilsack said on Tuesday President George W. Bush wanted to "run out the clock" on Iraq and defer the tough decisions on its future to the winner of the 2008 race.

Vilsack, governor of Iowa and the first Democrat to officially jump in the White House race, also criticized likely Republican presidential contender John McCain's call for more troops in Iraq and said the U.S. military was suffering from the strain of repeated deployments.

"Currently the president has a strategy to run out the clock and shift responsibility to make the tough decisions to the next administration, which is an unfortunate thing for America and unfortunate thing for Iraq," he said in a Reuters interview.

Vilsack said he hoped the Iraq Study Group, which is to make recommendations to Bush on Wednesday, would mirror his proposal to "get our troops out of harm's way" by withdrawing U.S. forces from central and southern Iraq and redeploying for a limited time a smaller force for security in the north.

Bush has said he is not satisfied with progress in Iraq and will consider the proposals offered by the study group.

"I sincerely hope that we don't go down the path that Senator McCain has espoused, which is to make a big mistake bigger by adding more troops," Vilsack said.

McCain, an Arizona senator and early Republican favorite in the 2008 race who has formed an exploratory presidential committee, has been an ardent supporter of the war and says more troops are needed to complete the job.

"We've deployed some of these troops two and three or four times over there. Our military is under a lot of stress," Vilsack said. "I don't know where these troops are going to come from."

Vilsack, who came to Washington after a five-state tour launching his presidential candidacy, said he was not daunted by his underdog status in a Democratic field that could include political heavyweights like Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

He said his experience as Iowa governor dealing with issues like renewable energy and his familiarity and appeal to rural and small-town voters would be a prime asset in the 2008 race.

"Democrats have not been talking to people in small towns and rural America, and we have been losing states west of the Mississippi that we shouldn't be losing," he said. "I think I can broaden the map, and at the end of the day broadening the map is what is going to win for us."

Vilsack, who held a weekend fund-raiser in Iowa, said he could raise enough money to be viable in a race with more high-profile candidates. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a former governor, formed a presidential exploratory committee on Tuesday.

"It's not about having more money, it's about having enough money to compete," he said. "Will I outraise Hillary Clinton? Heck no, but I'll stack my ideas up against anybody's."




Read More...

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions; New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder

Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions
New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer

Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.

With the Democrats taking over control of the House next January, the views that some voiced during two days of debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of those lawmakers will move into positions of power. They include not only members of the new House leadership but also the incoming chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget and Judiciary committees and the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats who predicted during the House floor debate that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar, both of whom had led the U.S. Army's Central Command -- a part of which is in Spratt's district.

"They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.

Spratt recently looked back at his resolution, which would have required Bush to come back to Congress before launching an attack. It was defeated 270 to 158. He recalled that extended hearings were held before the Persian Gulf War but that nothing similar preceded the vote on the 2002 resolution. "I remember we talked this time about how we got to get answers before this train leaves the station," Spratt said.

The incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), spoke in support of Spratt's amendment, stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary."

Skelton had written Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to say that "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."

Skelton went on to note the "extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions and its isolated economic system." He also warned that Bush's postwar strategy must "take seriously" the possibility that a replacement regime "might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy."

Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), who will chair the Appropriations Committee, was among the group that organized the Democrats. He spoke then about poor preparation for postwar Iraq, a concern he developed after listening to State Department officials.

He recalled recently that an amendment by Rep. Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.) that would have delayed taking action until inspectors from the United Nations completed their work "made sense, but there was no prayer it would pass." It got 72 votes.

Obey said Spratt's amendment was the only approach "that could gather critical mass, and that's what most of us in the caucus settled on."

The number of House Democrats who supported Spratt "was a remarkable achievement," Obey said, "given it meant opposing the president in the wake of 9/11." Obey's district was 70 percent in favor of going into Iraq, he said.

On the House floor more than four years ago, Lee told colleagues: "Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked." That information, she said, came from material that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet had provided to the Senate.

Lee also raised questions in the floor debate that remain unanswered. "What is our objective here," she asked four years ago, "regime change or elimination of weapons of mass destruction?"

Looking forward now to next year and a Democratic majority in the House, Lee said, "Those of us who early on understood have many ideas of what to do now and how to get out of Iraq."

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), who did not belong to a committee with national security jurisdiction, was among the lawmakers who talked on the House floor about what turned out to be the real issues in Iraq. She spoke of the "postwar challenges," saying that "there is no history of democratic government in Iraq," that its "economy and infrastructure is in ruins after years of war and sanctions" and that rebuilding would take "a great deal of money."

Baldwin four years ago asked questions that are being widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq?"

Baldwin said recently that she put together her statement after reading public commentary and talking with like-minded colleagues and her staff about what would come next. "A vote like this, I didn't undertake lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an exit strategy; it was such a blank."

The day after the House vote, The Washington Post recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S. soldiers did not have adequate protection against biological weapons.

"As a veteran, that's what hit me the hardest," he said.

Lee was described as giving a "fiery denunciation" of the administration's "rush to war," with only 14 colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in the two Post stories about passage of the resolution that day.

Read More...

Phone data privacy bill gets a final push

Reuters
Phone data privacy bill gets a final push
By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers on Monday mounted a final effort to pass legislation this year to ban the use of deceptive methods to obtain consumers telephone records.

Democrats and Republicans sought a deal that would clear the way for the Senate to approve the measure before the Republican-led 109th Congress draws to a close, likely at the end of this week, Senate leadership aides said.

The legislation was approved earlier this year by the House of Representatives. Both chambers need to pass it so it can be sent to President George W. Bush to sign into law.

If the 109th Congress expires before a final agreement is reach on the legislation, lawmakers would have to begin anew on the effort after the 110th Congress convenes on January 4 under the control of Democrats.

"This is just one of those (bills) that we can see pass," one GOP aide said.

The legislation is aimed at stopping the practice of impersonating people to obtain their telephone records, also known as pretexting.

There currently is no law against the practice which was spotlighted when Hewlett-Packard Co. admitted that its investigators obtained telephone records of board members, employees and journalists without their permission as the company tried to find who was leaking sensitive information.

The latest efforts to pass the legislation came as the Republican-led Congress began a final, week-long session.

The phone records measure is one of several that would be passed under unanimous consent, a process by which leaders from both parties agree to bring a bill to a vote on the Senate floor, aides said.

It was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously in March but subsequently stalled in the full Senate.

Some Senate lawmakers had been pushing for a broader bill, which also would have given consumers and telephone companies the right to sue for damages.

But aides said they did not anticipate any objections to passing the House version of the bill.

"I think people have gotten to the point where it's basically this limited one or nothing," one Republican aide said. "People have realized that we're almost at the end."

The measure also prohibits buying records from a data broker and sets criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and fines. The bill would not interfere with investigations by federal, state or local law enforcement agencies.



Read More...

John McCain: Too Dangerous To Be President

Huffington Post
RJ Eskow
Exactly How Dangerous IS John McCain?

The generals and commanders in the field have unanimously rejected his call to send in more troops, according to Gen. Abizaid, but John McCain hasn't stopped talking. He seems intent on outdoing both Cheney and Rumsfeld in promoting poorly-thought-out and extreme plans. Here are two radical and dangerous ideas John McCain has recently put forth about Iraq:

Kill Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iraq's Shiite leadership brought al-Sadr into their coalition. Now, frustrated by his influence on the government, McCain said "I think he needs to be taken out."

Reject any form of compromise in resolving the war.

Speaking of the Iraq Study Group's search for a compromise solution to ending the war, McCain was contemptuous: "Well in war, my dear friends, there is no such thing as compromise; you either win or you lose." (courtesy TPM)

These ideas are so extreme that they should force those who have bought the "moderate" or "independent" spin about McCain to acknowledge the increasingly obvious: Either McCain has lost his mind, or he has sacrificed all principle in order to position himself for a Presidential run.

Come to think of it, these two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive.

His behavior also raises this question: Is John McCain now the most dangerous man in America? These statements certainly make it clear that he lacks the judgement and skill necessary to be President.

Let's look at each of his wacky comments in turn.

"Take him out."

This sort of language and behavior has undermined longstanding alliances, diminished American influence worldwide, and left us without the allies we need to effectively combat international terrorism. Until Bush, American Presidents knew better than to talk like this, even - or especially - if they intended to act.

Killing al-Sadr would immediately create a renewed worldwide backlash against the U.S. It would also be an enormous gift to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists, giving them a new martyr and reinforcing the stereotype of Americans as bloodthirsty and lawless.

Al-Sadr's death would deprive future Iraqi leaders of a critical bargaining partner. It would be the equivalent of a newly-elected Ronald Reagan assassinating Brezhnev, instead of negotiating with him.

Most importantly, it would turn many more Shiites into active participants in the insurgency. Al-Sadr is the son of a beloved Grand Ayatollah, in a culture that believes holiness runs in families. For many Iraqi Shiites, it would be the equivalent of murdering someone who is the combination of Pope John Paul and Abraham Lincoln.

We may not like Moqtada al-Sadr's ideas, but his influence is undeniable. McCain was talking loony talk here. Whether he was serious, or just throwing red meat to conservatives, it was foolish, irresponsible, and un-Presidential.

"In war there is no compromise."

The truth is that wars almost always end with compromises of one sort or another, especially among countries. (Yalta, anyone?) But McCain's objection to compromise isn't international. He objects to compromise among various parties in the U.S. about how to handle the war - particularly any compromise with those who disagree with him over how the war should be handled.

Unfortunately, those parties with whom he refuses to compromise include the many military leaders who have dismissed his ideas for escalation. McCain's intransigence on the war, and his contempt for compromise, may be forcing the Bush Administration and other Republicans into a position where they have no room to de-escalate.

"You either win or lose."

This one's is almost certainly cynical and self-serving, rather than simply reckless or irrational. He's positioning himself to blame others for the "loss" of Iraq. Here's a question McCain can't answer: "If tehe only choices are 'winning' or 'losing,' what does 'winning' in Iraq look like?"

No hypotheticals or generalizations allowed, like "a free and stable country." What cities do we conquer, what neighborhoods do we take, what territory do we seize - and to whom do we hand it over, under what conditions? If you can't describe that - and McCain can't - you can't describe victory.

As I wrote last month, "Here's a simple truth about war. If you don't know how to win one and you don't intend to negotiate, there's only one other option left: defeat." McCain's "strategy" can only end in failure. Does he know that? Does he care? Does anything matter except promoting his presidential chances?

Tragically, McCain is helping foster a political climate that makes GOP leaders less able to heed the advice of our military. It's hard to know the exact mix of motives - how much is blundering and how much is pandering to the right. Either way, he's a reckless and unstable force in American politics.

"I don't want to be president of the United States so much that I will take a position that I don't believe in when American lives are at risk," said McCain. Sadly, it's no longer possible to believe him - not after he squandered the moral authority he acquired as a hero and torture victim by acceding to a deal with Bush and Rove that permitted Americans to keep torturing the innocent and the guilty alike.

That's the sort of "compromise" America doesn't need.

The mainstream media is working overtime to elect John McCain. They're telling you he's a "straight talker," despite his self-serving and politically motivated about-faces - on torture, on the religious right, even regarding racist attacks on his own family during the 2000 primaries. And there's always more - like his embarrassing (and clearly politically-motivated) flip-flop on ethanol. Yet the political pundits still claim McCain's a straight shooter.

Here's what they won't tell you: President John McCain would be every bit as unstable, dangerous, and cynical as the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld axis he hopes to replace.

The press played a big part in electing the people who got us into today's mess. Now they're working hard to elect someone who may, in fact, be just as dangerous - or more so.

Read More...

Monday, December 04, 2006

9/11 Is Why Bush Is The Worst President Ever

Huffington Post
Bob Cesca
9/11 Is Why He's The Worst President Ever

In Sunday's Washington Post, Douglas Brinkley opened the official public portion of the debate amongst historians as to whether President Bush has been the worst president in American history. Meanwhile, the debate on this topic has been on-going in the blogosphere for as long as I can remember. Brinkley writes that it's the Iraq War which will place George W. Bush amongst our worst presidents and most of us from the blogs can agree that it's one of the president's leading trespasses on a long, long list.

Iraq, in fact, is a terrible symptom of the president's horrifyingly awful reaction to September 11. It is his mishandling of 9/11, ultimately, that makes him not amongst our worst, but the worst American president.

I've always held that anyone -- even a child -- would've reacted similarly to President Bush during and after 9/11 in all aspects. His stunned inaction during My Pet Goat in Florida; his initial statements; his address before the joint session of Congress; the invasion of Afghanistan; everything. All predictable, all textbook, all ordinary. It was all too typical of President Bush's mediocre nature: do what is basically expected, but not much else. And then, rather than using 9/11 as a means to unify us all through humanitarian legislation and positive, uplifting acts to truly change the world for the better, the president instead exploited 9/11 with the goal of consolidating executive power and selfishly indulging the foreign policy whimsy of his associates.

Almost as tragic as the attacks themselves, President Bush turned the nation and the world down a path of darkness, tragedy and more death. America is more divided than it has been since the Civil War. Many former allies disdain and merely tolerate us. It's difficult to image now that the people of Iran -- an "axis of evil" nation -- held massive candlelight vigils honoring our fallen citizens. As a result of the president's 9/11 reactions, Republicans, in their defense of the president, have tossed aside intellectual honesty, rationality and thoughtfulness, while Democrats, with their patriotism constantly and wrongfully at issue, have either acquiesced or have allowed formerly important issues to sag under the weight of dealing with cleaning up the president's mistakes.

Looking back at the last five years, I can't help but to compare our recent history to a time travel movie in which the time-space continuum has skewed into an alternate reality and the events that should've happened after 9/11... simply never existed. In other words, September 11 should have initiated an era of peace and collective world unity. But through the president's incompetence, stubbornness, ambition and greed, the polar opposite has occurred. For five years, we've existed along a false timeline in which Biff Tannen is a wealthy gambling kingpin -- his pearl-handled revolver aimed at Michael J Fox's head.

I firmly believe that President Bush's incompetent actions from 9/11 through today will be viewed as one of the great historical "what ifs." Imagine if Nixon had been president during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Imagine if Stephen Douglas had defeated Lincoln and allowed secession and continued slavery. Imagine if the French hadn't joined us in our fight for independence. Since 9/11, it feels as if we've lived through one of those dark what ifs.

Imagine if President Bush had been a better man and used 9/11 to appeal to the better angels of our nature.

What if he hadn't withdrawn much of his financial pledge to help the heroes of 9/11 with medical costs, and, now that they're no longer useful in photo ops, has allowed them to die slow, choking deaths mired in bankruptcy? What if the president had pledged as much money and support for the surviving first responders as he has for Halliburton and the Iraq War?

What if the president had kept his eye on Bin Laden rather than pulling out, leaving Afghanistan to flounder and Bin Laden to escape unharmed?

What if, like Lincoln (the president's unlikely roll model), the president had used 9/11 as a catalyst to inaugurate an era of renewed equality?

What if the president had preserved our liberties and worked in a bipartisan way in Washington, rather than chiseling away our rights and destroying the national unity that we felt on those days in September?

What if the president hadn't exploited 9/11 so flagrantly for politics and profit as to strip it of its deserved reverence?

What if, instead of a man who actually grins and smirks when discussing Iraq casualties, we had a president with the intellectual and oratory chops to make any of these "what ifs" a reality, because President Bush surely does not.

A better man usually aspires to positivity in the face of tragedy and brutality, but in the final analysis history will show that President Bush barely even tried.

It's a hell of a lot easier and feels so much better to appeal to the reactionary aspects of human nature: the lizard brain fight or flight instincts we all have. It's easy, then, for American leaders to pursue and exact revenge, especially when our nation is the sole military superpower. "The people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon," isn't the modern equivalent of "four score and seven years ago" or "a date which will live in infamy." It was a ham-fisted applause line. It was an easy statement of vengeance. And it was his finest moment. Later, in an address at ground zero, the president recycled the Gettysburg Address which not only served to devalue the impact of Lincoln's words, but also exposed the president as unoriginal and, in context of others like Lincoln, made the president seem small and inadequate.

Can you remember a single complete line from the president's 9/20/01 joint session address? I can't. Thinking back to those weeks, I remember a litany of bumper sticker slogans better suited for tourist traps than the Oval Office. Slogans like "smoke the evildoers out of their holes" and "we will not be cowed" and "watch this putt" are amongst the first to come to mind. Not quite the caliber of sentiments expected of a world leader whose every word, as the elected representative of his people, should have rightfully reflected the posterity of those who died on that day.

Thousands of men and women were killed in an attack which stemmed from American foreign policy blowback, and the most comforting lines President Bush could deliver amounted to a syllabus of roadside billboards and dialogue from bad video games. I recall waiting for his next line to be, "All your base are belong to us." He came close to that Zero Wing line with, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." There it is. There's the line. I remember now. His most memorable line from the 9/20 address was an ultimatum to people like Saddam Hussein and, I believe, most of the Democrats and the news media. Subsequently, both the traditional media and the Democrats alike caved on the Patriot Act and every lie perpetrated in the lead-up and early execution of the Iraq War.

Iraq itself certainly carries more than enough weight to make President Bush one of the worst presidents ever. But despite its nonexistent connection to 9/11, Iraq was, in the mind of the president, an opportunistic reaction to 9/11. Iraq was the "Pearl Harbor type event" heralding an Iraq invasion the PNAC neocons fantasized about in the 1990s. So you can't cite Iraq without forever coupling it with 9/11 as the latest and most deadly result of "hearing from all of us."

The myth of President Bush as somehow a "hero" of 9/11 needs to end. If we can, for just a moment, look through the smoke, rubble and death and evaluate our chief executive's reactions to 9/11, it's easy to see a man who wasn't meant to be president during this era -- a man who most definitely was not designed for his time.

If we set aside the benefit of the doubt the president received after 9/11, it's easy to recall a series of decisions that guided us deeper into darkness and death, rather than into the enlightenment of a new era in world history. Instead of compassion, inspiration and humility, we can easily recall indulgence, dangerous pride and indignity; sloganeering and exploitation in lieu of positive words and deeds -- words and deeds which so many of his predecessors have managed to summon under similar duress.

The feeble, laughable President Bush who has emerged in recent years is the President Bush that would've existed throughout his first term had 9/11 never happened. Were it not for the undeserved support he received after 9/11 -- support which didn't reflect upon him, but rather on the patriotic instincts of America to rally around the president (any president) -- he would've surely lost his re-election bid and been relegated to the ranks of our most ineffectual presidents.

When you couple this basic incompetence with the awful track record of his post-9/11 history, it's not hard to rank him amongst our worst presidents. Far better presidents have been doomed to single terms, simply because they didn't have a major national crisis to falsely inflate their importance. But you'd be hard pressed to find any president who handled a national crisis in a similarly haphazard, destructive way. And there-in, lay the Iraq War.


Read More...

U.S. Report Finds Fault in Training of Afghan Police

The New York Times
U.S. Report Finds Fault in Training of Afghan Police
By JAMES GLANZ and DAVID ROHDE

Five years after the fall of the Taliban, a joint report by the Pentagon and the State Department has found that the American-trained police force in Afghanistan is largely incapable of carrying out routine law enforcement work, and that managers of the $1.1 billion training program cannot say how many officers are actually on duty or where thousands of trucks and other equipment issued to police units have gone.

In fact, most police units had less than 50 percent of their authorized equipment on hand as of June, says the report, which was issued two weeks ago but is only now circulating among members of relevant Congressional committees.

In its most significant finding, the report said that no effective field training program had been established in Afghanistan, at least in part because of a slow, ineffectual start and understaffing.

Police training experts who have studied or had first-hand experience with the American effort in Afghanistan said they agreed with the report’s findings, and some said they had warned for years that field training was the backbone of a strong program. But they said additional problems needed to be investigated, including the quality of private contractors and the cost and effectiveness of relying on them to train the police officers. In particular, the experts questioned why the report focused on United States government managers and only glancingly analyzed the performance of the principal contractor in Afghanistan, DynCorp International of Virginia.

Considering the state of the police force, an estimated $600 million per year will be needed indefinitely to sustain it, says the report, undertaken by the offices of the inspectors general at the Pentagon and the State Department. Howard J. Krongard is the inspector general at State, which led the work on the 97-page report, and Thomas F. Gimble holds the office at the Pentagon.

American advisers will also have to combat endemic corruption in the force, the report says.

Efforts to respond to some of the issues that the report identifies are already under way. Afghan and American officials recently announced that they had instituted an “auxiliary police” program at the end of the summer, which aims to hire 11,200 officers in parts of the country beset by Taliban attacks, primarily in the south.

But these officers receive only two of the standard eights weeks of training, and the police training experts say the program could worsen the situation. They say the new hastily created program could place ill-trained and poorly vetted officers in the field and allow militias and criminals to infiltrate the force.

An American official involved in the new effort said the program became necessary after southern governors besieged by Taliban attacks began hiring police officers on their own. American officials feared they were seeing the beginnings of de facto private militias.

“This was designed to avoid the creation of the militias,” said the official, who was not authorized to comment publicly.

The training experts say the United States made some of the same mistakes in training police forces in Afghanistan that it made in Iraq, including offering far too little field training, tracking equipment poorly and relying on private contractors for the actual training. At the same time, these experts say, the failure to create viable police forces to keep order and enforce the law on a local level has played a pivotal role in undermining the American efforts to stabilize both countries.

In Afghanistan, the failure has contributed to the explosion in opium production, government corruption and the resurgence of the Taliban.

In Iraq, the challenge is even larger: Sectarian death squads have infiltrated the police force and helped push the country to what many are now calling a civil war.

“In both places we were extraordinarily late getting started,” said Robert M. Perito, a policing expert at the United States Institute of Peace and a former National Security Council, State and Justice Department official. “In both places you have a dysfunctional Interior Ministry in control, and in both places the United States has tried to stand up a ministry advisory group to bring order out of chaos.”

In an interview this fall, the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, said the violence in the country’s south was partly a result of the lack of a viable force. He called for “much more support” from the United States and for an expansion of the country’s force of roughly 70,000 officers.

“It is not that they are strong,” he said, referring to the Taliban. “It is that we are not strong enough to defend ourselves.”

Most of the $1.1 billion the United States has spent on the training program in Afghanistan has gone to DynCorp, a technical services company based in Falls Church, Va., with 14,000 employees in about 33 countries. DynCorp also won the largest part of the training work in Iraq; it received $1.6 billion for its training and security work in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2004, 2005 and 2006 fiscal years, according to Gregory Lagana, a company spokesman. The work accounted for roughly 30 percent of the company’s revenues during those years. In May, the company raised $375 million in an initial public offering of its stock.

Under orders from the Defense Department, the company has deployed 377 police advisers to Afghanistan, roughly half the number the United States has deployed in Iraq. Police training experts say far more police advisers are needed in Afghanistan, which is roughly the same size as Iraq. The report says that management of the DynCorp contract by United States government officials in Afghanistan has fallen into a state of disarray; conflicting military and civilian bureaucracies could not even find a copy of the contract to clarify for auditors exactly what it called for.

The report does not suggest that DynCorp held any responsibility for the program’s failures, but former Afghan officials and several American policing experts who have examined DynCorp’s training on the ground say that the company is partly to blame for long delays and that the use of private contractors for training should be reviewed. Afghan officials have complained about the high cost of the advisers and have said that some have too little experience.

Ali Jalali, an Afghan-American military historian who served as interior minister from 2002 to 2005, said the expertise level of some DynCorp advisers sent to his ministry was mixed. He said he rejected the first group he was offered because their résumés were unimpressive. When a second group arrived, some were retired officers not up to the demands of working in Afghanistan, he said. Others knew virtually nothing about the country.

“They were good on patrols in Oklahoma City, Houston or Miami,” said Mr. Jalali, now a professor at the National Defense University in Washington. “But not in a country where you faced rebuilding the police force.”

Mr. Lagana defended the company’s work and said State Department officials closely monitored their activities. He said the Interior Ministry advisers who drew complaints regarding their experience level were removed.

“We filled positions based on the requirements and salary levels authorized by the State Department,” Mr. Lagana said. “As we went along, everyone realized we needed people with experience at higher levels in law enforcement.”

Seth Jones, an Afghanistan expert at the RAND Corporation who has made eight trips to Afghanistan since 2003 to study army and police training, called for a review of the company’s performance. He said he had repeatedly heard complaints from both Western and Afghan officials in Afghanistan about the quality and experience of DynCorp’s advisers.

“I was surprised, based on what I have seen on the ground, that DynCorp was let off the hook so easily,” he said of the report. “I think a very frank assessment of DynCorp needs to be done.”

Mr. Krongard, the State Department inspector general, acknowledged the seriousness of the report’s criticisms. But he said in a statement in answer to questions about the report that in the face of obstacles like largely illiterate recruits, low pay and corruption, the program was “generally well conceived and well executed,” but that for the police force to be self-sustaining, “long-term U.S. and international assistance and funding will be required at least beyond 2010.”

The report concluded that the official figure of 70,000 trained police officers was inflated and that only where American advisers were present was the counting reliable to some degree.

As a best estimate, the report said that 30,395 Afghan officers — fewer than half the official total — were “trained and equipped to carry out their police functions.”

The report also says that the vetting process for recruits, intended to keep the Taliban and people with powerful sectarian or tribal loyalties out of police ranks, has not been effective. After recruits are trained, they are often assigned by local police commanders to menial tasks like guard duty.

The international effort lost critical time when it initially mounted a token effort to train officers in Afghanistan, according to Afghan officials and policing experts. For the first two and a half years after the fall of the Taliban, no systematic police training program existed outside of Afghanistan’s capital, according to American and Afghan officials. The United States focused on training a new multiethnic army and paid little attention to the need for policemen. Germany pledged to train a new force but sent only 40 police advisers to Kabul.

Then, in 2004, the State Department issued a contract to DynCorp to deploy 30 police advisers across Afghanistan and construct seven regional training centers.

The United States spent $164 million building and running the training centers; recruits received two to four weeks of training. The effort was poorly monitored and achieved mixed results, according to a June 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office.

In April 2005, the Defense Department took over police training in Afghanistan and drastically expanded the number of American police advisers; the number is 377 today. Still, police training experts said the Afghanistan effort remained far too small, with small teams of advisers each expected to field train thousands of Afghan policemen.

The small corps of advisers also makes it more difficult to track equipment, and the report said that just 3,000 of 5,000 vehicles issued to the police nationwide could be accounted for. Although the report does not explicitly connect its warnings on corruption to the loss of equipment, the two appear to be closely related.

The weakness of the police has contributed to Afghanistan become world’s largest producer of opium, accounting for 92 percent of the world’s supply, experts said. A report issued by the United Nations Office of Drug Control and the World Bank last Tuesday found that corruption had stymied efforts to counter opium production and that a handful of politically connected traffickers increasingly dominated the drug trade.

“The drug industry in Afghanistan is becoming increasingly consolidated,” the report says. “At the top level, around 25-30 key traffickers, the majority of them in southern Afghanistan, control major transactions and transfers, working closely with sponsors in top government and political positions.”

The report on police training strongly recommends expanding the advising program to take care of some of those problems but points out that an expansion would cost the United States much more money “as well as increasing the risk to U.S. personnel.”

Carlotta Gall contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.



Read More...

Stalag 9/11

Huffington Post
Chris Kelly
Stalag 9/11

George Bush has done some iffy things since seizing power, but the one that really hit me where I live was ruining Billy Wilder's Stalag 17.

If you're not into old movies, you should know that Stalag 17 is a cynical, fast-talking dark comedy set in a prisoner of war camp, kind of a cross between Grand Illusion and His Girl Friday.

Of course, if you're not into old movies, knowing it's a cross between Grand Illusion and His Girl Friday probably didn't help much. Let me start again...

Stalag 17 was a play written by two guys, Donald Bevan and Edmund Trzcinski, who had been actual prisoners at an actual place called Stalag 17 in actual Austria during World War Two. (Think of Austria as kind of a cross between Switzerland and Triumph of the Will.) Billy Wilder made it into a movie in 1953 with William Holden and it's a really terrific piece of entertainment, full of interesting characters and snappy wised-up dialogue and cool plot twists and bravery and Nazis. And you don't have to take my word for it. Ask anyone else who's old.

Here's where President Bush comes in. While Stalag 17's prisoners are planning their escapes, and the Germans are trying to stop them, both sides keep referring to this dopey sort of rulebook called "the Geneva Conventions."

These appear to be rules about the fair treatment of prisoners - I dunno, not torturing them, for instance - and even the Nazis obey them. Weird, huh?

A lot hinges on them, as a plot gimmick, but the characters seem to take them for granted. Even though it's a war, there are still things you don't do. Which, if only for story purposes, explains why the movie isn't two hours of Otto Preminger holding William Holden's head under water.

(Otto Preminger? Nothing? Okay, think of a cross between Erich von Stroheim and... no, this is getting us nowhere.)

This isn't supposed to take anything away from the Nazis as the villains of the piece --you can see it in the kommandant's beady little burgher eyes that he wishes he could get around the Conventions - but the rules are the rules.

Even if the rules are - how did the Attorney General put it? - "quaint."

But here's the thing. If you accept that the Geneva Conventions are just an annoying formality, like recycling - and I guess we do now - it ruins the whole movie. There's no drama in it. Because the Third Reich isn't even trying.

The prisoners get mail from home. They get visits from the Red Cross. They aren't even kept in cages. No one hoods them, or electrocutes them, or pretends to execute them, or places them in a "stress position" or walks them around on a leash. At one of the darkest points in the story, one of them is forced to stand for a few days without sleep. Like that even hurts.

Don't the guards want their country to win? These guys -- the prisoners -- are all members of an organization (The United States Army Air Force) that not only is thinking of using weapons of mass destruction, they actually are. Night after night. From planes.

They have information that could save German lives. But no one seems to have given their interrogators the tools they need to get it.

And now my stomach hurts. Because sometimes even sarcasm can only get you so far.

In real life, the Nazis did commit atrocities against American prisoners of war. At Malmedy. At Mauthausen. That's why we hate Nazis. Because they were bad.

In real life, bombing Germany killed a half million civilians, but interned American and British airmen were generally treated according to the Geneva Conventions. They weren't systematically tortured. They weren't deliberately humiliated. They weren't held in solitary cells. International organizations were given their names and their families were informed of their capture. Their mortality rate was less than 1%.

And they were being held by the worst government on earth.

It's almost like the hippies at MoveOn have it backwards. When it comes to protecting his country, Hitler isn't George Bush.


Read More...

Chavez wins re-election by wide margin

Yahoo! News
Chavez wins re-election by wide margin
By IAN JAMES, Associated Press Writer

President Hugo Chavez won re-election by a wide margin Sunday, giving the firebrand leftist six more years to redistribute Venezuela's vast oil wealth to the poor and press his campaign to counter U.S. influence in Latin America and beyond.

Challenger Manuel Rosales conceded defeat but vowed to remain in opposition. During the campaign, Rosales accused Chavez of edging Venezuela toward authoritarian rule and warned the president could undertake even more radical policies if re-elected.

Minutes after the results were announced, Chavez appeared on the balcony of the presidential palace singing the national anthem. He pledged to deepen his effort to transform Venezuela into a socialist society.

"Long live the socialist revolution! Destiny has been written," Chavez shouted to thousands of flag-waving supporters wearing red shirts and braving a pouring rain.

"That new era has begun," he said, raising a hand in the air. "We have shown that Venezuela is red!... No one should fear socialism... Socialism is human. Socialism is love," Chavez said. "Down with imperialism! We need a new world!"

Since he first won office in 1998, Chavez has increasingly dominated all branches of government and his allies now control congress, state offices and the judiciary. He has called President Bush the devil, allied himself with Iran and influenced elections across the region.

Chavez also has used Venezuela's oil wealth to his political advantage. He has channeled oil profits toward multibillion-dollar programs for the poor including subsidized food, free university education and cash benefits for single mothers. He has also helped allies from Cuba to Bolivia with oil and petrodollars.

He now promises to solidify his social program.

With 78 percent of voting stations reporting, Chavez had 61 percent to 38 percent for challenger Rosales, said Tibisay Lucena, head of the country's elections council. Chavez had nearly 6 million votes versus 3.7 million for Rosales, according to the partial tally.

Turnout among the 15.9 million eligible voters was 62 percent, according to an official bulletin of results, making Chavez's lead insurmountable.

"We will continue in this struggle," Rosales told cheering supporters as he conceded defeat.

Some supporters at his campaign headquarters wept, while others were clearly angry.

"We have to do something," said Dona Bavaro, a 36-year-old Rosales supporter. "My country is being stolen. This is the last chance we have. Communism is coming here."

Rosales, a cattle rancher and governor of western Zulia state who stepped down temporarily to run against Chavez, focused his campaign on issues such as rampant crime and corruption, widely seen as Chavez's main vulnerabilities.

A top Rosales adviser, Teodoro Petkoff, said the voting was carried out in a "satisfactory manner." He said some irregularities had occurred but most were resolved. Another member of the Rosales camp had accused pro-Chavez soldiers of reopening closed polling stations and busing voters to them.

Even before polls closed, Chavez supporters celebrated in the streets, setting off fireworks and cruising Caracas honking horns and shouting "Chavez isn't going anywhere!"

Earlier, Chavez loyalists jarred voters awake hours before dawn in Caracas with recordings of reveille blaring from truck-mounted loudspeakers.

"We're here to support our president, who has helped us so much," said Jose Domingo Izaguirre, a factory worker who waited hours to vote. His family recently moved into new government housing.

Rosales supporters accused Chavez of deepening class divisions with searing rhetoric demonizing his opponents.

Alicia Primera, a 54-year-old housewife, was among voters so passionate about the choice that they camped out overnight in voting queues.

"I voted for Chavez previously. I cried for him," Primera said. "Now I'm crying for him to leave. He's sown a lot of hate with his verbiage."

The campaign has been hostile, with Chavez calling Rosales a pawn of Washington and Rosales saying he was on the alert for fraud. Rosales' campaign had endorsed the electronic voting system as trustworthy — as long as no attempts were made to thwart it.

More than 125,000 soldiers and reservists were deployed to safeguard the balloting.

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Janelle Hironimus stressed "the importance of a free, fair and transparent process."

Conflict and ambition have marked the rise of Chavez, 52, from a boy selling homemade sweets in a dusty backwater to a failed coup commander in 1992 and now a leader who could set the tone of Latin American politics for years to come.

Constitutional reforms he oversaw in 1999 triggered new elections the following year that he easily won. Loyalists helped him survive a 2002 coup, a subsequent general strike and a 2004 recall referendum.

Chavez says he would convene a commission upon re-election to propose constitutional reforms, likely including an end to presidential term limits. Current law prevents him from running again in 2012.

The president insists he is a democrat and will continue to respect private property — though he has boosted state control over the oil industry and has said he might nationalize utilities. Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil exporter and soaring oil prices have made it the continent's fastest growing economy.

Chavez has pledged at least $1.1 billion in loans and financial aid to Latin American countries in the past two years, and billions more in bond bailouts for friendly governments as well as generously financed oil deals. But the largesse has proved a weakness at home, with polls suggesting many Venezuelans believe the aid impedes efforts to address the country's own problems.

Chavez, who says Fidel Castro is like a father to him, has built increasingly close ties with Cuba, sending the island oil while thousands of Cuban doctors treat Venezuela's poor for free.



Read More...

Sunday, December 03, 2006

The Metrics of Victory

Read More...

Go To Your Room!

Read More...

The Padded Oval

Read More...

Not Civil War

Read More...

Heck of a Job!

Read More...

Very Low Food Security

Read More...

GOP pays $135K in N.H. call jamming suit

Yahoo! News
GOP pays $135K in N.H. call jamming suit
By DAVID TIRRELL-WYSOCKI, Associated Press Writer

State and national Republicans will pay $135,000 to settle a suit involving a scheme to jam Democratic get-out-the-vote calls on Election Day 2002, officials said Saturday.

"Although we believed our case was very strong, the cost of the trial as well as expected appeals by the New Hampshire Democratic Party would have easily matched or exceeded the present value of the settlement," state Republican Chairman Wayne Semprini said.

Republicans had hired a telemarketing firm to place hundreds of hang-up calls to phone banks for the Democratic Party and the Manchester firefighters union, a nonpartisan group offering rides to the polls. Service was disrupted for nearly two hours.

Democrats had wanted more than $4 million in damages — the cost of seven months' work for the get-out-the-vote effort. Republicans maintained they should only have had to pay about $4,000 — the cost of rental and use of the phones.

Semprini said the Republican State Committee deplored the phone-jamming incident and does not endorse illegal or improper election tactics.

"My only regret in settling this matter is that the public at large will never know the whole, real story and that is that the phone jamming scheme was the act of a few unauthorized individuals and not that of the Republican Party," he said.

The state party will pay $125,000 over five years. The Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee will pay $5,000 each. Half of that money will go to a charitable organization benefiting Manchester firefighters, and half to a group that supports police officers, who investigated the case.

State Democratic Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan said the settlement will dent GOP contributions.

"Over the next five years, every time a Republican donor makes a donation to the Republican State Committee, they will know a portion of that is going to the Democratic Party," she said.

Democrats said the jamming disrupted efforts to get people to the polls to vote in races including the Senate contest between then-Rep. John Sununu and Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen. Sununu won by nearly 20,000 votes, 51-46 percent.

The settlement announced Friday ended the civil lawsuit, three days before it was to go to trial. But criminal proceedings continue.

Former Republican State Committee Executive Director Charles McGee and consultant Allen Raymond served federal prison terms after pleading guilty to telephone harassment charges. McGee admitted masterminding the plot and paying Raymond $15,000 from the state Republican fund to find someone to carry out the scheme.

Former Republican National Committee operative James Tobin is appealing his telephone harassment conviction.




Read More...

The Republicans Lost Iraq

Huffington Post
Cenk Uygur
The Republicans Lost Iraq

Saying the Republican Party is responsible for losing the war in Iraq sounds overly partisan. Under normal circumstances, I'd be a lot more worried about how we are going to salvage Iraq, then which political party should be blamed. But these are not normal circumstances.

First, Iraq is irreversibly lost - so there will be no salvaging it.
Victory is a long lost goal. In fact, at this point, the problem is much deeper than that. If you read my articles on Iraq over the last three years, I have consistently made an effort to offer constructive solutions all along. But now there are no more solutions.

As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in his last column in Newsweek, there were two consecutive days in Baghdad recently where we protected the Mahdi Army one day and fought them the next. We are alternately protecting and fighting the Shiites and the Sunnis. We are clearly caught in the middle of a chaotic civil war. It is impossible to "win" in this situation.

Furthermore, training the Iraqi army is a complete waste of time. Everyone on the ground knows that they are not going to stay together and magically enforce a democracy in Iraq after we leave. All we're doing is training one or more sides in an internal fight. In a best case scenario, we're wasting our time. In a worst case scenario, we are training people to kill each other better.

And as I have pointed out before, if you think we won't have to one day fight the Iraqi army we are now training, you haven't paid any attention to our history in the Middle East. Simple logic dictates that in a country where an overwhelming majority of people believe it is appropriate to attack our troops, the army of that country will naturally be hostile to us one day. And our big plan is to make sure that army is trained before we leave? That's an awful plan.

The situation in Iraq has devolved so much that Muqtada al-Sadr taking over has gone from a worst case scenario to a best case scenario. Before we were rooting for Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to serve as a moderating influence (re-read that sentence to understand how ridiculous our original plan was). We were concerned that Sadr would stir up the masses and seize power in the streets. Now, the situation is so out of hand and Sadr's minions so out of control that we are hoping that Sadr can corral them and avoid blood-drenched anarchy in the streets.

So, Iraq is lost. The Iraq Study Group, Pentagon suggestions, Bush conclusions are all irrelevant. We are whistling past the graveyard. The longer we stay now, the more panicked our exit will be. I can hear the helicopters now.

The second thing that makes this situation different than a normal foreign policy issue is that the political situation in America is so badly skewed now. The right wing spin machine has been so dominant for so long that only a colossal failure by the Republican administration opened up the eyes of the electorate. Of course, it has not done likewise for the media yet. In the wake of the historic 2006 elections where the Democrats swept the Republicans out of power, the media is still talking about how the Democratic win was actually a victory for conservatives.

And in the wake of these elections, the main discussion on television was whether to add troops to Iraq! Are they nuts? How gullible or complicit do the media have to be to interpret these election results as a mandate to add troops?

Why are we even having this discussion? Because the mainstream media loves John McCain and can't get enough of his terrible ideas. And because they have been spun by conservative talk show hosts into thinking that the American people have an appetite for a larger commitment to the Iraq War. We are assured that more troops might need to go in before they can come out. Sure. And George Bush is a compassionate conservative.

After the election, anyone who suggested going into Iraq with more American troops should have been laughed out of the room. Instead, it has been one of the most discussed ideas in the last couple of weeks.

So, I am concerned that if we don't get out ahead of it, the media will soon be spun into thinking that somehow the Democrats were responsible for the military defeat in Iraq.

Let's get this straight - once and for all. It was a Republican president, a Republican administration, a Republican Senate, a Republican House and entirely Republican government that started and lost the war in Iraq. No excuses. They screwed this thing up entirely. It is 100% their fault.

Now that we have lost in Iraq, I think the country would be better off listening to the Democrats on how to extricate us from this mess. But I will not stand by and watch Democrats get blamed for losing Iraq when Iraq is already lost.

Why am I so adamant about this? Is it because I am a lifelong Democrat and an incurable partisan? No, I was a Republican until Bush invaded Iraq. My party loyalty has been to the Republicans for almost my entire life. No, it must be made clear that the Republicans lost Iraq because if it is not clear, the country might be deluded into believing them again.

At this point, these Republicans are incapable of and uninterested in governing. I wanted limited government, not anarchy. These guys are completely incompetent. I don't know if they have a secret plan to show how government can't work, but I am not interested. I don't give a damn about their ridiculous secret plans. I care that they suck.

The media has to snap out of the Svengali mind lock that conservative talk show hosts have over them. The Republicans bungled our government, they bungled Iraq and they don't know what they're doing. How many former Republicans do you have to hear say that? How much overwhelming proof on the ground do you need?

They lost a whole country to a chaotic civil war. They lost an American city to Hurricane Katrina because they weren't prepared. And they didn't even leave vacation to protect us before we were attacked on 9/11. Now, they have gotten crushed in the 2006 elections.

Memo to media: Republicans have lost America. We can't stand them anymore. Turn around! Stop protecting their rear-ends. Start talking about real solutions. Give the Republicans the blame they so richly deserve so that no one will make the mistake of listening to them anymore.

Read More...

Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb is the rare Washington figure who doesn't suck up to power

Newsweek.com
Clift: Senator-Elect Webb Not to Be Toyed With
Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb is the rare Washington figure who doesn't suck up to power.
By Eleanor Clift

Dec. 1, 2006 - Every so often a politician comes along who doesn’t pander to the president. Fresh off a nasty campaign that centered on the war in Iraq, Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb had no interest in a picture of himself with President Bush, and he didn’t want to exchange small talk with the man whose war policies he opposes. So he skipped the receiving line at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, creating the first of what we should all hope will be many ripples in Washington.

Webb’s presumed snub of Bush is rare enough in a city where everybody who’s anybody has a glory wall, and social occasions are geared to a parade of picture taking. But what happened next is where the story really takes off. President Bush, spying Webb across the room, walked over to him and asked, “How’s your boy?” Webb’s son is a Marine in Iraq.

A more seasoned politician might have been flattered that the president knew his son was in the line of fire and bothered to ask about him. That wouldn’t be Webb, a best-selling author who got into electoral politics for primarily one reason, his opposition to the Iraq war. “I’d like to get them out of Iraq,” he replied, according to several published accounts. “That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said, repeating his question: “How’s your boy?” Webb’s reply: “That’s between me and my boy.” Afterward, a source told The Hill newspaper that Webb was so angered by the exchange he was tempted to slug the guy. That might have prompted the Secret Service to pull their weapons, which wouldn’t have been the first time Webb, a highly decorated Vietnam combat veteran, faced the barrel of a gun.

A quirky individualist who wants no part of the phony collegiality of Washington, Webb was rightly insulted when Bush pressed him in that bullying way—“That’s not what I asked you”—trying to force the conversation back to Webb’s son. Webb could have asked how the Bush girls are doing, partying their way across Argentina. He could have told Bush he was worried about his son; the vehicle next to him was blown up recently, killing three Marines. Given the contrast between their respective offspring, Webb showed restraint.

But that’s not how much of official Washington reacted. Columnist George F. Will was the most offended, declaring civility dead and Webb a boor and a “pompous poseur.” Were the etiquette police as exercised when Vice President Dick Cheney told Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy to perform an anatomically impossible act on the Senate floor? Or is that amusing by Washington’s odd standards?

Webb told The Washington Post that his intention was not to offend Bush or the institution of the presidency but that “leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.” By standing up to Bush, Webb became a hero to a lot of people who voted against this president and this war, and whose views have been sidelined for six years. Symbols matter. Bush certainly understands their importance, or he wouldn’t have jetted onto that carrier in a flight suit and stood in front of a banner that proclaimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED more than a thousand days and thousands more deaths ago. A president snubbed by a junior senator-elect and then, more tellingly by the puppet prime minister in Iraq, should be wondering where he went wrong, not the other way around.

It’s justice long overdue for a president who has so abused the symbols of war to get his comeuppance from a battlefield hero who personifies real toughness as opposed to fake toughness. Bush struts around with this bullying frat-boy attitude, and he gets away with it because nobody stands up to him. Bush could have left Webb’s initial response stand, but no, he had to jab back—“That’s not what I asked you.” Webb is not one to be bullied. He knows what real toughness is, and it’s not lording it over people who are weaker than you, and if you’re president, everybody by definition is weaker.

The lords of Washington will say that Webb got off to a rocky start, but so did Paul Wellstone, another iconoclastic citizen turned politician who dared to violate social protocol. It was another Bush and another gulf war, but Wellstone’s initial impropriety set the stage for what turned out to be a distinguished and even inspirational career that was tragically cut short by a plane crash four years ago. A professor of political science at Minnesota’s Carleton College, Wellstone was antiwar even then and had run on a progressive platform. At a White House reception in 1991 for newly elected members, Wellstone used his time in the receiving line with President George H.W. Bush to press his opposition to the first gulf war that loomed on the horizon and to urge more attention to education and health care. After he moved through the line, Bush was overheard saying, “Who is this chickens--t?” It's a sentiment the son surely shares.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15990689/site/newsweek/



Read More...

If It Feels Like a Dollar ...

The New York Times
If It Feels Like a Dollar ...

Anybody who has ever handed over a $10 bill thinking it was a dollar knows the problem. Unlike the currency in 180 other countries, the American greenback comes in one size, and one dominant color — green. That can be so confusing for the 3.3 million Americans who are either blind or have very poor sight that a United States District Court judge in the District of Columbia ruled last week that the government had unlawfully denied them access to the nation’s paper money.

Changing United States legal tender would be expensive — the government says that redesigning its currency would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It would also pose problems for those who make or use machines that take money for tickets or soft drinks, or change at the Laundromat. And the government’s lawyers have argued that some changes could make it easier to counterfeit United States cash.

Judge James Robertson’s opinion makes it clear that the American government simply has not tried very hard to help those Americans who cannot see their money. The Treasury Department has revamped United States currency design twice in the last 10 years without making any real adaptation for the blind — despite numerous pleas. None of the other objections seem convincing. The machines that take dollars could be adapted; in Europe, they work with currency that comes in a variety of sizes. And some of the additions to bills that help the blind, like embossed dots or raised numerals, are used elsewhere as extra safeguards against counterfeiting.

Judge Robertson wisely resisted telling the Bureau of Engraving and Printing exactly how to make its bills more accessible to the visually impaired. He merely wants officials to return soon to his court and offer a plan. United States currency might come in slightly different sizes or textures for each denomination. Perhaps the money-printing machines in Washington could start on the larger-denomination bills first, leaving the most numerous ones — the singles — the same as ever. However it happens, the change could also be a boon to Americans who are not blessed with 20-20 vision.

Read More...

Blowing the Whistle on Big Oil

The New York Times
Blowing the Whistle on Big Oil
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Honolulu

DURING a 22-year career, Bobby L. Maxwell routinely won accolades and awards as one of the Interior Department’s best auditors in the nation’s oil patch, snaring promotions that eventually had him supervising a staff of 120 people.

He and his team scrutinized the books of major oil producers that collectively pumped billions of dollars worth of oil and gas every year from land and coastal waters owned by the public. Along the way, the auditors recovered hundreds of millions of dollars from companies that shortchanged the government on royalties.

“Mr. Maxwell’s career has been characterized by exceptional performance and significant contributions,” wrote Gale A. Norton, then the secretary of the interior, in a 2003 citation. Ms. Norton praised Mr. Maxwell’s “perseverance and leadership” while cataloguing his “many outstanding achievements.”

Less than two years later, the Interior Department eliminated his job in what it called a “reorganization.” That came exactly one week after a federal judge in Denver unsealed a lawsuit in which Mr. Maxwell contended that a major oil company had spent years cheating on royalty payments.

“When I got this citation, they told me this would be very good for my career,” said Mr. Maxwell, smiling during an interview here. “Next thing I knew, they fired me.” Today, at 53, Mr. Maxwell lives on a $44,000 annual pension in a two-bedroom bungalow in the hills outside the Hawaiian capital.

But Mr. Maxwell has hardly disappeared. Instead, he is at the center of an escalating battle with both the oil industry and the Bush administration over how the federal government oversees about $60 billion worth of oil and gas produced every year on federal property. In the process, he has become one of the most nettlesome whistle-blowers Big Oil has ever encountered, a face-off that offers an inside look at how the industry and the government do business together.

Invoking a law that rewards private citizens who expose fraud against the government, Mr. Maxwell has filed a suit in federal court in Denver against the Kerr-McGee Corporation. The suit accuses the company, which was recently acquired by Anadarko Petroleum, of bilking the government out of royalty payments. It also contends that the Interior Department ignored audits indicating that Kerr-McGee was cheating. Three other federal auditors, who once worked for Mr. Maxwell and still work at the Interior Department, have since filed similar suits of their own against other energy companies.

Several of the nation’s biggest oil producers, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips, failed in an effort to block Mr. Maxwell’s suit, arguing before an appellate judge that his case would “open the floodgates” to suits by other federal auditors. But the court rejected their pleas, and a trial is set to start on Jan. 16.

Mr. Maxwell’s self-interest is as much in play in the suit as is the public interest. If he wins, Kerr-McGee could be forced to pay more than $50 million in unpaid royalties and penalties, Mr. Maxwell said. Mr. Maxwell and his lawyers could be entitled to keep as much as 30 percent of any funds the government recovers — enough to make him a wealthy man.

Anadarko says that the government’s rules were followed and that it owes no money because the Interior Department never asked it to pay more. But it is now trying to negotiate a settlement before the trial begins.

“We believe the case is without merit,” said John Christiansen, an Anadarko spokesman. “However, as is a fairly common practice, both sides have agreed to meet with a mediator prior to trial.”

THE actions of Mr. Maxwell and the other auditors have coincided with broader investigations by Congress and the Interior Department’s own inspector general into whether the agency properly collects the money for oil and gas pumped from public land. Investigators say they have found evidence of myriad problems at the department: cronyism and cover-ups of management blunders; capitulation to oil companies in disputes about payments; plunging morale among auditors; and unreliable data-gathering that often makes it impossible to determine how much money companies actually owe.

In February, the Interior Department admitted that energy companies might escape more than $7 billion in royalty payments over the next five years because of errors in leases signed in the 1990s that officials are now scrambling to renegotiate. The errors were discovered in 2000, but were ignored for the next six years and have yet to be fixed.

Congressional investigators are worried about other problems, as well. The Interior Department’s inspector general told a House subcommittee in September that senior officials at the agency had repeatedly glossed over ethical lapses and bungling. “Short of crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of the Interior,” declared Earl E. Devaney, the inspector general.

The Interior Department, which has described Mr. Maxwell as a renegade former employee motivated by the riches his lawsuit might bring, said its auditing efforts received a clean bill of health from an outside accounting firm in 2005. “The results are clear and irrefutable,” the agency said in a statement, adding that it was “accomplishing its job on behalf of the American public.”

But Republican leaders on the House Government Reform Committee, which has been reviewing the flawed leases, recently accused Interior officials of perpetuating a “culture of irresponsibility and lack of accountability” at the agency.

The committee ordered the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to begin a broad examination of issues ranging from the agency’s rules and enforcement practices to the accuracy of its most rudimentary data.

The Interior Department “clearly doesn’t view their responsibility as maximizing revenue to the American people for resources that belong to the American people,” said Representative Darrell E. Issa, a California Republican who oversaw hearings on the flawed leases. “We don’t have a system that accurately tells us how much oil is being taken out of the ground.”

No one, says Mr. Maxwell, knows that better than he does.

BORN “Bobby,” not “Robert,” Mr. Maxwell is bald, burly and speaks with a back-country drawl that is occasionally punctuated by a cackling laugh. He said he thrived in the world of wells, pipelines and offshore rigs and meshed comfortably with the oil cultures of Texas and Oklahoma. Genial and unflappable, he describes his politics as “very conservative” and cringes at being labeled a rebel.

“I like the oil and gas industry,” he said, as he reminisced about his years as a federal auditor. “We are neither for nor against the profits they make. Our job is to make sure the American public gets a fair return on its assets.”

Mr. Maxwell grew up in a poor family in rural Tennessee. After serving in the Army in Hawaii, he earned a bachelor’s degree in business at Chaminade University here. He later became a certified public accountant and earned a master’s degree in business from Texas A&M. In 1983, after stints as an auditor with the Air Force and the Department of Energy, he joined the Minerals Management Service of the Interior Department.

The M.M.S. is responsible for collecting and overseeing the royalties for all the oil, gas, timber and coal that is produced on federal property. Last year, companies paid nearly $10 billion in royalties on oil and gas alone.

“I loved going to the oil companies,” Mr. Maxwell recalled, saying he spent about half of his time on the road — some of it at offshore drilling rigs. “Sometimes, there would be nothing more than a room and a helicopter pad to land on. But it was an education, and it was highly practical.”

Despite Mr. Maxwell’s placid demeanor, friends and former colleagues say he was a dogged auditor who sometimes rankled his own bosses. In 1988, he visited a coal mine on federal land in Montana even though, he says, his supervisors scoffed at the trip because they thought that the mine was too small to scrutinize. When Mr. Maxwell arrived, he found that the mine only looked small because it had been underpaying royalties for years. Within months, the company agreed to pay $43 million in back royalties, and it eventually paid more than $100 million.

In 1993, during the Clinton administration, officials in Washington told him to drop a complex dispute with ARCO because they thought his reasoning was dubious. But just as he was about to back down, ARCO executives volunteered to pay $20 million.

The Interior Department gave Mr. Maxwell an award that year, noting that he had “vehemently pressed his position” even though “support seemed lacking.” It attributed his success to both his “measured combatant style” and his personal rapport with ARCO executives.

“If he thought there was a case, he had a reason,” said Barbara Rothway, a retired Interior Department auditor. But, she added, “I could see how he might sometimes bother the people he worked for.”

Patient and stubborn, Mr. Maxwell spent years poring over the accounts of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe in New Mexico, which had long complained that companies were underpaying them for natural gas extracted on their tribal lands. Tribal officials said Interior Department officials had paid little heed until Mr. Maxwell came along. He collected and organized data going back 30 years and found pervasive errors by both oil companies and the government. The tribe eventually recovered more than $20 million in back royalties.

“Anyone knowledgeable about the way Interior processes payments knows there are all sorts of ways for companies to underpay,” said Alan R. Taradash, a lawyer in Albuquerque who has represented the tribe for years. “Bobby was one of the few who stood up with us and demanded that the auditing be done properly.”

MR. MAXWELL says his first serious doubts about the Interior Department originated in 1998, when the agency reluctantly began to investigate accusations of systematic cheating on royalties for oil.

Several of the nation’s biggest oil companies eventually settled that investigation by paying nearly $440 million. The investigation occurred only after outside whistle-blowers argued for years that the government was losing billions.

The cases had been sparked in part by a former oil trader at ARCO named J. Benjamin Johnson Jr., known as Benji, who contended that oil companies had used elaborate swapping schemes to cheat on royalties owed to private and state landowners, as well as the federal government.

Mr. Johnson and another former ARCO trader quit their jobs and became expert witnesses for landowners and state governments who wanted to sue oil companies for back payments. The two traders soon realized that the biggest case by far belonged to the federal government. But no federal officials were interested.

“It was unbelievably difficult,” Mr. Johnson recalled in a recent interview. “They brought me to Denver, to the M.M.S. office, in a room with about 30 auditors and managers from the solicitor’s office. Their reaction was that I was crazy, that it was impossible, that there was no way they could have actually missed this.”

But Mr. Johnson found a way to recover the federal royalties on his own. In 1995, he filed suit under the False Claims Act, a longstanding law intended to encourage whistle-blowers. Under the act, best known for its use against overbilling by military contractors, a private citizen can sue a company, contending that it defrauded the federal government. Companies found guilty have to pay as much as three times the amount of their fraudulent gains, and any person who files a suit is entitled to keep up to 30 percent of the money recovered.

The Justice Department initially refused to join Mr. Johnson’s suit, but it eventually did so, in 1998 after concluding that he and other whistle-blowers — including a nonprofit group called the Project on Government Oversight — were on to something. That was when Mr. Maxwell became involved. Working for the Interior Department, he collected data on a number of oil companies, pooling his material with that of Mr. Johnson.

“Bobby was with us,” Mr. Johnson recalled. “He was a straight-shooter, and he saw it.” Mobil was the first to settle and paid more than $40 million in 1998. Chevron paid $95 million. Shell paid $110 million. By 2002, 15 oil companies had paid a total of almost $440 million.

The Johnson lawsuit taught Mr. Maxwell three lessons. One was that Mr. Johnson became a wealthy man. (The oil trader and his lawyers received more than $30 million, while two other groups of whistle-blowers received more than $40 million.) The second was that top Interior officials had been obstinately blind to the oil industry’s practices. The third was about the power of the False Claims Act. Until Mr. Johnson came along, no one had used it to go after royalty underpayments.

Created in 1849 to manage the nation’s publicly owned natural resources, from national forests to parks and waterways, the Interior Department oversees timber, grazing, mining and oil drilling operations over many tens of millions of acres. And while the agency has often tried to increase drilling and mining under Democrats and Republicans alike, current and former officials say the Bush administration elevated that goal above almost all of the department’s other mandates.

Mr. Maxwell says his frustrations with the Interior Department escalated after the Bush administration took office in 2001. The Interior Department’s top priorities became increasing domestic oil and gas production, offering more incentives to drillers in the Gulf of Mexico and pushing to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other wilderness areas to drilling. The department trimmed spending on enforcement and cut back on auditors, and sped up approvals for drilling applications.

The agency’s senior ranks also became more heavily populated with officials friendly to the energy industry. For example, its new deputy secretary, J. Steven Griles, worked as an oil industry lobbyist before joining the department, and Chevron and Shell had paid him as an expert witness on their behalf in the Benji Johnson case. Mr. Griles declined to comment.Auditors, according to Mr. Maxwell and many others, were told to devote less energy to time-consuming audits and rely more on a computerized monitoring system called “compliance review.” Auditors complained that the new system was superficial and riddled with technical problems. Even when the new system flagged potential underpayments, Mr. Maxwell said, it often failed to supply conclusive information.

“We were getting shut down on all kinds of cases,” he said. “We started to wish that someone would come along and file a False Claims suit, so we could jump onboard.”

Auditing and compliance review had generated an average of about $176 million annually in the 1990s, with an extraordinary peak of $331 million in 2000, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Interior Department. But from 2001 through 2005, a period when energy prices soared to new highs, enforcement revenue averaged about $46 million a year.

In 2004, the Interior Department’s inspector general issued a blistering report about the auditing system, saying that many auditors were unqualified, that essential documents were being lost and that the internal review process was “ineffective.”

BY 2002, Mr. Maxwell was fed up. He and a team of auditors had worked for months to dissect a complicated marketing deal by Kerr-McGee that they believed was cheating the government. He concluded that Kerr-McGee was selling all its oil at below-market prices to another company that compensated Kerr-McGee by assuming many of its marketing and administrative costs.

Simply put, Kerr-McGee seemed to be getting paid in both cash and services, but it was calculating its royalties only on the cash it received. Mr. Maxwell calculated that the company had underpaid the government by as much as $12 million between 1997 and 2002. State auditors in Louisiana had been investigating exactly the same issue in 2001, and ordered Kerr-McGee to pay an extra $2 million in royalties on oil from state lands.

According to Mr. Maxwell and Interior Department officials, when Mr. Maxwell presented his findings to his superiors, agency lawyers told him to drop the case. When he continued to argue, he recounts in his lawsuit, the agency’s chief of enforcement warned him that the director of the M.M.S., Johnnie M. Burton, would be “very upset” if he persisted.

“The word came down from the top, not to issue this order,” Mr. Maxwell said in an interview, speaking about the Interior Department. “There have always been people who don’t want to pursue things. But now it’s grown into a major illness. It’s dysfunctional.”

In a written response to questions from The New York Times, the Minerals Management Service said it was “rare” to overrule an auditor but that Mr. Maxwell’s contentions involved a “questionable application of M.M.S. regulations.”

The matter might have ended there, except that Mr. Maxwell decided to retire in June 2003. As soon as he left the agency, he began researching the possibility of emulating Benji Johnson and filing his own suit under the False Claims Act. As it happened, Mr. Maxwell’s “retirement” was brief. In October, the Interior Department rehired him to fill a management gap in its Denver office, and it put him in charge of a 120-person auditing team monitoring the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite rejoining the government, Mr. Maxwell filed his suit against Kerr-McGee in June 2004. The case was unsealed on Jan. 20, 2005; a week later, Mr. Maxwell lost his job.

Arriving at his office shortly before 8 a.m. on Jan. 27, Mr. Maxwell said he was summoned to a meeting with a senior M.M.S. official, who had flown in from Washington. The official handed him a memo, explaining that his job responsibilities were being moved to Houston and that his position would be eliminated.

To this day, Interior officials say they never fired Mr. Maxwell. They say, according to court papers, that he was merely a “re-employed annuitant” who was no longer needed. “The position disappeared,” said Ms. Burton, the M.M.S. director, in a meeting with energy reporters in September.

Mr. Maxwell protested. He said he would have relocated or taken a different job. He added that he was a certified public accountant and had a master’s degree in business administration; his successor lacked those degrees. But the fight did not last long. When Interior officials offered Mr. Maxwell a confidential financial settlement to leave without a fight, he took the deal and moved to Hawaii.

And he continued to press his case against Kerr-McGee. The company tried and failed to have the suit dismissed, arguing that a federal auditor should not be allowed to take information from work and file a lawsuit under the False Claims Act. In October, eight major oil companies including Chevron and Exxon Mobil weighed in on Kerr-McGee’s side.

“Government employees who uncover suspected fraud in the course of carrying out their jobs will receive a tacit invitation” to sue as private citizens, the companies argued in their brief. After the appellate court rejected the industry’s plea, Mr. Maxwell’s trial was rescheduled for January. Settlement talks are scheduled to begin in Denver this week.

Interior officials contend that Mr. Maxwell and other auditors have a conflict of interest when they stand to gain personally from their enforcement work. “These people could be entitled to collect 30 percent of the money that is owed to the government, for work they were already being paid to do,” Ms. Burton told reporters in September.

If Mr. Maxwell had not acted, of course, the government would have had no chance of recovering any money at all. James W. Moorman, president of Taxpayers Against Fraud, a nonprofit organization that specializes in the False Claims Act, acknowledged that it was less than ideal for federal investigators to have a financial stake in rebelling against their bosses. But he said the alternatives might be worse.

“You’re talking about a situation where there seems to be complete breakdown in the system,” Mr. Moorman said. “If they’ve got evidence of fraud, why shouldn’t a court hear it?”

STANDING in his garage recently, Mr. Maxwell pointed to six big cartons stacked along the wall. They contained 60,000 pages of documents that Kerr-McGee and the Interior Department had provided as part of the discovery process in his lawsuit. Mr. Maxwell, true to form, has gone through every page, and distilled his case into seven modestly sized binders he keeps in his living room. He says he is ready for trial, and even for the possibility of losing.

If he does lose, his lawyers will not charge for their work but he will have to pay about $125,000 to expert witnesses he has hired. “I can manage it,” he said. He has saved money all his life, he said, and can live on his savings and his pension.

“He’s thought about all the options, and none of them seem life-threatening to him,” said his daughter, Angela Maxwell Horn. “What can they do him? They’ve already fired him.”




Read More...

Supreme court to confront school racial diversity

Reuters
Supreme court to confront school racial diversity
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court confronts whether race can be used in deciding where students to go to school on Monday, testing the willingness of President George W. Bush's two newest court appointees to overturn programs to foster racial diversity.

In a pair of cases that could affect millions of students nationwide, the high court will consider whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality allows public elementary, middle and high schools to use race as a factor in admissions.

A sharply divided Supreme Court voted 5-4 in 2003 when it last addressed similar issues and ruled that racial preferences can be used in university admission decisions.

Oral arguments on Monday should offer insights into the views on this hot-button social issue from the court's newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, conservatives who joined the nine-member court last term.

Alito replaced the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, author of the 2003 ruling that left unresolved whether race also can be used as a factor in deciding admissions to elementary and high schools.

As U.S. Justice Department lawyers in the early 1980s during Ronald Reagan's presidency, both Roberts and Alito strongly opposed quotas and some affirmative action programs designed to benefit minorities.

In one case before the high court, Seattle used race as a tie-breaking factor in deciding who gets into which of the city's public high schools when too many students seek admission to the same school.

School officials there aim for each school to have about 40 percent white students and 60 percent racial minorities, reflecting the city's overall racial composition.

In the other case, the Louisville, Kentucky-area school district used racial guidelines to keep black student enrollment at most elementary, middle and high schools at between 15 percent and 50 percent to maintain diversity.

A group of parents in Seattle and the parent of a white student in Louisville who had been denied entry into his neighborhood school challenged the use of race.

Their lawyers said the Supreme Court has yet to decide a case involving a school district's voluntary use of race-based pupil assignments for a purpose other than to remedy the effects of past segregation.

Both supporters and opponents of the programs cited the Supreme Court's historic Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954 that outlawed racial segregation in the nation's public schools.

'PRESERVE DESEGREGATED EDUCATION'

Theodore Shaw of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., a civil rights group in New York, urged the court to "preserve and pursue the soul of desegregated education enshrined in Brown and its progeny."

"The Orwellian arguments that voluntary integration efforts constitute racial discrimination in violation of the ... (Constitution), if validated by this court, would be an unwarranted and tragic reversal of historic proportions," he said in written arguments.

The Bush administration's top courtroom lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, also invoked the 1954 ruling in urging the court to strike down both programs.

Clement argued the two race-based student assignment plans are just as unconstitutional as the school segregation policy struck down in 1954.

"The promise of this court's landmark decision in Brown and its progeny was to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system and thus achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis," he said.

Clement and lawyers for the parents will argue against the plans. Attorneys for the two school districts will defend the programs as constitutional.



Read More...

Democrats tap religious leader for radio talk

Reuters
Democrats tap religious leader for radio talk

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats turned to an evangelical Christian to give their weekly radio address on Saturday, citing a desire to avoid partisanship after last month's elections that gave them control of Congress.

"I want to be clear that I am not speaking for the Democratic Party, but as a person of faith who feels the hunger in America for a new vision of our life together, and sees the opportunity to apply our best moral values to the urgent problems we face," the Rev. Jim Wallis said in his remarks.

Wallis, author of 2005's "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," highlighted issues that he said required a new direction, including U.S. policy in Iraq. He also called for new efforts to combat poverty and protect the environment.

"We need serious solutions, not the scapegoating of others," Wallis said. "The path of partisan division is well worn, but the road of compassionate priorities and social justice will lead us to a new America."

In a statement, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he chose Wallis to give the address, usually reserved for politicians, "in the spirit of bipartisanship."

Wallis heads a ministry in Washington called Sojourners and has been widely viewed as part of the religious left. He rejects that label and preaches the need to bring the nation to "a moral center."

Reid called Wallis nonpartisan.

In recent months, Democrats have been trying to reach out more to the religious community in an effort to build up public support for their priorities.

About a year ago, Wallis was one of more than 100 religious activists arrested on Capitol Hill during a peaceful demonstration against health care and social welfare cuts proposed by Republicans.




Read More...