Sunday, December 17, 2006

Gov't's case for Iraq war torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over weapons of mass destruction

The Independent
Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war
By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.

Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.

The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.

It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross.

His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened.

Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment.

"What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.

Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.

"Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," said one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years".

One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff."

Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war - Mr Ross's boss - announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year.


Read More...

Three Possible Outcomes for the Rest of Bush's Presidency

Huffington Post
Cenk Uygur
Three Possible Outcomes for the Rest of Bush's Presidency

Now that we've screwed the pooch on Iraq, there are only three possible outcomes for George Bush's presidency.

1. He stays the course and just drives Iraq into the ground. This could involve putting more troops in, keeping the same number of troops or even some form of withdrawal. But anyway you slice it, Iraq will be a monumental failure.
It is what George W. Bush will be known for. He could leave it at that.

Or he could choose one of two other options. One could make things much better and the other is guaranteed to make things much worse.

2. He could attack Iran and turn the world upside down. This would guarantee his place among - not just the worst US presidents of all time - but the worst world leaders of all time. Attacking Iran would rank among the biggest military blunders in history.

We do not have the forces to fight against Iran. It would not be an easy fight, quite to the contrary, it would be exceedingly difficult. Iran is four times the size of Iraq and has far greater military and political capabilities. They could mobilize Shiites to attack our already weakened interests in Iraq and Lebanon, let alone Israel. They could nearly bring the production and distribution of oil to a halt out of the Persian Gulf. And expose our soldiers in Iraq to much greater harm.

The leaders of Iran already know this. They also know that being attacked by the US is the best thing that could happen to their political fortunes inside Iran. It would turn a young, disaffected population into one with nationalistic and religious fervor united behind the mullahs.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the Dennis Rodman of global politics. He is trying to goad Bush into taking a swing at him. He knows that it is not possible for Bush to finish the job, and that if America jabs at Iran, it will secure Ahmedinejad and the Ayatollahs' reign in Iran for another generation. It's a dangerous but smart game. And it is being played against an opponent who doesn't have any idea of what's happening to him. It's easy to provoke this dumb, blind beast.

Say a couple of inflammatory things against Israel - but don't actually take any aggressive steps. So, when the US attacks, they are the guilty party. You are the protector of Iran. America is loathed across the world for starting another aggressive war. And the whole Muslim world is united behind your leadership.

If Bush falls for this trick, he will live in infamy as one of the least capable and least intelligent men to ever lead a global power. The old European and Ottoman empires would often breed entirely within royal families. This would from time to time produce a mentally handicapped heir to the throne. None of them have ever made a mistake as large as the one Bush would make if he attacked Iran without a legitimate military provocation.

We are told we must be wary because Ahmedinejad denies the Holocaust. I have never heard a worst reason to contemplate attacking another country in my life. Who cares?! What is the official Chinese position on the Cambodian genocide? And should we invade them based on this? The government of Turkey still denies the Armenian Genocide. Should we invade them too while we're at it?

Have people in this country lost their minds? You don't go to war with people and risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of people because they hurt your feelings. Please tell me our leaders aren't this painfully stupid.

Of course, then there is option number three. The only thing that can salvage Bush's presidency at this point. It's got to be a doozy to pull him out of the ignominious hole he has dug for himself. And it is.

3. Broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If Bush could pull off this Herculean task, then every sentence about his legacy would start off with, "But no matter what, he was the one that brought peace to the Middle East..."

Now, that seems so improbable as to be near impossible. But it's his only chance. If he could pull it off, it would be an undeniably historic task. It would make Nixon going to China look like my Aunt Maude going down to the grocery store. No matter how bad you screw things up in the rest of your presidency, if you get a true peace deal between the Israelis and the rest of the Middle East, you would be forever heralded for that legendary achievement.

Finally, what does he have to lose? Why not give it a shot? Maybe it takes an unhinged guy like Bush to make both sides listen. The Palestinians and the Israelis would be sure that when Bush says he might do something, he really might do it -- no matter how crazy it sounds. He's built good ballistic capital. The guy could go ballistic at any moment. So, it's best to make a deal and not piss him off.

I'm trying to make lemonade out of lemons here. This is not some sort of Trojan Horse advice that the conservatives are fond of (e.g. the Democrats better not fight us on this, otherwise they will seem weak on defense and no one will ever vote for them again). This is a genuine outreach to try to help the president.

Why? Because he's still my president. This is our country and our world. And I still care.

Read More...

Unfinished Business

The New York Times
Unfinished Business

Some recent images from George W. Bush’s war on terror:

¶Jose Padilla, the supposed dirty bomber, submitting while guards blindfolded him and covered his ears for a walk from his cell to a dentist’s chair.

¶Government lawyers arguing that a prisoner could not testify that he was tortured by American agents, because their brutality was a secret.

¶A judge dismissing another prisoner’s challenge to his detention, after a new law stripped basic rights from those Mr. Bush has designated “illegal enemy combatants.”

¶The White House scorning lawmakers’ attempts to rein in Mr. Bush’s illegal domestic spying.

This is the legacy of a Republican Congress that enabled the president’s imperial visions of his authority. It leaves the new Democratic majority with much urgent, unfinished business to restore due process, civil liberties and the balance of powers.

Military Tribunals

In the heat of the midterm campaign, Congress was stampeded into establishing military courts for suspected terrorists. The measure improved on Mr. Bush’s own kangaroo courts, which were struck down by the Supreme Court. But the bill over all was a national disgrace.

Among the many things that Congress needs to fix are the bill’s broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant,” which could subject legal United States residents to summary imprisonment; its repudiation of the Geneva Conventions to allow the president to decide what prisoner abuse he will permit; its denial of the basic right of appeal to any noncitizen designated as an “illegal enemy combatant”; and its stripping of the powers of federal courts. The law is also far too lax on the use of coerced evidence and secret evidence. The definition of torture should be changed to reflect civilized norms.

We were greatly encouraged last week when Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who will head the Judiciary Committee, said fixing this bill would be a priority for his panel.

The C.I.A. Prisons

At the insistence of Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the Military Commissions Act gave legal cover to the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret illegal prisons, which house foreign citizens who are often abducted off the streets of their hometowns and brutalized. Congress should at minimum bring these prisons under the rule of law, and make sure that C.I.A. interrogators are given clear instructions comporting with American values. Ideally, Congress would investigate and decide whether this operation has any national security value, and if it doesn’t, immediately close the prisons down.

Domestic Spying

Mr. Bush personally authorized the National Security Agency to ignore federal law and eavesdrop on telephone calls and e-mail between the United States and other countries without a warrant. Republican lawmakers have introduced bills that would legalize the program after the fact. The only remotely sensible measure is from Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who has proposed forcing the eavesdropping back under the 1978 surveillance law and giving the administration a bit more flexibility to do electronic surveillance.

But we agree with Senator John Rockefeller IV, the incoming chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who says more needs to be known about the program before enacting new laws. The administration has stymied Congressional efforts to look into the spying operation, refusing even to turn over the presidential order creating it.

The Intelligence on Iraq

Nearly two and a half years ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported on the nation’s spy agencies’ prewar failure to figure out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and promised to deliver a report on whether Mr. Bush and his team pressured the agencies to cherry-pick or hype evidence — or lied outright to Americans.

Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the Republican head of the intelligence panel, dragged out the second phase of the report, with the aim of killing it. We hope Mr. Rockefeller finishes the job.

That will require heavy lifting on the most important section, comparing the statements of administration officials to what they knew about the intelligence. Mr. Roberts insisted that it cover every public statement by any administration official or member of Congress dating back to 1991. What President Bill Clinton or Senator Hillary Clinton said about Iraq is irrelevant. What matters is what was said by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney — who ordered the invasion of Iraq — and by their aides. We hope Mr. Rockefeller’s committee will sift through the hundreds of statements collected so far and focus on the ones that matter.

Unhappily, this is not an exhaustive list and there will be big fights over many of these issues. But it is not too late to take action. The midterm elections prove that despite all the posturing and fearmongering, the American public has not been blinded or deafened to what this country stands for and the need for truth.





Read More...

New Counterinsurgency Manual Hits Net. Why is the DoD Making it Available to Insurgents,Terrorists?

iraqslugger.com
New Counterinsurgency Manual Hits Net
Why is the DoD Making it Available to Insurgents,Terrorists?
By EASON JORDAN

Your IraqSlogger editors are stunned that the Pentagon has released to the entire world and posted on the Web the U.S. military’s new 282-page counterinsurgency war-fighting manual.

This is the first post-9/11 “war on terror” U.S. military counterinsurgency manual – the long-awaited doctrine meant in part to help turn the tide for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The counterinsurgency field manual's cover reads in part, "Distribution Restriction: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is unlimited."

Why?

Now you and everyone, including Al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents, can read the entire 282-page manual.

It's posted on multiple military Web sites.

While the manual doesn’t contain classified secrets, it contains an astounding amount of seemingly sensitive military doctrine, with subject headings including:

-- INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE OPERATIONS

-- HUMAN INTELLIGENCE AND OPERATIONAL REPORTING

-- COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERRECONNAISSANCE

-- INTELLIGENCE COLLABORATION

-- INTELLIGENCE CELLS AND WORKING GROUPS

-- PROTECTING SOURCES

-- EXECUTING COUNTERINSURGENCY OPERATIONS

-- TARGETING

Should such sensitive and detailed information be dished up to the U.S.’s enemies, especially via Pentagon Web sites?

In the manual's foreword, Lt. Generals David Petreaus and James Amos write in part, "With our Soldiers and Marines fighting insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that we give them a manual that provides principles and guidelines for counterinsurgency operations."

How would a U.S. soldier or Marine now in Iraq or Afghanistan feel knowing the hot-off-the-presses counterinsurgency manual is available to the “bad guys” at the same time it is available to the “good guys”?

Granted, the Pentagon posts a lot on the Web, but it seems fair to ask whether this entire 282-page document (surely, there are additional classified components) should be made available to all.

Will the manual be of value to Al Qaeda terrorists, Iraqi insurgents, and the Taliban?

Would the U.S. think it had scored an intelligence coup if it got its hands on the insurgents' 282-page field manual?

How would the American people feel if asked in a poll whether the U.S. military's counterinsurgency manual should be shared with the insurgents?

Your IraqSlogger team will keep an eye out on terrorist and insurgent Web sites to see whether they provide links to Pentagon Web sites providing the counterinsurgency manual -- or whether they go so far as to translate the manual into Arabic and other languages.

Stay tuned.

Read More...

Flynt Leverett Blasts White House National Security Council Censorship of Former White House Officials Critical of Bush Policies

Huffinton Post
Steve Clemons
Flynt Leverett Blasts White House National Security Council Censorship of Former White House Officials Critical of Bush Policies

John Bolton when he served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security was famous for pounding intelligence officials hard until they coughed up intel reports and "frames" that fit the political objectives he had in mind.

The practice of politicizing intelligence in the Bush White House seems to be continuing with "friends lists" and "enemies lists" determining who should be rewarded or punished in the "secrets-clearing process" in cases where former goverment officials publish materials on U.S. foreign policy debates.

In an unprecedented case, the White House National Security Council staff has insinuated itself into a "secrets-clearing" process normally overseen by the CIA Publications Review Board which screens the written work of former government officials to make sure that state secrets don't find their way into the op-ed pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, or in other of the nation's leading papers, journals, and books.

Flynt Leverett, a former government official who worked at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State, and on the National Security Council staff of the George W. Bush administration, is now a senior fellow and Director of the Geopolitics of Energy Initiative at the New America Foundation.

He has written numerous books, manuscripts, working papers, and many dozens upon dozens of some of the most important public policy op-ed commentary on American engagement in the Middle East and has always dutifully submitted his materials to the CIA's review process. Never -- not even once -- has been a word or item changed in anything submitted.

The White House has now forced the CIA to heavily censor a 1000 word op-ed draft planned for the New York Times that is based on a much larger product he produced under the sponsorship of the Century Foundation titled "Dealing with Tehran: Assessing US Diplomatic Options Toward Iran." (A pdf of the article can be downloaded here.)

Leverett believes that the White House is now politicizing the "secrets review" process and is rewarding those who support Bush's policies and punishing those don't.

Flynt Leverett's official statement -- sent to this blogger tonight -- follows:

Since leaving government service in 2003, I have been publicly critical of the Bush administration's mishandling of America's Iran policy -- in two op-eds published in the New York Times, another published in the Los Angeles Times, an article published earlier this year in The American Prospect, and a monograph just published by The Century Foundation, as well as in numerous public statements, television appearances, and press interviews.

All of my publications on Iran -- and, indeed, on any other policy matter on which I have written since leaving government -- were cleared beforehand by the CIA's Publication Review Board to confirm that I would not be disclosing classified information.

Until last week, the Publication Review Board had never sought to remove or change a single word in any of my drafts, including in all of my publications about the Bush administration's handling of Iran policy. However, last week, the White House inserted itself into the prepublication review process for an op-ed on the administration's bungling of the Iran portfolio that I had prepared for the New York Times, blocking publication of the piece on the grounds that it would reveal classified information.

This claim is false and, I have come to believe, fabricated by White House officials to silence an established critic of the administration's foreign policy incompetence at a moment when the White House is working hard to fend off political pressure to take a different approach to Iran and the Middle East more generally.

The op-ed is based on the longer paper I just published with The Century Foundation -- which was cleared by the CIA without modifying a single word of the draft. Officials with the CIA's Publication Review Board have told me that, in their judgment, the draft op-ed does not contain classified material, but that they must bow to the preferences of the White House.

The White House is demanding, before it will consider clearing the op-ed for publication, that I excise entire paragraphs dealing with matters that I have written about (and received clearance from the CIA to do so) in several other pieces, that have been publicly acknowledged by Secretary Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and that have been extensively covered in the media.

These matters include Iran's dialogue and cooperation with the United States concerning Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and Iran's offer to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States in the spring of 2003.

There is no basis for claiming that these issues are classified and not already in the public domain.

For the White House to make this claim, with regard to my op-ed and at this particular moment, is nothing more than a crass effort to politicize a prepublication review process -- a process that is supposed to be about the protection of classified information, and nothing else -- to limit the dissemination of views critical of administration policy.

Within the last two week, the CIA found the wherewithal to approve an op-ed -- published in the New York Times on December 8, 2006 -- by Kenneth Pollack, another former CIA employee. This op-ed includes the statement that "Iran provided us with extensive assistance on intelligence, logistics, diplomacy, and Afghan internal politics."

Similar statements by me have been deleted from my draft op-ed by the White House. But Kenneth Pollack is someone who presented unfounded assessments of the Iraqi WMD threat -- the same assessments expounded by the Bush White House -- to make a high-profile public case for going to war in Iraq.

Mr. Pollack also supports the administration's reluctance to engage with Iran, in contrast to my consistent and sharp criticism of that position. It would seem that, if one is expounding views congenial to the White House, it does not intervene in prepublication censorship, but, if one is a critic, White House officials will use fraudulent charges of revealing classified information to keep critical views from being heard.

My understanding is that the White House staffers who have injected themselves into this process are working for Elliott Abrams and Megan O'Sullivan, both politically appointed deputies to President Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley.

Their conduct in this matter is despicable and un-American in the profoundest sense of that term. I am also deeply disappointed that former colleagues at the Central Intelligence Agency have proven so supine in the face of tawdry political pressure. Intelligence officers are supposed to act better than that.

Flynt Leverett will also be speaking at the New America Foundation on Monday, 18 December, 12:15 pm EST on the subject of "Dealing with Tehran." I will be moderating the meeting and also offering comments.

This event will air live on C-Span at the same time.

I am positive that Leverett will comment extensively on this unprecedented and disturbing policy of punitively censoring former government officials of the Bush administration engaged in constructive policy debate.

-- Steve Clemons is Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Read More...

Newt Wants to Catch You Napping

Huffington Post
Paul Abrams
Newt Wants to Catch You Napping

In the party that claims for itself traditionalí values, Newt Gingrich's personal history--diddling an employee while married and while impeaching Bill Clinton for the same, 3 citations for violating House ethics, 3 (or is it 4?) marriages that seemingly disqualifies him from becoming its Presidential nominee threatens to induce complacency to his utterances by Democrats.
Big mistake.

Newt is running, and running hard. While the rightwing personal destruction machine (see, Johnson and Boyce, 'How Long Will the Right Let Us Love Obama') grinds down Democrats, Newt's improbability is providing him an unscrutinized forum to spout what he calls 'big ideas', rewrite history, appeal to the intellectual side of those who would reject him for his personal transgressions, and provide the rightwing its next dose of vision.

Newt is the most clever, astute politician on the radical right. He also learns from his mistakes. His biggest mistake was assuming the country was as rightwing as the '94 elections may have suggested, and thus would support him when he shut down government to cause Social Security and Medicare to wither on the vine for lack of sustenance. Newt responded by combining Orwellian labeling---his bills were to 'Strengthen Medicare' and to 'Save Social Security'---with outright deception about the actual content of those bills whose results would have been to weaken and destroy, respectively.

Paradoxically, by providing legitimacy to government-run social programs across the political spectrum, the Orwellian language that enabled the radical right to retain power in the face of strong public opposition to their true policies undermined their ultimate goal of disestablishing collective responsibility from the body politic. It was then only a matter of time before the movement collapsed in corruption and 'big-government' conservatism. The ultimate irony is that that use of government power for the powerful disables the liberty they claim to cherish far more than the liberals' social safety net excoriated in Newt's rants.

When cornered with, say, a specific fact at odds with his claims, Newt employs two techniques: 1) overwhelming verbosity; and 2) reaching for generalities to deny that fact. For example, when challenged on the impact of his real decreases in medicare funding, Gingrich painted a starry-eyed vision of future medical care---his 'diagnostic chair' that will provide patients an instant, accurate, inexpensive diagnosis. The direct message about funding reductions: 'don't worry, medical care will not be that expensive anyhow'. The [not so] indirect message: 'the current medicare system is preventing the introduction of the diagnostic chair into medical practice.

To anyone who can recall the last time he was poked with needles, or scanned in a claustrophobia-inducing machine to establish perhaps an uncertain diagnosis, and then recalls the bill for these tests, Gingrichís 'diagnostic chair' is very appealing. One small problem, ignored by Gingrich: the diagnostic chair does not exist, it is not currently in production nor is it even on the drafting table.

Newt's most recent endeavor is to demonstrate God's central role in the establishment of our Republic. [N.B: This is Newt's ticket to attempted salvation for his personal perfidy with the religious right]. That the Constitution makes no Biblical reference, nor any mention of God* or a Creator, is of trifling concern to Gingrich who, instead, refers to our 'founding documents' to include the Declaration of Independence so as to insert the heavenly hand.

It is an interesting ploy, but, like Gingrich's Orwellian language to deceive the voting public about social programs, it proves the opposite. The Declaration, of course, is not connected seamlessly to the Constitution. Even if the Articles of Confederation, and 11 years, had not intervened, the Declaration was a statement to the world about the inherent right of people to govern themselves, not a contract under which certain people (our ancestors) would agree to be governed, which is what the Constitution (and Articles) is.

But, it is more telling to take Gingrich's conflation of the "founding documents" at face value. It is a central principle of Constitutional construction that, if the Founders demonstrated in one place that they ìknewî how to define or outline something, its absence in another place is proof that their silence on that subject was intentional, and thus cannot be imputed.

The Founders clearly showed in the Declaration that they considered 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' to be inalienable rights that were direct gifts of the Creator, not mediated through some royalty claiming 'Divine Right' to rule. In constitutional construction terms, it would be said that the Founders 'knew how to appeal to a Creator in a document, and knew how to define what that Creator provided and how it was provided'. Thus, the absence in the Constitution of biblical reference for gifts, proscriptions or obligations, or to any God or Creator, demonstrates it was consciously omitted, not a mere oversight, and not because it was so obvious that it need not have been mentioned.

Indeed, the 1st Amendent's non-establishment and religion freedom clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof") buttresses the case above that these wise and temperate men specifically segregated civil society---where belief in absolute truths lashed to the power of government was so fraught with danger from peoples' individual lives where their right and privilege to believe and practice anything they wanted, unaided by government power, threatened no one, while providing them the dignity and respect for which their inalienable rights were created.

Our forebears arrived on this continent to escape government prosecution for their religious beliefs. It is testimony to their true greatness, and magnanimity of spirit, that their reaction was to chose to secure tolerance by separating religion from government, rather than ërevengeí for their own persecution by establishing a religion and subjecting others to it by force of law.

As we are learning in Iraq, revenge societies do not work. It would be well if Newt learned that lesson, rather than trying to rewrite American history. In the meantime, watch him carefully. He is as slippery as a salamander.

(*Yes, the Constitution does contain a reference, the date(!), "In the Year of Our Lord", i.e., using God as timekeeper. To inject the entire King James' Bible on that basis is, to put it mildly, a bit oblique. More importantly, it actually proves--again--that the Founders knew exactly what they were doing by omitting any reference to God, or a Creator, in the body of the Constitution describing citizens' rights and obligations with reference to government, while they had previously referenced our Creator in the Declaration of Independence as the source of certain rights, including to rebellion).


Read More...

Hillary Clinton's Biggest Issue? A Certain Someone in Her Background.

The President In the Room
Hillary Clinton's Biggest Issue? A Certain Someone in Her Background.
By Lynne Duke
Washington Post Staff Writer

NEW YORK He stood far behind, hiding in plain sight, though his glowing white hair and ruddy complexion rendered him as inconspicuous as a face on Mount Rushmore.

The spotlight was not Bill Clinton's. It belonged, instead, to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as she celebrated her reelection victory.

So Bill stood poker-faced. He clasped his hands. He held his head high. He clapped when appropriate. He smiled ever so faintly. And he did not move. When Hillary offered thanks to him and turned around to acknowledge him, he did not step forward, did not step to her side. He stayed put, several feet away, as if taking pains to soak up not one ray of the spotlight he so dearly loves but that, now more than ever, must be hers and hers alone.

It was political Kabuki -- Bill Clinton, held in check -- on a night that some observers saw as the start of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Bill is poised to mightily help or deeply hurt his wife's White House prospects. Either way, his impact will be profound as he undertakes the unprecedented role of ex-president turned male campaign spouse to the first woman ever to have a serious shot at the presidency.

washingtonpost.com
Yes, Bill can deliver political superstardom. He's a razor-sharp political strategist. He knows the institution of the presidency. His fundraising chops are unrivaled. All that is well and good -- perhaps too good, according to a September CNN poll, which showed his favorable rating higher than hers, 60 percent to 50 percent.

But there's the other Bill, the one who could be a massive and messy distraction. That Bill is the ex-president known for his outsize appetites and indiscipline, the Bill who still revels in the limelight, who runs with global jet-setters. He is prone to pop up in the press for even the smallest of curiosities, like being spotted at dinner with another woman -- bad news for an ex-president already infamous for marital infidelity.

If she runs, will voters focus too much on him? Will they remember too much of the national trauma known as "that woman" (Monica Lewinsky) -- and the presidential prevaricating, hair-splitting (what is"is," anyway?) and impeachment that followed? Can voters look at Bill without thinking of sex? If they don't think of sex, they'll likely think the word: "president," which may also not be such a good thing for the spouse who wants that title.

From now until Election Day 2008, the national fascination with the Clintons and their marriage will be central to the race. The media-industrial complex will again feed like hungry hounds on the Clintons, their past and future; on the Clintons and their mysteries; on power and politics as the Clinton lifeblood propelling her run against all odds.

She will face haters. She'll face sexists. There'll be folks who think she's power-mad, including some still queasy about what she knew and when she knew it when it came to Bill's marital indiscretions.

Look at the polls; opinions on her are strong and run the gamut. Gallup last month asked 1,003 respondents to state what comes to mind about Hillary. Thirteen percent said they disliked her. Ten percent said she's qualified to be president. Nine percent said she's riding Bill's shirttails. Eight percent called her strong. Six percent called her intelligent, and another six percent called her dishonest and said they didn't trust her.

With numbers like that, plenty of Democrats are asking: Can she win? So the last thing she needs is people asking, as they have in the media and at cocktail parties: Can Bill control himself during her presidential campaign?

Such a familiar circumstance, such a Clintonesque conundrum, which her supporters can only hope won't lead to a Clintonesque spectacle: Bill, the management challenge.

It's such a delicate subject that many people who know the Clintons well refuse to talk about it. If they do, they summon their most diplomatic selves when addressing it.

"I guess the best way to say this is that they're going to be watched very closely," says Leon Panetta, Clinton's former White House chief of staff. "I think the press and everybody around him is going to be watching to make sure that the same mistakes aren't made."

Discipline: That's the key. It was Clinton's struggle while in the White House, says Panetta -- to stay focused, to not respond to diversions or to provocations. That struggle is an essential aspect of Clinton's personality.

"Clearly, in someone who is probably the brightest and most capable that I've ever met in politics, that's the weak side," Panetta says.

And it's not just sex we're talking about. It's the need for attention, adulation; to play a grand role, make a sweeping impact.

There's something unbridled about Bill's neediness, this love of the crowd -- like the story about his trip to the World Cup in Berlin this year. En route to the stadium on a bus carrying several aides and donors, Bill told the bus driver to head instead to the Brandenburg Gate, the New Yorker reported. There, hundreds of thousands of soccer fans had gathered to watch a match on giant television screens. Uninvited, the former president mounted the stage where a rock band had been performing, and just stood there waving and thanking the crowd, which responded with roaring cheers.

Could Bill's hunger for the spotlight pose problems? You bet, says James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. Hillary will have to be careful not to be upstaged by him or lost in the glare of his global political stardom.

Thurber, called the issue of Bill "a central question to her candidacy."

For starters, he said: "You have to be very careful in terms of Bill Clinton taking the headlines. So one way you do it is use him behind the scenes, to bring in money to your campaign through closed events. And in my opinion, you rarely have them appear on the stage together, and if you do, you don't have him speak."

Her campaign strategists also have to be "very careful" about managing Bill because "he sucks up the air around everybody when he's there," says Thurber. "And he needs to be loved. She is more self-assured, doesn't need as much adulation as he does. And that's trouble."

There are "so many barriers for her, alone, and then add Bill in there and then add his infidelity to it," says Thurber. "Well, she doesn't want to be looking over her shoulder and having questions asked by the media about it."

But there will be questions aplenty. How could there not be? The Clinton marriage fell into political soap opera with the troubles of Bill's White House years, with nothing but question marks hovering overhead, for a time. Was he contrite? Had she forgiven him? Would she stay? The woman whose earlier assertiveness as first lady rankled some now was tagged with a new set of labels: Hillary the martyr. Hillary the steadfast, for sticking with her man. Hillary as Machiavelli, accepting marital humiliation as the price of power.

Complained someone who worked on her White House staff, who requested anonymity to speak freely: "If your husband has an affair and you forgive him, you get to turn the corner and move on. She never does." Not in the public mind, at least.
Her 'Most Difficult Decisions'

She raised the subject in her 2003 memoir, "Living History," writing, "The most difficult decisions I have made in my life were to stay married to Bill and to run for the Senate." Rarely has she discussed that period since. As she has prepared to possibly run for president, questions about the marriage have bubbled to the fore again.

Earlier this year, both the U.S. and Canadian press ran stories about Bill's periodic meetings with a Canadian auto-parts magnate turned politician, Belinda Stronach. Both have characterized themselves as just friends since they met in 2001 at a fundraiser. But tongues wagged nonetheless, because of the baggage.

Folks around the Clintons believe -- or want to believe -- that Bill's indiscretions are a thing of the past, that he has faced his demons.

Since the Lewinsky scandal, Bill has received counseling for a sex addiction. He and Hillary have grown as a couple. She has burst out of her role as wife and first lady to become a politician in her own right. He has had a brush with death, in the form of his emergency heart bypass surgery in 2004. He has found his global calling as an active former president and is fully committed to helping his wife along her chosen path.

Despite all that, the subject of the marriage is too hot to handle.

"It's uranium-242," said longtime Clinton adviser and friend James Carville, earlier this year. "You pick that stuff up and it'll blow up in your face . . . I'll talk about anything. But I ain't gettin' near anybody's marriage, especially the Clintons.' "

But he did concur that Bill Clinton could require special management by her campaign strategists, because of his political stature.

"I think it is something that people are cognizant of," he said. "You could make a pretty persuasive argument that there's more good to come out of this than bad."

Asked how Hillary's presumed rivals might deal with the Bill factor, an aide to one of them said, "Everybody knows everything there is to know about the Clintons." The aide spoke anonymously to avoid any damaging blowback for the comments. "No one needs to point out to them 'guess what? Bill Clinton was impeached [after] having an affair' . . . It's obvious to everyone that her husband is a huge benefit and he comes with some baggage."

Spokesmen for both Clintons steadfastly refused to discuss the theory that Bill might pose obstacles should Hill, as the New York tabloids call her, run for president.

"He campaigned for her in 2000. He campaigned for her in 2006," says Howard Wolfson, a Hillary Clinton adviser. "In both instances, we found, as did many other candidates across the country, that his presence on the campaign trail was a huge boost."

In her first campaign, when he was a sitting president, her handlers found it necessary to carefully calibrate Bill's role -- just as they are likely to do should she run in '08.

Both Clintons declined to be interviewed for this article. Ditto for several members of her innermost circle, known as Hillaryland.

If she runs, her husband "will do anything and everything to support her," says Jay Carson, Bill Clinton's spokesman.

So get ready to see that Bill Clinton thing at work on the campaign trail, if she runs -- that charm, that way with the crowd, that charisma. With him, it's seems innate.

Hillary, by contrast, is the dogged preparer known for the expertise and analysis she brings to her policy work. Hers is a more sober public persona, more remote.
Different Styles

The nation saw the contrast quite starkly during the nationally televised funeral last February of Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King Jr. Bill spoke in the subtle cadences of the pulpit and seemed to reach right into the heart of the mourners, give expression to their feelings.

Hillary spoke more stiffly, with little hint of emotion, of a connection to the crowd.

Their appearance set off a wave of speculation about her style vs. his and how it would or would not serve her in a campaign.

"Of course I've seen the difference," says Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who prodded Hillary to run for the Senate back when she was still first lady. "But I never would think that anybody would say one would not shine as brightly. It's always been a team. I think that the personal problems have cemented that even more so than in other couples."

"I don't think there's any woman in public life that has such self-esteem and assurance as Hillary Clinton," Rangel said.

Theirs has not been a competitive marriage, but a complementary one, Panetta says. "I think that she knows he's got a lot of charisma and people pay a lot of attention to him, and I think she has always viewed that as an important asset not only because of the attention he gets and the guidance he provides, but also because it makes both of them larger than life."

They once called themselves the "blue-light special," offering "two for one" -- two leaders for the price of one, quickly dubbed "Billary." That was back during Bill's 1992 presidential campaign, when Hillary was the first professional woman, a lawyer, heading for the role of first lady.

The co-presidency idea got jettisoned pretty quickly. Campaign polls showed voters didn't necessarily want Clinton's wife acting as an unelected leader. The notion of the co-presidency gave rise to some of the early condemnations of Hillary as power hungry. And when, as first lady, she lead the failed charge for health care reform and wound up politically bruised, she retreated from major policy crusades, putting the two-for-one deal to bed.

And yet, today, the nation faces a combination that's far closer to the mythic co-presidency than their stature of yore.

"Most people say it's two for one," Rangel said of Hillary's prospective campaign. "Anyone would know that one of the most outstanding public officials in the free world is Bill Clinton. . . . To have the benefit of a former president and a person that has international respect as your partner, I don't see how it gets any better than that."

Some folks who know her take umbrage with the two-for-one idea. They say it denigrates her singular leadership abilities and suggests she's not up to the job on her own.

And it could confuse the public in a campaign in which the lines between the two Clintons would have to be clear. Her candidacy, not his; her presidency, not his; not a blue-light special; and certainly not an attempt at dynasty.

"The biggest challenge facing Hillary is: Can she convince the American people that they are not trying to build a dynasty, but rather they are trying to help improve the lives of people?" says Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist who chaired Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.

In the past several months, Bill has appeared to be her chief campaigner, publicly saying Hillary would be a great president, even better than him, because she would enter the White House with more experience.

It is in the nature of the Clintons and their evolved relationship, says Panetta, that Bill will subordinate himself and summon all his discipline, for Hillary's sake.

"This is the love and loyalty that they share in their relationship," Panetta said. "It's very genuine. And that's why I think he'll want it. He will not want to in any way jeopardize her chance to win the presidency."




Read More...

U.S. first ladies to be honored on coins

USA TODAY
U.S. first ladies to be honored on coins
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON — Not to be outdone by their husbands, the first ladies are getting their chance to shine on the nation's coins. Starting next year, Martha Washington, Abigail Adams and all the rest will begin appearing on a new series of gold coins.

It will be the first time in history that the U.S. Mint has produced a series featuring women.

While a new presidential series will be $1 circulating coins, the wives will be on half-ounce gold coins with each likely to sell for more than $300.

Both coins were authorized by Congress in 2005 with lawmakers modeling the $1 coin series after the Mint's extremely popular 50-state quarters.

The hope is that changing the images on the presidential coins every three months will spur greater interest and help the maligned dollar coin finally achieve acceptance with Americans. The Susan B. Anthony dollar, introduced in 1979, and the Sacagewea, introduced in 2000, have both been flops.

The half-ounce gold coins for the spouses have been designed to appeal primarily to collectors, although the Mint will be offering bronze medal duplicates that will sell for a more affordable $3 to $4.

The first four coins are scheduled to go on sale around Mother's Day next May, but the public will get a first look at the designs at an unveiling ceremony on Tuesday at the National First Ladies Library in Canton, Ohio.

As with the presidential coins, there were be four new coins honoring the spouses introduced each year, and the Mint is hoping to teach a little history with the spouse series.

"I think Americans are going to take a look at these coins, which are very original, and be drawn to finding out more about the first ladies," Mint Director Edmund Moy said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The first coin in the series features a stern-looking Martha Washington, wearing a bonnet, on one side with a depiction of her mending a soldier's jacket on the other side and the phrase, "First Lady of the Continental Army."

The drawing of Dolley Madison, wife of James Madison, the fourth president, shows her in front of the famous George Washington portrait that she saved before the British burned the White House in the War of 1812.

Thomas Jefferson's wife died before he became president so the gold coin for his administration will feature a symbolic representation of Lady Liberty that appeared on a half-cent coin during the time Jefferson was president.

Jefferson was one of five presidents who were not married during their time in the White House.

The legislation directs that all presidents be honored on the $1 coin and all spouses be honored on the gold coins. But they must have been dead for two years before they can be depicted on a coin.





Read More...

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Last-Minute Lawmaking by Hastert, Reid; Controversial Measures on Medicare, Land Use Slipped Into Session's Final Bill

washingtonpost.com
Last-Minute Lawmaking by Hastert, Reid
Controversial Measures on Medicare, Land Use Slipped Into Session's Final Bill
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer

In the wee hours of the morning Dec. 7, Senate negotiators rejected a Medicare measure pushed by outgoing House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) that would have meant big revenues for an insurance company in Hastert's home state. But a day later, the $100 million proposal was alive and well, paired with a plan for a major Nevada land swap backed by Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the incoming Senate majority leader.

The leaders' dealmaking went on behind the scenes during the final, frenetic hours of the 109th Congress. Hastert's provision, which would give certain Medicare beneficiaries additional time to change their health-care coverage, and Reid's plan, which involves more than 900 square miles of federal land, were included in a massive tax and trade measure approved by Congress shortly before its final adjournment early last Saturday morning.

Both provisions have been criticized as potentially harmful to public interests. Land-use activists complained this week that Reid's provision would sell too much of the federal land to private developers and that it circumvents land-disposal procedures. Several senior senators objected to Hastert's provision on the floor of the Senate, saying it favored one type of Medicare plan over others. Representatives of Aon Corp., an insurance company based in Hastert's home state, lobbied for the provision.

The Hastert measure "creates an unlevel playing field," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the incoming chairman of the Finance Committee. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the outgoing chairman of the tax-writing committee, added: "I am also disappointed in the process that led to the provision being included in the bill."

Baucus, Grassley and incoming Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said they will probably attempt to strike the Medicare provision when the new Congress convenes next year.

The Hastert and Reid provisions were parts of an amendment quietly inserted in the $50 billion, 10-year tax and trade bill on a procedural vote. The huge bill was treated by lawmakers as the last legislative train out of town. Other provisions slipped in at the last minute included a $1 billion expansion of health savings accounts, a Republican-backed program that allows tax-free savings for health care, and 520 tariff suspensions worth tens of millions of dollars to U.S. corporations.

The last-minute deal involving Hastert and Reid apparently began with a phone call on the afternoon of Dec. 7 from Reid to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), according to a senior Democratic Senate aide familiar with the private negotiations.

Reid asked why his land provision had not been included in the tax and trade bill. Thomas brought up the subject of Hastert's amendment and said it was his intention to add it to the bill in tandem with Reid's measure, according to the senior aide. Several people familiar with the talks -- both Democrats and Republicans -- suggested that one provision was exchanged for the other, but spokesmen for Reid and Hastert said they do not believe there was a trade.

The Hastert provision would allow certain Medicare beneficiaries -- those who receive physician and hospital benefits through the original Medicare program -- to switch their health coverage after the open-enrollment period for Medicare closes at the end of March. The provision also limits the type of plan that they can choose as an alternative: those that do not offer prescription drug coverage.

Representatives of Aon Corp. lobbied Congress for the policy. According to a listing on the Web site of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Aon's Sterling Life Insurance Co. subsidiary is one of fewer than two dozen companies, most of them smaller, regional firms, that offer private fee-for-service plans without drug coverage -- the type of plan that the provision would benefit most.

Most organizations offer plans that combine Medicare physician, hospital and prescription drug benefits. The groups that would be aided by the provision, such as Sterling, concentrate on offering private health plans under Medicare that allow beneficiaries to get drug coverage through a different organization. The measure's cost would result from the additional Medicare patients who switch to such programs, which cost the government more money.

A Hastert spokesman said the speaker pressed for the provision to expand enrollment in Medicare plans overall. Aon officials repeatedly declined to comment.

Reid's provision would designate 900 square miles of Nevada as wilderness and would allow 70 square miles to possibly be sold to private investors. It is one of several proposals by Reid that would make large stretches of federal land in Nevada a combination of wilderness and private development. Proceeds of the land sales would go to assist local governments. Reid's Republican colleague from Nevada, Sen. John Ensign, co-sponsored the provision.

Some environmental groups approve of the land provision; one is the Campaign for America's Wilderness, which likes the way it expands wilderness designations. Other groups, such as the Seattle-based Western Lands Project, decry the loss of land to developers and the loss of revenue for the government.

"He's selling off federal land that belongs to all of us and keeping the money in Nevada," said Janine Blaeloch, director of the Western Lands Project.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, defended the provision as a way to protect wilderness areas, improve water conservation and enhance fire-prevention efforts. "The bill was the subject of numerous negotiations with stakeholders and will protect more than 500,000 acres of wild and sensitive public land as wilderness," Manley said.

Read More...

Feinstein Criticizes DHS on Foreigner Exit Program

washingtonpost.com
Feinstein Criticizes DHS on Foreigner Exit Program
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer

Supporters of the troubled US-VISIT program warned yesterday that the decision to suspend a crucial part of the national security program launched after the 2001 attacks will leave the nation vulnerable to terrorism.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the government will be left with no way of knowing whether all visitors leave the country after the administration decided to drop a plan to track departures at land borders because of technical and cost problems.

Feinstein called the decision a "very serious failure" on top of multiple delays since the system was proposed in 1996.

US-VISIT is designed to detect criminals, suspected terrorists and visitors whose visas have expired by recording travelers' fingerprints and digital photographs when they enter and exit the United States. Having spent $1.7 billion since 2003, Department of Homeland Security officials say they have successfully recorded 61 million people entering the country through 115 airports, 15 seaports and 154 of 170 land ports.

But they cannot build an exit tracking system without spending "tens of billions" of dollars more and an additional five to 10 years developing the technology.

"This program is central to protecting our national security," said Feinstein, incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's homeland security panel. "Billions of dollars and countless hours have been invested, and if DHS is going to throw this all away, the American people deserve to know why."

Others expressed relief that the department was acknowledging what critics have insisted for years: that billions of dollars might be wasted on contracts that could not deliver results. Developing an exit system is difficult because of the volume of cross-border traffic, technological demands and practical limits.

Such an entry-exit system was recommended by the panel that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but several studies have challenged its feasibility.

"Always make sure you state it clearly when the emperor has no clothes, to me is the moral of the story," said Kathleen Walker, incoming president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, citing repeated studies and government testimony about US-VISIT's flaws.

DHS's retreat came after Congress's audit arm, the Government Accountability Office, reported Thursday that US-VISIT officials had concluded that the exit program could not now be launched at land crossings without major traffic delays or enormous cost to expand facilities, roads and communication links.

In an interview, US-VISIT Director Robert Mocny said the agency is completing a January spending report to Congress that will lay out plans to expand the exit system at airports and seaports but will leave out land ports.

Land ports record 309 million crossings a year, compared with 87 million at airports. But U.S. officials say airports pose a greater security risk because most land crossers are repeat travelers, or Mexican, Canadian and U.S. citizens who are for now exempt from US-VISIT.

In comments to reporters, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff acknowledged that the department was sidetracking the land exit system.

"If we required all the people leaving the country by land going into Canada to stop to give a biometric print," Chertoff said, "you would see lines that are 10 or 15 miles long, stretching from the border deeply into New York or into Detroit."

Chertoff cited progress in tracking and screening unwanted people before they enter the United States. US-VISIT has captured more than 1,100 criminals who were using false documents, officials have said. Other programs are underway to integrate homeland security and FBI fingerprint databases, to automatically generate risk assessments on travelers and to improve monitoring of some immigration violators.

"The highest priority is to keep terrorists out of the country. Letting them come in the country and then worrying whether they haven't left in 90 days seems, to me, an inferior concern to keeping them out in the first place," Chertoff said.

US-VISIT has also spent $71 million testing the use of radio-frequency identification technology -- involving tiny microchips with a unique code embedded in a tag on visitors' departure forms -- as an alternative to a fingerprint or facial-scan system. But a January 2006 test correctly identified only 16 percent of 166 vehicles with such tags. Among the drawbacks is that the tags cannot be physically tied to an individual.



Read More...

Cheney: Rummy "Finest Ever" Secretary of Defense (What is Cheney smoking?)

Huffington Post
Tim Dickinson
Cheney: Rummy "Finest Ever" Secretary of Defense (What is Cheney smoking?)

"I believe the record speaks for itself -- Don Rumsfeld is the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had." -- Dick Cheney, today

Ahem. For the record (from the Iraq Study Group):

* 3,000 Iraqis civilians are killed every month.
* 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country.
* 1.6 million more have been displaced internally.
* Moqtada al Sadr's army has 60,000 troops.
* Kurdish peshmerga militas number 100,000.
* "Iraqi police cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in secarian violence, including targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians."
* Shia have gained majority control of Iraq for the first time in 1,300 years.
* "Baghdad is run like a 'Shia dictatorship'"
* As many as 500,000 barrels of oil are stolen every day.
* The United States has already spent $400 billion on this war, and continues to spend $2 billion a week. Final estimates in the ISG report for the cost of the war run as high as $2 trillion.


Read More...

Rumsfeld: You Go To Posterity With the Reputation You Have, Not The Reputation You Wish You Had

Huffington Post
RJ Eskow
Rumsfeld: You Go To Posterity With the Reputation You Have, Not The Reputation You Wish You Had

The Associated Press noted the departure of Donald Rumsfeld with a curious retrospective, quoting a biographer who suggests that he is a "tragic figure" because of his wasted "talent and promise." But Nixon, who called him a "ruthless little bastard," had Rummy's number from the start. His "talent" was as a political hit man, a vicious insider who would do whatever his bosses wanted.

He was and is a nasty person of shrewd but limited intellect, a bully and a braggart and a bullshit artist. Nobody will miss him.

Do Rumsfeld and his friends regret his public disgrace, which will follow him into the grave? Too bad. They should have thought about that earlier, when he was slandering generals and political opponents alike (for being right), enriching war profiteers, and making one egregious error in judgement after another. No wonder he won praise today from Dick Cheney, a man whose predictions on Iraq have been as accurate as his shooting.

The only thing that could change the way Rumsfeld is remembered is if more is revealed about his complicity in torture and other war crimes.

What should Rumsfeld be remembered for, if not Iraq? For selling contraceptives and sweeteners as a drug executive? No. The GOP wanted this war, and Rumsfeld gave it to them. They wanted lying and deception, and Rummy delivered. They wanted to cut costs when it came to protecting our soldiers, and jack them up when it came to making Halliburton rich. Again, Rumsfeld came through.

The only form of combat at which Rumsfeld ever excelled was bureaucratic infighting. That, and not expertise or brains, is why Nixon named him to a Cabinet post. "I need a man who will be in there fighting," Nixon said on the White House tapes. "He's a ruthless little bastard ... He's tough enough that if he knows what I want, he isn't going to come in and try to sell me something."

Rumsfeld knew how to get things done - particularly things that advanced Rumsfeld's career. He was appointed to run the Office of Economic Opportunity so that the GOP could run it into the ground, but he proved an aggressive and adept advocate for some of its programs. That wasn't out of idealism, but rather as a way to expand his own turf.

As Secretary of Defense, he increased the military budget during a period of détente and reduced military need. Why? Because - again - he wanted more power.

His first private-sector job, as CEO of G. D. Searle, was well-suited to his talents. He cut underperforming divisions, per the corporate trends of the day. (Some business analysts believe this tactic, while good for short-term stock values, actually guts the long term worth of some companies while making employees suffer needlessly.)

His political skills came in especially handy at Searle's helm, since he was able to persuade the Reagan Administration to reverse government policy and permit the use of Searle's formerly-banned product, Aspartame.

(Rumsfeld continues to profit from the decisions of his political pals. During the bird-flu scare Bush allocated a billion dollars to purchase Tamiflu, which another Rumsfeld company developed. The result was a few more million dollars in value for Rummy's portfolio.)

But Iraq will remain the capstone of Rumsfeld's career. He treated the lives and welfare of our soldiers as cavalierly as he did the jobs of employees at those Searle divisions he closed down. His limitations, both intellectual and moral, made him the Republican Party's perfect instrument for the pursuit of this war. He was the creature of the Party that created and nurtured him, and an accurate reflection of it.

His most famous quote was not only flippant but dishonest, since it was used to conceal his own managerial incompetence, lack of proper planning, and indifference to the human cost of his actions. Let's not forget the question that prompted it, either, from a soldier serving in Iraq:

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson: Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don;t we have those resources readily available to us?

Rumsfeld: It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have--not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.--You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up...

Rumsfeld's press conferences were widely noted for his bullying, confusing, and often incoherent comments. What was less obvious to most press observers was that his elliptically-phrased aggression was an intentional strategy. He kept reporters confused, intidimated, and off-balance while showering the public with his muddled thinking, cynical manipulations, and flat-out lies.

The content of the AP piece is generally fair and balanced, although they turned to a Cato Institute scholar rather than one of his many progressive detractors for the observation that he will be remembered with a "dark epitaph."

But the AP's lamentation for the fact that his career "ended in ignominy" is a curious one. He will be remembered, if at all, for these qualities: callousness, libelous comments about those who disagreed with him, a hallucinogenic detachment from reality, smug refusal to consider other people's opinions, mental shallowness, and a sociopathic inability to take responsibility for his own actions.

Most of all, he will be remembered for that most destructive and personally unappealing combination of personality traits: arrogance and incompetence.

Given that record, what could be a more appropriate end to his career than "ignominy"?

Read More...

GOP Sen. Specter Planning Syria Trip Against White House Wishes

Yahoo! News
Republican Sen. Specter plans Syria trip
BY ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

Sen. Arlen Specter, a 26-year Senate Republican, said he will visit Syria despite loud objections by the Bush administration, contending the situation in Iraq is so dire that it is time Congress step up to the plate and see what it can do.

Specter, R-Pa., said in an interview late Friday that he is planning a trip to the Middle East that will include Israel and Syria. The senator said he and other Republicans are concerned that the administration's policies in the Middle East are not working and that other GOP members may follow in his footsteps.

"I've talked to my Republican colleagues, and there is a disquiet here," Specter said.

The visit, coming on the heels of a trip by Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, would be a direct affront to the White House. The United States has limited diplomatic ties with Syria because of its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, which the U.S. deems terrorist organizations. President Bush has expressed reluctance to seek help from Damascus on Iraq until the Syrians curb that support and reduce their influence in Lebanon.

The White House sharply criticized Nelson, a Democrat, for visiting Syria despite Nelson's assertion that the meeting was helpful. Nelson said Syrian President Bashar Assad said he was willing to help control the Iraq-Syrian border, where foreign fighters cross into Iraq.

"We think it's inappropriate," White House spokesman Tony Snow said Thursday of the planned congressional trips to the region. In addition to Nelson and Specter, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., were expected to visit Syria.

"The concern here, among other things, is that this does not strengthen the hand of democracy in the region ... but instead allows the Syrians to dodge the real responsibilities they have," Snow said.

White House spokesman Alex Conant said late Friday that Snow's comments hold true for Specter as well.

The diplomatic push from Congress found revived inspiration from a bipartisan panel that recently recommended the U.S. engage Iran and Syria on the war in Iraq. Bush has remained cool to the proposal by the Iraq Study Group, which was led by former GOP Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind.

In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Specter in a telephone call not to go to Syria, the senator said. But Specter, who had acquiesced previously to similar requests, said time was up.

"I deferred to them a year ago, and I deferred to them last August," Specter said. "And if there were any signs the administrative policy (in the Middle East) was working, I'd defer to them again."

Specter said he wasn't under the impression he would walk away with a diplomatic deal or believed he was stepping on anyone's toes. But, he added, lawmakers could conduct fact-finding trips that could help inform discussions and still leave foreign policy negotiations up to the White House.

"I now believe that with the report of the independent study group and the administration policy, which is not working, there should be a fresh look at it by Congress," said Specter, who chairs the Judiciary Committee and is a senior member of the Appropriations panel.

Specter's interest in Syria — and willingness to buck White House party line — is nothing new. The Republican has visited Syria 15 times since 1984 and even attended the funeral of Assad's father. The senator visited with then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 1990 and has tried repeatedly to engage officials in Iran, although to no avail.

Specter has challenged the Bush administration's position on other matters as well, including the White House policy toward terrorism suspects.




Read More...

Bush Likely To Send More Troops To Iraq

BBC NEWS
US 'troop boost in Iraq likely'
US President George W Bush is likely to boost troop levels in Iraq next year, an administration official has said.

Up to 25,000 more troops could be deployed to try to help end the violence, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The comments come a day after prominent Republican John McCain called for up to 30,000 more troops to be sent to Iraq.

Mr Bush had been due to announce a new strategy on Iraq next week, but has delayed his speech until January.

He is holding a flurry of meetings with top US and Iraqi officials and experts on how to change his policy.

In Iraq, the country's biggest humanitarian organisation has accused US troops of attacking its offices and vehicles.

The Iraqi Red Crescent's vice-president said attacks by US-led forces were the biggest problem it faced.

The US military said it was checking the allegations.

'Serious situation'

The US administration source said the mission of the additional troops would be threefold, the BBC's Adam Brookes reports from Washington:

* To help secure Baghdad amid daily car bombings and kidnappings

* To make a renewed push to quell the insurgency in the Western province of Anbar

* To tackle the militias behind much of the sectarian violence in the country, but especially the capital.

The remarks appear to be setting the tone for Mr Bush's announcement of his new Iraq strategy, our correspondent says.

He says the idea of boosting troop levels for one final push at halting the spiralling violence has been much discussed in Washington recently.

The comments came a day after Senator McCain called for more troops to stabilise Iraq.

"The situation is very, very serious," he said in Baghdad.

"It requires an injection of additional troops to control the situation and to allow the political process to proceed," he said.

There are currently 140,000 US troops in Iraq.

Military scepticism

Since a high-level review group published its findings last week, President Bush has been consulting with his military commanders and Iraqi political leaders to shape a new strategy.

Military commanders, however, have been expressing scepticism that extra troops on their own will have much effect, our correspondent says.

They say that stability in Iraq can now only be had by political means.

The Iraq Study Group, composed of top Democrat and Republican legislators and experts, said combat troops could be withdrawn from Iraq by early 2008.

They said the current US strategy of "staying the course" was no longer viable.

On Wednesday, Mr Bush said he would not be rushed into making "a difficult decision".

"I've heard some ideas that would lead to defeat. And I reject those ideas, ideas such as leaving before the job is done; ideas such as not helping this government take the necessary and hard steps to be able to do its job."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6184965.stm



Read More...

"Macaca" named most politically incorrect word

Reuters
"Macaca" named most politically incorrect word

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "Macaca" you are number one.

The word "macaca," used by outgoing Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia to describe a Democratic activist of Indian descent who was trailing his campaign, was named the most politically incorrect word of the year on Friday by Global Language Monitor, a nonprofit group that studies word usage.

"The word might have changed the political balance of the U.S. Senate, since Allen's utterance (an offensive slang term for Indians from the Sub-continent) surely impacted his election bid," said the group's head, Paul JJ Payack.

Allen narrowly lost to Democrat James Webb in November, helping make it possible for the Democrats to capture control of the Senate.

In second place on this year's list was "Global Warming Denier," for someone who believes that climate change has moved from scientific theory to dogma.

"There are now proposals that 'global warming deniers' be treated the same as 'Holocaust deniers: professional ostracism, belittlement, ridicule and, even, jail," Payack said.

In third was "Herstory" substituting for "History." Payack said there are nearly 900,000 Google citations for "Herstory," all based on a mistaken assumption that "history" is a sexist word.

"When Herodotus wrote the first history, the word meant simply an 'inquiry,'" he said.

In August, Global Language Monitor picked "truthiness" and "Wikiality" -- two words popularized by political satirist Stephen Colbert on his TV show "The Colbert Report"-- as the top television buzzwords of the year.

The group defined "truthiness" as used by Colbert as meaning "truth unencumbered by the facts." "Wikiality," derived from the user-compiled Wikipedia information Web site, was defined as "reality as determined by majority vote."

Last year, it dubbed "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," as U.S. President George W. Bush's most memorable phrase of 2005.

Bush made the comment to Michael Brown, the former head of Federal Emergency Management Agency, before Brown resigned over the administration's handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.




Read More...

Friday, December 15, 2006

Do members of Congress have to show up for work?

Slate
Capitol Hooky
Do members of Congress have to show up for work?
By Torie Bosch

Since losing his re-election bid to a Democratic challenger in November, lame-duck Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., has cast only two votes on the House floor—for the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act and a condemnation of a French street named after Mumia Abu-Jamal. Meanwhile, he's skipped out altogether on the other 18 votes. Could he get in trouble for playing hooky?

Not by Congress. Only a congressman's constituents can punish him for truancy. Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives takes disciplinary action when a member fails to show up for work. Hypothetically, a politician could be elected to Congress and never show up for a single meeting or vote.

The two most common reasons for missing votes are ongoing political campaigns and illness. John Kerry famously missed 87 percent of the Senate's roll call votes in the first half of 2004, during his presidential bid. According to the Washington Post's database of votes missed, many of the House's biggest offenders in the last two years were involved in tight electoral contests, such as Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., who lost his bid for the Senate, and Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, who won the governorship of Ohio.

The congressman who made the fewest appearances in the 109th Congress is Rep. Lane Evans, D-Ill., who suffers from Parkinson's disease. (He chose not to seek re-election in 2006 after missing almost half of the session's votes.) Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., also had a good reason for missing more than 100 votes: He was in rehab.

In the past, some ill members of Congress have missed even more of the action. In 1969, two years into his fourth term, South Dakota Sen. Karl E. Mundt, a Republican, suffered a stroke and was unable to continue voting. He offered to resign, but only on the condition that South Dakota's governor appoint Mundt's wife to fill the vacancy. The governor refused, and Mundt retained the Senate seat, even while missing three full years of votes. He even remained on three committees until 1972, when the Senate Republican Conference stripped him of these assignments. Similarly, in the 1940s, Sen. Carter Glass of Virginia missed two years' worth of votes due to illness—he was 87 and in failing health—but refused to retire even as newspapers from across his state pressured him to step aside.

If either house of Congress wanted to institute disciplinary action for absentee representatives, they would have to amend their rules of operation. But it's unlikely that members would vote to give themselves stringent attendance guidelines.

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

Explainer thanks Donald Ritchie of the Senate Historical Office.
Torie Bosch is a Slate copy editor. She can be reached at torie_bosch@hotmail.com.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2155441/



Read More...

Troops in Iraq to get fire-resistant uniforms

USA TODAY
Troops in Iraq to get fire-resistant uniforms
By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Flame-resistant uniforms will be standard issue for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by early 2007, Pentagon officials say.

More than 160,000 suits made of the flame-retardant fabric NOMEX will be sent to combat zones, said Thomas Edwards, assistant deputy chief of staff for Army logistics.

The Pentagon moved quickly, Edwards said, because Iraqi insurgents are using homemade bombs and targeting the fuel tanks of vehicles. The bombs, called improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, are the top killer of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"Guys in the area of operations said, 'Give us all the fireproof uniforms you can find and then kick up production,' " Edwards said.

After receiving the Army's request Sept. 21, the Pentagon shipped 70,000 suits by Oct. 13 to outfit troops who patrol outside U.S. bases, Edwards said. It will cost about $70 million for the uniforms, hoods and gloves.

NOMEX, a DuPont-manufactured fiber, resists burning for about 9 seconds, long enough to allow troops to escape from a burning vehicle, Edwards said.

Troops are urged to drink extra liquids to keep from overheating because of the suits' added layer of protection, said Lt. Col. Carl Ey, an Army spokesman.

Margo Hughey, a 68-year-old grandmother from Columbus, Ind., said she has raised $2,000 to buy the suits for troops after learning of attacks with diesel-soaked explosives from relatives serving in Iraq. She and friend April Johnson, 41, also contacted Indiana's two senators — Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Evan Bayh — because they did not believe the Pentagon had acted quickly enough.

"When I learned our own family members were in extreme danger, and it did not look like they would be supplied by the DOD (Department of Defense) or the Army I knew I must do something," Hughey said.

Lugar contacted the Pentagon but had not received a response, spokesman Andy Fisher said.

Edwards said the Pentagon moved quickly: "I don't know how long it took Granny to raise that two thousand bucks, but it couldn't have been a helluva lot faster than we did in getting these uniforms."

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-14-safer-uniforms_x.htm?csp=34





Read More...

520 Breaks for Select Companies Added to Tax Bill

washingtonpost.com
520 Breaks for Select Companies Added to Tax Bill
By Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writer

A huge tax bill that Congress passed last week contained a little-noticed gift for select corporations -- tens of millions of dollars in breaks on import tariffs.

Early Saturday morning, in the frantic final hours of the 109th Congress, lawmakers rolled 520 tariff suspensions into the must-pass bill. The provisions will reduce or eliminate taxes on imported products as varied as shoes, camcorders and boiled oysters.

While such suspensions have been around for decades, the flurry of provisions pushed this Congress to a record of nearly 800 for the year. Corporate lobbyists often craft such suspensions to apply to just one product imported by just one company. Many of those companies and their executives have given millions of dollars to political campaigns.

This week, leaders from both parties called for changes in the system.

"This is just good old-fashioned pork," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), vice chairman of the House Republican Conference for the 109th Congress. Kingston described the suspensions as a stealthy version of the congressional earmark -- a term for a measure that directs the government to spend public money on behalf of a particular special interest.

"A lot of members of Congress are just clueless as to what is going on," Kingston said. "You can spend money away or you can tax-credit it away. Either way, somebody else is going to pick up the difference."

Congressional sponsors of the suspensions say they are trying to lower consumer prices and create jobs by cutting costs for retailers and U.S. manufacturers. They say that they generally drop the legislation if trade officials find a U.S. competitor that objects.

Few, if any, of the arcanely worded tariff provisions identify the company that initiated the measure. Some provisions do not identify the product as well, referring instead to strings of numbers keyed to tariff tables as big as telephone directories.

Under informal congressional guidelines, individual tariff suspensions are supposed to cost no more than $500,000 a year in lost taxes. But a Washington Post investigation, published in September, found that the authors of a number of the provisions managed to quietly file multiple measures aimed at a single product. That strategy can allow individual importers to pocket millions of dollars in tax savings.

Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), who is expected to chair the House Ways and Means subcommittee on trade next year, said yesterday that he favors including in the suspension measures the names of the companies that would benefit. He also wants to close loopholes that allow companies to evade the $500,000 cap.

"The old days of lack of transparency, I think those days have to end," Levin said. "These are supposed to be small items. . . . I am in favor of keeping it small and making it totally open."

Altogether, the suspensions passed this year could cost the Treasury hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. The previous Congress approved about 440 new and extended suspensions, at an estimated cost of $172 million.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), outgoing chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, described the suspensions as good for American businesses. In a statement, Grassley stressed that the provisions had been reviewed by the Commerce Department, customs officials and the U.S. International Trade Commission. His panel had sought industry comment on the proposed suspensions, had posted them on its Web site, and ultimately rejected almost a third, he said.

Nonetheless, Grassley added: "Further reforms are necessary to make the process even more transparent and streamlined. If the new leadership decides to undertake a miscellaneous tariff bill, I'll push for further reforms."

Kingston said Congress should have a chance to vote on individual tariff suspensions. Under the current system, lawmakers must vote for or against hundreds of unrelated suspensions at a time. Kingston said that he ultimately voted for last week's huge tax-and-trade package because it contained many legitimate provisions important to the country.

"Members don't read these bills because they become so voluminous at the last minute," Kingston said. "They are always attached to something we all want."

Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense complained that while the 109th Congress failed to take up many important issues, it still managed to pass hundreds of special-interest tariff suspensions. "If you are the right person, you can get something done," Ellis said. "It's one of those really insidious types of problems that will take a lot of work, and a lot of embarrassment for Congress, to try to change. And trust me, members of Congress don't embarrass easily."

In the recent election season, Dennis Spivack tried. A Democratic challenger to Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), Spivack attacked Castle for sponsoring 29 suspensions in the past two years. Spivack charged that the suspensions would harm small businesses and working families.

"Why did Mike Castle ask the United States Congress to selectively drop import taxes on [a] particular item? Who does this benefit?" Spivack asked in one campaign news release.

Castle's campaign responded that the suspensions helped keep manufacturing jobs in the United States. Spivack lost the election.

Read More...

U.S. Is Dropping Effort to Track if Visitors Leave

The New York Times
U.S. Is Dropping Effort to Track if Visitors Leave
By RACHEL L. SWARNS and ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 — In a major blow to the Bush administration’s efforts to secure borders, domestic security officials have for now given up on plans to develop a facial or fingerprint recognition system to determine whether a vast majority of foreign visitors leave the country, officials say.

Domestic security officials had described the system, known as U.S. Visit, as critical to security and important in efforts to curb illegal immigration. Similarly, one-third of the overall total of illegal immigrants are believed to have overstayed their visas, a Congressional report says.

Tracking visitors took on particular urgency after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when it became clear that some of the hijackers had remained in the country after their visas had expired.

But in recent days, officials at the Homeland Security Department have conceded that they lack the financing and technology to meet their deadline to have exit-monitoring systems at the 50 busiest land border crossings by next December. A vast majority of foreign visitors enter and exit by land from Mexico and Canada, and the policy shift means that officials will remain unable to track the departures.

A report released on Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, restated those findings, reporting that the administration believes that it will take 5 to 10 years to develop technology that might allow for a cost-effective departure system.

Domestic security officials, who have allocated $1.7 billion since the 2003 fiscal year to track arrivals and departures, argue that creating the program with the existing technology would be prohibitively expensive.

They say it would require additional employees, new buildings and roads at border crossings, and would probably hamper the vital flow of commerce across those borders.

Congress ordered the creation of such a system in 1996.

In an interview last week, the assistant secretary for homeland security policy, Stewart A. Baker, estimated that an exit system at the land borders would cost “tens of billions of dollars” and said the department had concluded that such a program was not feasible, at least for the time being.

“It is a pretty daunting set of costs, both for the U.S. government and the economy,” Mr. Stewart said. “Congress has said, ‘We want you to do it.’ We are not going to ignore what Congress has said. But the costs here are daunting.

“There are a lot of good ideas and things that would make the country safer. But when you have to sit down and compare all the good ideas people have developed against each other, with a limited budget, you have to make choices that are much harder.”

The news sent alarms to Congress, where some Republicans and Democrats warned that suspending the monitoring plan would leave the United States vulnerable.

Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is a departing subcommittee chairman on the House International Relations Committee, said the administration could not say it was protecting domestic security without creating a viable exit monitoring system.

“There will not be border security in this country until we have a knowledge of both entry and exit,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. “We have to make a choice. Do we want to act and control our borders or do we want to have tens of millions of illegals continuing to pour into our country?”

Representative Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who is set to lead the Homeland Security Committee, also expressed concern.

“It is imperative that Congress work in partnership with the department to develop a comprehensive border security system that ensures we know who is entering and exiting this country and one that cannot be defeated by imposters, criminals and terrorists,” Mr. Thompson said in a statement Thursday.

In January 2004, domestic security officials began fingerprint scanning for arriving visitors. The program has screened more than 64 million travelers and prevented more than 1,300 criminals and immigration violators from entering, officials said.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other officials often call the program a singular achievement in making the country safer. U.S. Visit fingerprints and photographs 2 percent of the people entering the country, because Americans and most Canadians and Mexicans are exempt.

Efforts to determine whether visitors actually leave have faltered. Departure monitoring would help officials hunt for foreigners who have not left, if necessary. Domestic security officials say, however, it would be too expensive to conduct fingerprint or facial recognition scans for land departures. Officials have experimented with less costly technologies, including a system that would monitor by radio data embedded in a travel form carried by foreigners as they depart by foot or in vehicles.

Tests of that technology, Radio Frequency Identification, found a high failure rate. At one border point, the system correctly identified 14 percent of the 166 vehicles carrying the embedded documents, the General Accountability Office reported.

The Congressional investigators noted the “numerous performance and reliability problems” with the technology and said it remained unclear how domestic security officials would be able to meet their legal obligation to create an exit program.

Some immigration analysts said stepping away from the program raised questions again about the commitment to enforce border security and immigration laws.

A senior policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, Jessica Vaughn, said the government had long been too deferential to big businesses and travel groups that raised concerns that exit technology might disrupt travel and trade.

“I worry that the issue of cost is an excuse for not doing anything,” said Ms. Vaughn, whose group advocates curbing immigration. Domestic security officials said they still hoped to find a way to create an exit system at land borders. “We would to do more testing,” a spokesman for the department, Jarrod Agen, said. “We are evaluating the initial tests to determine how to move forward.”





Read More...

Arab attitudes toward U.S. grow more negative: poll

Reuters
Arab attitudes toward U.S. grow more negative: poll
By David Alexander

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new survey shows Arab attitudes toward American people, products and culture grew increasingly negative last year, a finding that underscores the need for a change in U.S. Mideast policy, a leading expert on the region said on Thursday.

James Zogby, the head of the Arab American Institute, said the annual survey of opinion in five Arab countries found that U.S. policy toward Iraq and the Palestinian conflict were the main issues driving deteriorating Arab opinion.

"Our policies have not only had a worsening impact in terms of attitudes toward us but also in dampening confidence in the prospects for development and political stability and are therefore, I think, a real concern to countries in the region," Zogby said.

In previous years, Americans themselves had been viewed positively in most Arab countries, his group said.

President George W. Bush is preparing a change of course for the Iraq war after a bipartisan panel said U.S. strategy was not working and warned that Washington was losing its influence in the region.

The panel, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, also called for a renewed U.S. effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a way to defuse regional tensions.

"What the poll says to me is Baker-Hamilton are right," Zogby said.

"If America wants to salvage itself and improve its standing and get the credibility and legitimacy it needs to lead in Iraq, it needs to do something to earn the trust of allies in the broader region," he said.

The survey released by the Arab American Institute found that more than 80 percent of people in Saudi Arabia and Egypt had negative opinions of the United States, similar to previous years, but attitudes worsened in Morocco, Jordan and Lebanon.

The biggest increases were in Jordan, where negative U.S. ratings climbed to 90 percent from 62 percent and Morocco, where they grew to 87 percent from 64 percent.

Attitudes toward American people, movies and democracy were more negative than positive in most of the five countries.

Only U.S. education was viewed more positively than negatively in the five countries.

Notably, residents had negative attitudes toward most U.S. policy in the region. Opinions were most negative about the Iraq war and the Palestinian conflict, but also opposed the United States' policy on Lebanon, its promotion of democracy in the region and its challenge of Iran's nuclear program.

The surveys were conducted in mid-November in face-to-face interviews. Sample size ranged from 600 to 800 in each country, and the margin of error for each sample was between 3.5 percent and 4.7 percent.




Read More...