Bush India statement raises Congress concerns

Reuters
Bush India statement raises Congress concerns
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A statement by President Bush issued in connection with the just-signed U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation law has raised concerns that Bush may try to circumvent some of Congress' intentions, lawmakers and analysts say.

The statement, clarifying Bush's views on law and policy, was issued after he signed legislation on Monday permitting U.S. sales of nuclear fuel and reactors to India for the first time in 30 years.

In the statement, Bush said his signature "does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy (in the law) as U.S. foreign policy." Also in responding to reports mandated by Congress, he would consider how releasing data requested by lawmakers might "impair foreign relations."

In one of its most controversial directives, Congress stipulated in the law that presidents should report annually on India's cooperation in restraining Iran's nuclear program, which Bush has condemned as a major international threat.

"With his recent signing statement, once again the president has shown he views Congress as a nuisance rather than an equal branch of government under the Constitution," said Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, a Democrat whose party will control a majority of the new Congress to be sworn in next month.

It was "outrageous that the president has repeatedly stated the greatest threat to U.S. national security is a nuclear Iran, yet explicitly rejects Congress' declaration that it shall be the official policy of the United States that India will not use its nuclear technology to help develop Iran's nuclear weapons arsenal," Harkin said in a news release.

'THUMBING HIS NOSE'

In the statement, Bush also said he considered as only "advisory" a congressional directive prohibiting nuclear transfers to India that conflict with guidelines of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which the United States helped establish years ago to restrain nuclear trade.

Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts said this shows Bush is "reserving the right to ignore the Nuclear Suppliers Group."

The president is "turning decades of U.S. international policy on its head -- and thumbing his nose at Congress at the same time," added Markey, co-chair of the House of Representatives task force on non-proliferation.

Separately, during a telephone conversation between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Bush on Thursday, Singh said he still had some concerns over the law.

"The Prime Minister said India still has some concerns, though many have already been expressed in the President's signing statement," said a statement from Singh's office.

Critics in India say the deal may constrain New Delhi's policy toward Iran as well as its nuclear weapons program and fails to guarantee uninterrupted fuel supplies for civilian reactors.

Before U.S. nuclear exports can begin, other approvals are needed including a Nuclear Suppliers Group decision to change its rules barring trade with India and passage of a second U.S. law.

Some non-proliferation experts worry that if the United States does not win NSG approval -- which must be by unanimous consent -- Bush will let the trade with India go forward.

The White House and State Department rejected such interpretations of Bush's statement.

Asked if Bush might ignore the NSG, a State Department official told Reuters: "No, quite the opposite."

He said that while NSG guidelines are "political commitments," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "has been very clear that we're not going to do the (nuclear) deal without consensus in the NSG."

Meanwhile, a White House official said the statement's treatment of the NSG "is not regarding any particular intended course of foreign policy or with any particular practical effect in terms of intended treatment of material (nuclear) transfer."

Rather, the statement is intended to deal with the "domestic issue of government power rather than an issue of international nuclear policy," he said.

Justice Department lawyers were concerned the way the law is written meant that a change in NSG rules would force a change in U.S. law, a U.S. official said.

(Additional reporting by Nita Bhalla in New Delhi)

Read More...

Summary only...

"Stay the course" named top catch phrase of 2006

Reuters
"Stay the course" named top catch phrase of 2006

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "Stay the course," the phrase dropped by the Bush administration as it searched for a new policy in Iraq, was declared the catch phrase of the year on Thursday by language use group Global Language Monitor.

"It makes number one because it was declared inoperative," said Global Language monitor President Paul JJ Payack.

In second place was the ill-fated book title. "If I Did it" by O.J. Simpson. The idea of O.J. Simpson telling how he would have killed his ex-wife and her friend if he had actually murdered them outraged so many people that it was withdrawn. But the phrase was an immediate winner in the language.

Simpson was found not guilty of the murders in a criminal trial but held liable the deaths in a civil proceeding.

In third place was a series of emotion icons used in E-mail and text messages: "# - )" which Payack said meant "wasted." In fourth was "Airline Pulp," a Chinese/English hybrid way of describing food served aboard an airliner.

Serial Texter was fifth, denoting the widespread use of text messages among the world's youth.

The top catch phrases for 2005 were Out of the Mainstream, used to describe the ideology of any political opponent, and bird flu or Avian flu.

Read More...

Summary only...

Court Overturns Limits on Political Ads, Part of the Campaign Finance Law

The New York Times
Court Overturns Limits on Political Ads, Part of the Campaign Finance Law
By KATE PHILLIPS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 — A three-judge panel on Thursday overturned a key segment of the campaign finance law that banned issue advertisements paid for by corporate or union money in the critical weeks before federal elections.

The case, which was heard by a special federal court panel in Washington, now heads to the Supreme Court. If upheld, the ruling would unravel one of the tougher restrictions on the use of unregulated donations that interest groups pumped by the millions of dollars into political commercials.

The case was brought by Wisconsin Right to Life, which has been fighting the restrictions since 2004, claiming they infringe on its First Amendment guarantee of free speech, among other grounds.

Using its corporate treasury, the group had paid for advertisements denouncing Senate filibusters of judicial nominees and urging viewers to contact either Senator Russell D. Feingold, who was up for re-election that year, or the state’s other Democratic senator, Herb Kohl, who was not.

Under the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, groups wanting to broadcast advertisements that name federal candidates within 60 days before a general election, or 30 days before a primary, are required to follow strict rules on how they pay for them. The law requires that donors be disclosed and caps contributions to prevent secretive groups from advocating for or against candidates in thinly disguised advertisements known as issue ads.

This case has been closely watched for several reasons. For one, organizations with quite disparate interests, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, the Chamber of Commerce and the conservative Club for Growth, have argued that they have a right to petition the government.

As grassroots lobbying groups, they say, they should be exempt from the ban on issue ads. Some have contended, most recently in an unsuccessful case before the Federal Election Commission, that their First Amendment rights are infringed upon because the law restricts them from pursuing their policy agendas in election seasons.

The court’s decision Thursday clearly loosened the clamps on such activities. Those who want to broadcast such ads are “going to push the envelope,” said Edward B. Foley, an election law expert at Ohio State University. “They’re going to explore the scope of this exemption.”

The case has already been heard by the Supreme Court, which kicked it back to the three-judge panel in January. The justices said the panel had misinterpreted a 2003 decision, in which they upheld the McCain-Feingold law, as foreclosing future challenges to the advertising restrictions.

The special panel that ruled Thursday did not consider the right-to-life group’s argument for an exemption as a grassroots lobbying organization. The 2-to-1 decision more narrowly found that the group’s ads did not violate restrictions against “express advocacy” for or against a federal candidate and were not campaign ads but general issue ads.

The majority opinion was by Judge David B. Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court. Judge Richard W. Roberts of Federal District Court dissented.

The judges adhered strictly to the content of the actual commercials and rejected arguments by the government that the commercials were intended to influence the election. The advertisements did not state the senators’ views on the filibusters but urged viewers to call them.

The panel found that the government had not demonstrated a compelling enough interest to impose restrictions on these groups’ free speech rights. It said this section of the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional because it imposed campaign finance limits on organizations that were using advertisements to advance legislative policy.

Mr. Foley said the court reopened the door to use of corporate money.

“This is clearly a shift in direction and invites the use of corporate money,” Mr. Foley said, adding: “You can run ads about any policy issue you want to and you can name members of Congress in the ads. You can use corporate money for any ad that fits this profile.”

Mr. Foley said it would appear that so-called 527 groups, which emerged in the 2004 presidential campaign as a powerful force, would also be allowed to use corporate money for general issue ads under the Wisconsin decision. But the law is still murky on the regulation of 527’s, named for the part of the tax code that regulates them.

In the Wisconsin case, the F.E.C. had argued that the Wisconsin advertisements were clearly intended to try to defeat Mr. Feingold. The group’s opposition to the Senate filibustering of judicial nominees was closely linked to nominees who opposed abortion.

Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut and a main architect of the campaign finance law, expressed disappointment in the decision.

“The lower court majority opinion ignores a wealth of evidence that shows W.R.T.L. had a ‘priority’ to defeat Senator Feingold in the 2004 election, and that the ads in question were part of that effort,” Mr. Shays said in a statement. Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21, a campaign finance reform group, and one of the lawyers involved in the case, said he was hopeful that the Supreme Court would overturn the decision.

“We agree with the dissent in this case,” Mr. Wertheimer said, adding, “The context surrounding these ads, and not just the text and the face of these ads, must be considered in making this determination.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Holocaust Museum Rebukes Member for Koran Comment

The New York Times
Holocaust Museum Rebukes Member for Koran Comment
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 — The board that oversees the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum here publicly distanced itself on Thursday from a member who recently condemned the first Muslim elected to Congress for planning to use a Koran during the private part of his swearing-in ceremony.

In November, the board member, Dennis Prager, a conservative commentator and radio show host, said that Keith Ellison, the newly elected Muslim member of Congress, should give up his post if he could not take his oath on a Bible, which Mr. Prager said was the traditional religious text of the United States.

In its resolution, the council’s executive committee criticized Mr. Prager’s remarks as “antithetical to the mission of the museum as an institution promoting tolerance and respect for all peoples regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity.”

Mr. Prager, one of 68 members of the board, known as the Holocaust Memorial Council, was appointed to the unpaid post by President Bush, and is serving a five-year term, which expires in 2011, said Andrew Hollinger, a spokesman for the council.

Mr. Hollinger said Mr. Bush had the sole power to remove Mr. Prager.

On Wednesday, Representative Virgil H. Goode Jr., Republican of Virginia, was sharply criticized by Congressional Democrats and Muslim Americans for warning that Mr. Ellison’s election to the House posed a serious threat to the traditional values.

Critics of Mr. Goode and Mr. Prager noted that the Constitution specifically bars any religious screening of members of Congress and that the actual swearing in of those lawmakers occurs without any religious texts. The use of such texts occurs only in private ceremonies that take place after lawmakers have officially sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Mr. Goode stood by his comments on Thursday and told Fox News that he wanted to restrict legal immigration to the United States “so that we don’t have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives.” (Mr. Ellison, a lawyer who converted to Islam as a college student, is an African-American, not an immigrant.)

Mr. Prager said Muslim American groups and others had pressured the museum board. “Everybody knows there’s no bigotry in what I said, but they felt they had to do it,” he said in an interview.

“I completely respect Congressman-Elect Ellison’s right to take an oath on the Koran, and regret any language that suggested otherwise,” Mr. Prager added in a statement, emphasizing that he began reaching out to the Muslims 20 years ago. “My entire effort in the Keith Ellison matter has been to draw attention to the need to acknowledge the Bible as the basis of America’s moral values. Judeo-Christian values are the greatest single protection against another Holocaust.”

In response to questions about Mr. Bush’s reaction to Mr. Prager’s remarks, Nicole M. Guillemard, a spokeswoman for the White House, said by e-mail that President Bush “respects religious freedom and the right to free speech.”

Ms. Guillemard did not respond to questions about whether Mr. Bush believed that Mr. Prager should resign or be removed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Congressman stands by remarks about Muslims

Reuters
Congressman stands by remarks about Muslims
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican lawmaker on Thursday stood by his warning that unless there is a crackdown on immigration, more Muslims like an incoming Minnesota Democrat would place theirs hands on the Koran at congressional swearing-in ceremonies.

Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia, who has triggered a flurry of criticism in recent days for this stand, said he does not favor banning use of the Koran in such ceremonies.

"But I'm for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives," Goode said in an interview with Fox TV.

Speaking with reporters afterward in his Virginia district, Goode rejected calls that he retract his earlier written remarks and replied "no" when asked if he was a racist.

"Anyone that doesn't jump to the mantra of political correctness is sometimes called that, so they are wrong," Goode said.

Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who will become the first Muslim U.S. lawmaker when the 110th Congress convenes on January 4, replied, "All of us are steadfastly opposed to the same people he's opposed to, which is the terrorists."

In an interview with CNN, Ellison also said he was not angered by Goode's remarks.

"I just think it is a learning gap that we have to close," said Ellison, a native of Detroit who became a Muslim as a young man.

LETTER TO CONSTITUENTS

The controversy is mainly symbolic because House members are sworn in as a group with no Bibles or other texts involved.

But in a country where three out of every four people consider themselves Christian, the Bible has traditionally been used in ensuing unofficial ceremonies. These events provide each member with an individual photo opportunity.

The flap arose from a recent letter Goode sent to constituents who had objected to Ellison's plans to place his hand on the Koran at his unofficial swearing-in ceremony.

"I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way," Goode wrote fellow Virginians.

"The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt (my) position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran," Goode wrote.

"We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by (former Democratic) President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country," Goode added.

Goode's comments on Thursday came after the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the biggest Islamic civil rights group in the United States, called on Republicans leaders to repudiate the congressman's "anti-Muslim remarks."

While a number of Democrats in Congress blasted Goode, his fellow Republicans have remained generally quiet.

Even the Virginia Republican Party had no immediate comment, referring calls to the congressman's office.

(additional reporting by Michael Conlon and Donna Smith)

Read More...

Summary only...

Recount overturns Vermont auditor race

Recount overturns Vermont auditor race
By ROSS SNEYD
Associated Press Writer

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- A judge overturned the state auditor's election Thursday after a recount showed the Democratic challenger had actually beaten the Republican incumbent by 102 votes.

It was the first time in Vermont that a statewide election was overturned in a recount, the state archivist said.

Washington Superior Court Judge Mary Miles Teachout declared Democrat Thomas M. Salmon the winner over Auditor Randy Brock after reviewing the results of a hand recount conducted by county clerks after the November election.

"It's a great honor. I'm humbled," Salmon, the son of a former governor, said after the judge ruled.

The secretary of state's office had certified Brock the winner by 137 votes a week after the election after tallying each town clerk's votes. Salmon asked the judge for a recount, and it turned out that some of his votes had been mistakenly attributed to Liberty Union candidate Jerry Levy on the first count.

Brock congratulated Salmon and said he would cooperate during the transition. Statewide officers are inaugurated Jan. 4.

"We are now at the end of a long and painstaking process that is an essential element in our democracy," Brock said in a statement distributed in the courtroom. "The very closeness of this race - I am told the closest statewide election in Vermont history - reinforces to all of us how precious and how important is each and every vote."

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. Sued Over Dropping of Benefits for Disabled

washingtonpost.com
U.S. Sued Over Dropping of Benefits for Disabled
Class-Action Case Filed on Behalf of Physically Handicapped People Granted Asylum and Awaiting U.S. Citizenship
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer

For eight years, Shmul Kaplan lived alone in a suburban Philadelphia housing complex with hardly any furniture and barely enough food to eat. Two years ago, the government told the amputee he would have to make do with less.

Kaplan, who is from Ukraine, lost his $603 in Supplemental Security Income after he missed a seven-year deadline to become a U.S. citizen. The clock started ticking after he was granted asylum in 1997.

A class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in Pennsylvania recently on behalf of people such as Kaplan, 80, contends that they are not responsible for missing the deadline. Kaplan's citizenship application is among hundreds of thousands awaiting background checks by the FBI, a mountainous backlog that grew after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. More than 6,000 physically handicapped people who were granted asylum have had benefits cut as they wait, according to the suit.

"The Social Security Administration . . . projects that over 46,000 immigrants will be cut off from SSI in the years 2006-2012 as a result of delays in granting citizenship and the operation of the seven year rule," the lawsuit says.

The suit's plaintiffs include Eshetu Meri, 51, of Fairfax, a blind man who escaped from Ethiopia, where he was targeted for advocating democracy; Tasim Mandija, 80, of Philadelphia, a native of Albania who suffers from prostate cancer and neuropathy; and Rouzbeh Aliaghaei, 17, an Iranian who suffers from a rare genetic disorder that resulted in autism, seizures, mental retardation and an enlarged head. He came to the United States in 1998 when his parents escaped political persecution.

Kaplan, who is Jewish, claimed religious persecution and was granted asylum in January 1997. He was given humanitarian aid because one of his legs was severed when he ran to catch a train at age 18, slipped on ice and slid beneath the wheels. The other leg was so severely fractured that it arcs like a bow.

"I have a very sick leg," Kaplan said in a telephone interview. "It has a lot of fractures, and now it is a curved leg. My stump, it is not a normal stump. Sometimes I have to see a doctor. They take away my benefits, and, of course, it is very bad for me."

Others in the lawsuit declined to be interviewed, fearing that speaking out might interfere with the progress of their citizenship applications, or that they would be sought out for harm.

The suit was filed against top officials of the Social Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) unit of DHS, the Justice Department and the FBI.

The National Name Check Program at the FBI receives more than 67,000 requests for background checks each week. Half the requests come from the USCIS, said Paul Bresson, an FBI spokesman.

When requests from private entities are included, the total reaches several million each year, Bresson said. The USCIS is the FBI's biggest customer, accounting for about 128,000 background-check requests per month, plus 2.7 million that are backlogged from years past, Bresson said.

The FBI has struggled for years with a growing backlog of such requests from all entities. The Government Accountability Office reported earlier this year that, for immigration cases alone, 113,000 background checks had been pending for more than six months.

USCIS spokeswoman Chris Rhatigan said her agency processes citizenship applications as quickly as it can and is not responsible for the backlog that results from the delay in background checks.

Rhatigan said requests often stall because questions arising from the applications go unanswered. "There could be a number of different reasons," she said. "It could be a failure to respond or a request for additional information."

The Social Security Administration declined to comment on its decision to end the benefits, saying only that the law requires it to do so seven years after asylum is granted if U.S. citizenship has not been obtained.

That may be, said Jonathan Stein, an attorney for the group that has filed suit, but Congress never intended to cut those granted asylum from humanitarian aid when it approved in 1996 the legislation that provides it.

The benefit provides $603 monthly to single recipients and $904 to couples. Congress assumed that seven years was enough time for applicants to make it through the citizenship process. But the Sept. 11 attacks diverted large numbers of FBI agents to counterterrorism duties, greatly slowing the background checks.

Stein wondered why USCIS, FBI and Social Security officials could not flag citizenship requests from disabled applicants here on asylum. "Their lives depend on this," he said. "If they can't expedite their cases, let's at least continue their SSI until they become citizens."

Kaplan began to receive Supplemental Security Income payments in March 1997, two months after he was granted asylum. A year later, he applied for permanent residency, the first step toward naturalized citizenship. The process should have taken a year. But it took six years, according to Kaplan and his attorneys.

With time running out, Kaplan applied for citizenship as soon as he could in the spring of 2004. Fearing he would miss the deadline, aid workers took his letters and pleas for an expedited process to the Social Security office. "They said there was nothing they could do," Kaplan said in his deposition. His benefits were cut that summer.

Too old and too weak to work, Kaplan said he gets by on $215 a month that he uses for paying rent and $140 in food stamps. Regardless, Kaplan said he loves the United States and does not miss life in Ukraine or Russia, where he also lived.

"The food in grocery stores was rationed . . . and many times, I was told that I could not stay in line for the food because I was Jewish," he said in the deposition. "One winter, two men pushed me down when I was walking in the street.

"I knew that I had to leave Russia," he said in the deposition. "If they did not kill me today, I thought, they would kill me tomorrow."

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. to Declassify Secrets at Age 25

The New York Times
U.S. to Declassify Secrets at Age 25
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 — It will be a Cinderella moment for the band of researchers who study the hidden history of American government.

At midnight on Dec. 31, hundreds of millions of pages of secret documents will be instantly declassified, including many F.B.I. cold war files on investigations of people suspected of being Communist sympathizers. After years of extensions sought by federal agencies behaving like college students facing a term paper, the end of 2006 means the government’s first automatic declassification of records.

Secret documents 25 years old or older will lose their classified status without so much as the stroke of a pen, unless agencies have sought exemptions on the ground that the material remains secret.

Historians say the deadline, created in the Clinton administration but enforced, to the surprise of some scholars, by the secrecy-prone Bush administration, has had huge effects on public access, despite the large numbers of intelligence documents that have been exempted.

And every year from now on, millions of additional documents will be automatically declassified as they reach the 25-year limit, reversing the traditional practice of releasing just what scholars request.

Many historians had expected President Bush to scrap the deadline. His administration has overseen the reclassification of many historical files and restricted access to presidential papers of past administrations, as well as contemporary records.

Practical considerations, including a growing backlog of records at the National Archives, mean that it could take months before the declassified papers are ready for researchers.

“Deadlines clarify the mind,” said Thomas S. Blanton, director of the private National Security Archive at George Washington University, which obtains and publishes historical government documents.

Despite what he called a disappointing volume of exemptions, Mr. Blanton said automatic declassification had “given advocates of freedom of information a real lever.”

Gearing up to review aging records to meet the deadline, agencies have declassified more than one billion pages, shedding light on the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam War and the network of Soviet agents in the American government.

Several hundred million pages will be declassified at midnight on Dec. 31, including 270 million pages at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has lagged most agencies in reviews.

J. William Leonard, who oversees declassification as head of the Information Security Oversight Office at the National Archives, said the threat that secret files might be made public without a security review had sent a useful chill through the bureaucracy.

“Unfortunately, you sometimes need a two-by-four to get agencies to pay attention,” Mr. Leonard said. “Automatic declassification was essentially that two-by-four.”

What surprises await in the documents is impossible to predict.

“It is going to take a generation for scholars to go through the material declassified under this process,” said Steven Aftergood, who runs a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.

“It represents the classified history of a momentous period, the cold war,” Mr. Aftergood said. “Almost every current headline has an echo in the declassified past, whether it’s coping with nuclear weapons, understanding the Middle East or dictatorship and democracy in Latin America.”

Anna K. Nelson, a historian at American University, said she hoped that the files would shed light on the Central Intelligence Agency role in Iran and deepen the documentation of the Jimmy Carter years, in particular the Camp David accords.

“Americans need to know this history, and the history is in those documents,” Ms. Nelson said.

She said the National Archives staff was buried in a 400-million-page backlog that awaits processing and is not publicly available.

Also, a budget shortfall has cut back on evening and weekend access to the major research center of the archives, in College Park, Md.

“They can declassify the records, but the archives don’t have the staff to handle them,” Ms. Nelson said.

The first deadline was imposed in an executive order that President Bill Clinton signed in 1995, when officials realized that taxpayers were paying billions of dollars to protect a mountain of cold war documents.

The order gave agencies five years to declassify documents or show the need for continued secrecy.

When agencies protested that they could not meet the 2000 deadline, it was extended to 2003. Mr. Bush then granted another three-year extension, but put out the word that it was the last one, despite the new emphasis on security after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and a new war in Iraq.

“The Bush administration could have said, ‘This is a Clinton thing,’ and abandoned it,” Mr. Aftergood, said. “To their credit, they did not.”

As an enforceable deadline loomed, the intelligence agencies that produce most secret material add workers to plow through files from World War II.

The C.I.A. has reviewed more than 100 million pages, released 30 million pages and created a database of documents, Crest, that is accessible from terminals at the National Archives. Although most of the documents are exempt, they can be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The National Security Agency, the eavesdropping and code-breaking agency, has released 35 million pages, including an extensive collection on the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to the escalation of the Vietnam War. The agency plans a major release early next year on the Israeli attack on the Liberty, an American eavesdropping ship, in 1967.

The F.B.I., by contrast, negotiated an exemption from the 1995 executive order and concluded last year that the 2003 executive order ended its special status. It has rushed to review material, seeking exemption for 50 million pages on intelligence, counterintelligence and terrorism, but leaving 270 million pages to be automatically declassified now.

Among those files, said David M. Hardy, the bureau declassification chief, are those on investigations of Americans with suspected ties to the Communist Party. Reviewers will keep working on the exempt material to see what can be released, but it is a slow process, Mr. Hardy said.

“The numbers of documents are staggering,” Mr. Hardy said.

The bureau is studying digitizing documents and using computers to search for classified material. Some experts say mass declassification is not the smartest approach. L. Britt Snider, a former intelligence official who heads the Public Interest Declassification Board, which advises the White House, said most government records, even top-secret ones, were pretty boring.

“Rather than take this blunderbuss approach,” Mr. Snider said, “I’d like to see the agencies concentrate first on what’s interesting and what’s important.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats increase pressure on health official

Reuters
Democrats increase pressure on health official
By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Democrats on Wednesday ratcheted up the pressure on the Bush administration to replace its new family planning chief because he has worked for a health provider that opposes the use of birth control.

More than half of all sitting Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter calling for the ouster of Dr. Eric Keroack, who was appointed last month to oversee a $280 million program that provides birth control to poor women.

"We believe the appointment of Dr. Keroack is a horrendous mistake for the safety of women's health in the United States," said the letter, which was signed by 107 Democrats and three Republicans.

The letter points to a showdown between the Department of Health and Human Services and Democrats who will have the power to subpoena government officials when they take control of both chambers of the U.S. Congress in January.

HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said the administration is not thinking of getting rid of Keroack.

"Everything I know about him is he's a very capable person," Leavitt told a small group of reporters. "I'm sure he will serve well."

As head of the Office of Population Affairs at HHS, Keroack oversees a program that funds birth control, pregnancy tests, breast-cancer screening and other health services for 5 million poor women annually.

HHS estimates that the program prevents 1.5 million unwanted pregnancies each year.

Keroack previously served as medical director for A Woman's Concern, a chain of Boston-area pregnancy clinics that discourage the use of birth control and advocate abstinence as a way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Keroack has stirred controversy as well with his writings, including one widely cited paper entitled "Bonding Imperative: A Special Report from the Abstinence Medical Council," in which he said women who have more than one sex partner have a diminished neurological capacity to experience loving relationships.

HHS in the past has said Keroack will distribute birth control as required by law.

Keroack prescribed birth control at the private practice that took most of his professional time, while his duties at A Woman's Concern were largely limited to giving ultrasounds to pregnant women, HHS says.

"I'm also told that he has regularly prescribed contraception when it was felt appropriate," Leavitt said.

Still, Keroack has galvanized Democrats who saw his appointment shortly after the November elections as a defiant move.

"We are telling this administration that it needs to get its act together in providing real assistance to low-income families to protect women and children," New York Democratic Rep. Joseph Crowley, who drafted the letter, said in a statement.

House Democratic leaders did not sign the letter but have given it their support, a Crowley staffer said.

(Additional reporting by Will Dunham)

Read More...

Summary only...

"No tengo futuro (I have no future)" Jeb Bush tells reporters

Reuters
'I have no future' -- Jeb Bush tells reporters

MIAMI (Reuters) - The shadow of President Bush seemed to loom large over his younger brother on Wednesday, as the outgoing Florida governor ruled out any plans to return to elected office.

"No tengo futuro (I have no future)," Jeb Bush told Spanish-language reporters in Miami, when asked about any possible political ambitions after he steps down next month.

The popular, two-term governor has often been touted as a savvy politician with a good chance of following both his brother and father, George H.W. Bush, into the White House.

But the unpopularity and dismal job-approval ratings of his brother may have scuttled any plans Jeb Bush may have had for a future in politics after running one of America's most crucial swing states for the past eight years.

Bush did not elaborate on his terse "no future" comment. But he has said repeatedly over the past year that he would not run for president in 2008 and has never seemed comfortable with talk about Bush III or the Bush presidential dynasty.

"Jeb would have made an outstanding presidential candidate," said Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who joined Bush at a luncheon on Wednesday hosted by a Cuban American political action committee.

Brownback, a Republican who launched an exploratory committee three weeks ago to consider his own bid for the presidency, added that he was "a Jeb Bush-type conservative."

In a backhanded slap at President Bush, Brownback cited "a heritage issue" as one factor currently weighing against a Jeb Bush presidency.

"People may be wanting to see a different name," he said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush puts conservative on public broadcast board

Reuters
Bush puts conservative on public broadcast board
By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday installed self-described conservative writer and producer Warren Bell on the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports U.S. public television and radio.

Bell, who was nominated in June, writes for the conservative magazine The National Review and was previously a writer and producer for "Coach" and "Ellen," two popular TV series in the 1990s.

The Senate Commerce Committee had been scheduled to hold a confirmation hearing for him in September but he was dropped from the agenda because of concerns by both Republicans and Democrats.

The Los Angeles Times reported that some of Bell's fellow writers said he had made negative comments about funding public broadcasting, a charge he denied. No action on his nomination was taken by the Senate before it adjourned earlier this month.

Bush's recess appointment allows Bell to hold the board position until Congress adjourns next year, the White House said. Such appointments may be made by the president when Congress is not in session.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a federally funded nonprofit corporation and the largest single source of money for U.S. public television and radio programming, including PBS and National Public Radio. It is governed by a presidentially appointed board.

The board was the source of political controversy in 2005 when its chairman at the time, Kenneth Tomlinson, was criticized for injecting politics into the organization when he recruited a former senior Republican party official -- Patricia Harrison -- as its new president and chief executive.

Tomlinson had sought to add more conservative-minded shows to the line-up to counter what many conservatives considered a liberal bias in public broadcasting. He resigned in November 2005 amid the controversy.

The Bush administration has come under fire before for trying to influence news coverage, including paying a conservative commentator to praise its new education law and the production by government agencies of video news releases that some television stations aired without identifying their origin.

Read More...

Summary only...

Long-rumored shuffle of generals expected along with change in Iraq policy

USA TODAY
Long-rumored shuffle of generals expected along with change in Iraq policy
By Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A shuffle of top American generals in Iraq is likely to accompany the shift in U.S. policy that President Bush is considering.

Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has submitted plans to go ahead with a retirement that is months overdue, according to the U.S. Central Command.

And the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, has indicated in recent months that he also may not stay much longer than the end of this year.

Since they have opposed sending more troops to Iraq, their departures could make it easier for Bush and his new Defense Secretary Robert Gates to switch course in the troubled campaign, where they are considering a short-term surge in forces.

Abizaid's three-year tour as commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East was to have ended last July, but he agreed to stay until early 2007 at the request of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said a Central Command statement from Tampa

The changes, both rumored before Rumsfeld's announced resignation and Gates' nomination, would allow Gates to choose his own commanders for Iraq, the issue he has said will be his top priority as secretary.

Abizaid, long considered a voice of candor, told a Senate committee last month that the number of troops deployed to Iraq should not increased or decreased sharply. Instead, the United States should focus on accelerating the training of Iraqi forces so they can be pushed front and center into battle, he said.

His remarks provided no help to lawmakers hoping for big changes in Iraq policy following elections in which Democrats were handed control of Congress by Americans angry over the course of the war.

The opposition to a bigger force in Iraq now also appears to be out of step with the White House, which says it is considering sending more U.S. troops to try to get spiraling violence under control.

Abizaid and other generals worry that sending thousands of additional troops temporarily to Iraq could be ineffective without bold new political and economic steps. And they fear the effect it could have on an already overstretched Army and Marine Corps — the two services bearing the brunt of the work in Iraq.

Casey has been mentioned as a possible choice for Army chief of staff or to replace Abizaid at Central Command.

Others that could be affected in a shuffle include:

•Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who led the 101st Airborne Division during the 2003 Iraq invasion and later headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces. He most recently oversaw the rewriting of the Army and Marine field manual for counterinsurgencies.

•Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who last week finished his tour as the No. 2 general in Iraq, as commander of the multinational forces there.

•Army Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, also a former division commander in Iraq and now head of the Iraq training effort.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-20-shuffle_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. commanders wary of Gates proposal

Yahoo! News
U.S. commanders wary of Gates proposal
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

Defense Secretary Robert Gates found American commanders wary of a proposal to rush more U.S. troops to Iraq as he visited the war-ravaged country Wednesday.

President Bush is considering that idea and others in his search for a fresh path in a 3 1/2-plus year war that has no end in sight and has lost the support of the American public.

On just his third day in charge of the Pentagon, Gates made the unannounced trip with the administration under intense pressure to forge a new strategy — and just hours after the president conceded, for the first time, that the U.S. is not winning the conflict.

After meeting with top U.S. generals at Camp Victory, Gates acknowledged concerns that rushing thousands more American troops to the battlefront could allow the Iraqis to slow their effort take control of the country. He said no decisions have been made.

"It's clearly a consideration," Gates said of how an infusion of American troops might affect Iraqi leaders. "I think that the commanders out here have expressed a concern about that."

Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq and one of several generals who met with Gates, said he supports boosting troop levels only when there is a specific purpose for their deployment. Other military leaders have expressed uncertainty over the purpose and results of injecting more troops.

"I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but what I want to see happen is when, if we do bring more American troops here, they help us progress to our strategic objectives," Casey told reporters during a news conference with Gates and other military leaders.

Gen. John Abizaid, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, sounded a more favorable tone. The military, he said, is "looking at every possible thing that might influence the situation to make Baghdad in particular more secure."

Bush said Wednesday he is considering sending more troops to Iraq but has not made up his mind. No timetables or troop totals have been mentioned publicly, but by some accounts roughly 20,000 troops would be added to the 140,000 already there.

The president is expected to announce his decisions next month — when a new Congress convenes, controlled by Democrats ready to make the war their top concern.

Echoing some of his commanders' questions about a troop surge, Bush said, "In order to do so, there must be a specific mission that can be accomplished with more troops."

Bush is considering choices ranging from a short-term increase of thousands of troops to bring the escalating violence in Baghdad and Anbar province under control, to removing combat U.S. forces and accelerating the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. More than one-third of the U.S. troops in Iraq are combat forces.

Gates, on his third day on the job, said he would not form a judgment until he has spoken to Iraqi leaders, which he is scheduled to do during his visit.

Also on the trip was Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, plus officials from the State Department, the National Security Council and the White House.

The timing of Gates' trip, and his entourage, underscored how important the administration believes it is to set a new direction in the Iraq war.

Gates was noncommittal when asked whether the sectarian violence in Baghdad can be quashed without taking action against the Mahdi Army of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr is a main supporter of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Gates said he is looking for ways to help the Iraqi government bring down the violence and "that will be a principle theme of discussions."

Bush and Gates also said they are considering increasing the overall size of the U.S. military following recent complaints by top generals that the forces have been stretched too thin by the worldwide campaign against terrorists. They used no figures, but Bush said he was asking Gates to produce a plan for the expansion.

Gates said he was just starting to study that idea. He expressed concern that the Army and Marine Corps are not large enough to face challenges of the 21st century that might include threats in Iran and North Korea, as well as natural disasters.

The debate over increasing troops has continued for months, as the military has been struggling to quell the escalating violence — particularly sectarian bloodshed — in Iraq. The war has claimed more than 2,950 U.S. casualties and cost roughly $350 billion.

Some top U.S. commanders have been wary of even a short-term troop increase, saying it might bring only a temporary respite to the violence while confronting the U.S. with shortages of fresh troops in the future.

Military leaders are also considering an increase in the number of American advisers for Iraqi security forces.

___

Associated Press writer Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. soldiers' suicide rate in Iraq doubles in 2005

Reuters
U.S. soldiers' suicide rate in Iraq doubles in 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Suicides among U.S. soldiers in Iraq doubled last year over the previous year to return to a level seen in 2003, U.S. Army medical experts said on Tuesday.

Twenty-two U.S. soldiers in Iraq took their own lives in 2005, a rate of 19.9 per 100,000 soldiers. In 2004, the rate was 10.5 per 100,000 and in 2003, the year of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the figure was 18.8 per 100,000.

The figures cover U.S. Army soldiers only. They do not include members of other U.S. military services in Iraq such as the Marine Corps.

Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the Army's surgeon general, cautioned against overinterpreting the figures, saying suicide rates tended to fluctuate from year to year.

"We think that the numbers are so rare to begin with that it's very hard to make any kind of interpretation," he said at a news conference to present a study on the mental health of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

"We have not made a connection between the stress on the force and some massive or even significant increase in suicides," he said.

While every suicide was one too many, Kiley said, the suicide rate among soldiers was lower than the average among civilians of the same age and gender.

The survey, a snapshot of the morale and mental health of U.S. soldiers in Iraq in late 2005, found 13.6 percent of the soldiers reported symptoms of acute stress and 16.5 percent reported a combination of depression, anxiety and acute stress.

Those rates were lower than in 2003 but higher than in 2004, the experts said.

Read More...

Summary only...

General Opposes Adding to U.S. Forces in Iraq, Emphasizing International Solutions for Region

NY Times
General Opposes Adding to U.S. Forces in Iraq, Emphasizing International Solutions for Region
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 — As the new secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, takes stock of the war in Iraq this week, he will find Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, resistant to increasing the American fighting force there.

General Abizaid, who is completing the final months of a highly decorated military career, acknowledges that additional American forces, favored by some of President Bush’s top advisers, might provide a short-term boost in security. But he argues that foreign troops are a toxin bound to be rejected by Iraqis, and that expanding the number of American troops merely puts off the day when Iraqis are forced to take responsibility for their own security.

The New York Times
While American forces may be repositioned within Iraq to meet growing security challenges, especially in Baghdad, the answer is not solely military, and even the leading role in combat cannot long rest on American forces, General Abizaid says.

“The Baghdad security situation requires more Iraqi troops,” he said in a recent interview as he traveled around Iraq, meeting with American commanders.

His assessment, which includes plans to increase the number of American trainers embedded with Iraqi units, is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, as well as by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who must provide the forces and have resisted an increase without first clearly defining the goals it would try to achieve on the ground.

But the generals are facing a different assessment from a growing number of civilian officials in the Bush administration, who see a sharp increase in troop strength as an effective means to stabilize Baghdad and as a dramatic initiative for the president to announce in January.

General Abizaid argues for a broader approach to Iraq than that of looking solely to putting out the fires in Baghdad.

“You have to internationalize the problem,” General Abizaid said. “You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically. You just can’t apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad and a particular problem in downtown Kabul and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, that you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism.”

His views are out of sync with those of some officials in Washington.

General Abizaid has been pounded by senators of both parties for what they said was status quo advice on force levels in Iraq, and for sharing responsibility over a strategy that the Iraq Study Group said was failing. At the same time, he rankled many of his civilian bosses by not sticking to administration talking points for the war, offering accurate, if blunt, public assessments of the Iraq mission since taking charge of Central Command in July 2003.

General Abizaid was the first to label Iraq a guerrilla war, even when the White House and Pentagon dismissed the description. And he was the first four-star general to warn that the rise of sectarian violence in Iraq, after the mosque bombing in Samarra in February, had replaced terrorism and Sunni insurgents as the greatest security challenges there, telling Congress that Iraq risked sliding toward civil war.

But in a bitter exchange last month during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, told the general, “I’m of course disappointed that basically you’re advocating the status quo here today, which I think the American people in the last election said is not an acceptable condition.”

General Abizaid’s reluctance to endorse a spike in American forces is not born of philosophical differences over questions like whether the United States can rely on fewer troops in combat zones abroad because of advanced technology. General Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent, served a tour with United Nations forces in Lebanon, attended the University of Jordan and earned a master’s degree in Middle Eastern studies from Harvard.

He emphasizes that the threat to American national security interests ranges far beyond any one country in his area of responsibility.

“When you take a look at the reach of the extremism as exemplified by Al Qaeda, it’s not just in Afghanistan, it’s not just in Iraq — it’s in Pakistan, it’s in Saudi Arabia, it’s in Great Britain, it’s in Spain,” he said. “It attacked the United States. It is organized in the virtual world in a way that is very unique, very modern, very dangerous.”

Ask for a solution to Sunni insurgents in Anbar Province, and he talks about their supporters in Syria and implications should Saudi Arabia overtly take sides against the Shiites of Iraq.

On the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, General Abizaid says the only course includes understanding tribal loyalties in Pakistan. Turn the conversation to Middle Eastern terrorists, and he describes the military’s efforts to preclude their establishing havens in ungoverned corners of Africa.

General Abizaid is credited with coining the phrase, “the long war,” to describe the challenge of combating terrorism, especially radical Islamic terrorism. He still uses, but no longer favors, the label, according to his aides, because too many people focused only on “war” and a military solution.

He says the United States government is inadequately organized for the new type of threat, and that success in the counterterrorism mission, in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, requires all of the government to go to war, and not just the military.

“I think our structures for 21st-century security challenges need to adapt to this type of an enemy,” he said. “The 21st century really requires that we figure out how to get economic, diplomatic, political and military elements of power synchronized and coordinated against specific problems wherever they exist.”

Long before the Iraqi Study Group advocated a solution for Iraq that included negotiations with Iran and Syria, General Abizaid argued that combating Islamic extremism required a regional approach. The general declined to disclose his private advice to the White House, Pentagon and State Department on direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, or on future force levels for Iraq.

Read More...

Summary only...

Right-Wing Think Tank Advocating Two-Year U.S. Troop Escalation In Iraq ‘Has The President’s Ear’

thinkprogress.org

Right-Wing Think Tank Advocating Two-Year U.S. Troop Escalation In Iraq ‘Has The President’s Ear’

Last night on CNN, reporter Suzanne Malveaux noted that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right-wing think tank in Washington, DC, “has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking” on Iraq. Last week Bush was briefed on a report by AEI scholar Frederick W. Kagan that calls for a troop surge in Iraq that “would probably last for anywhere from 18 to 24 months.” Watch it:

Kagan’s report specifically calls for at least 30,000 more Army and Marines per year for the next two years. It also advocates longer tours for ground forces and increased deployments for National Guard troops. The full report can be found here.

Transcript:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aides say the president is weighing his numerous options for changing tactics in Iraq, following his consultations last week with Iraqi leaders and advisers at the Pentagon and State.

Sources say one conservative policy group that has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking is the American Enterprise Institute. It briefed White House officials last week about its own report, which dismisses the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation to move U.S. troops from fighting positions to training Iraqi soldiers.

FREDERICK W. KAGAN: A surge of two or three months is not going to be productive. We’re proposing a surge that would probably last for anywhere from 18 to 24 months. At the end of that, we would expect that we will have brought the security situation sufficiently under control.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Greatest Threat To Our Standard Of Living

thinkprogress.org

The Greatest Threat To Our Standard Of Living

(The U.S. current account deficit widened to a record $225.6 billion in the third quarter, officials announced yesterday. Below, American Progress Senior Economist Christian Weller explains why it matters.)



The greatest current threat to our standard of living is the current account deficit, which now stands at a whopping $225.6 billion in just the third quarter of 2006. This is the equivalent of 6.8 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). Current account deficits above 5 percent flash a threat level of “red” to economists.

The current account is the broadest measure of our international transactions. It includes, among other, smaller items, exports and imports, as well as the interest U.S. residents earn on their investments abroad, minus the interest paid on debt that U.S. residents owe to the rest of the world.

For most of the past three decades, the current account was in the deficit, largely because imports were larger than exports. Now, we also pay more in interest to the rest of the world than we earn on our assets abroad, adding to the deficit.

A current account deficit means that we spend more than we earn. To pay for this, we borrow from the rest of the world, most importantly by foreigners financing 78 percent of our budget deficit. As a result, we send a lot of interest abroad. In the third quarter of 2006, the federal government spent $37 billion — or 1.1 percent of our economy - on interest payments to the rest of the world. Now, we actually spend more on interest payments than we earn. The last four quarters have been the first time since the government has collected these data in 1960 that this has happened. With trade deficit continuing to be large, we will add more to our debt and interest payments abroad will continue to rise.

Why is this bad?

At some point foreigners will not want to lend us money at low interest rates, especially if an ever larger share of U.S. income is dedicated to interest payments on international debt and not on important investments, such as education or health care. Already, Japan — the largest foreign creditor of the U.S. government — has slowly been selling off its T-bills. If other countries follow suit, interest rates will go up to attract more money to the U.S. This means higher mortgage and credit card payments for families, but also less investment by firms, all of which spells less growth and fewer jobs.

Conservatives contend that our trade deficit is a sign of U.S. economic strength: we consume, therefore we are! This is like celebrating a satisfying drinking binge. It ignores the hangover. Our past debt is coming due, and if we continue on this path, we will have to spend an ever larger share of our economic resources to pay for this debt, automatically leaving less money for investments and possibly leading the way for a serious economic slowdown. Ignore this economic logic at your own risk.

– Christian Weller

Read More...

Summary only...

If Cheney's Talking, He Should Talk to Congress

Huffington Post
If Cheney's Talking, He Should Talk to Congress
John Nichols

Vice President Dick Cheney should get used to testifying under oath.

It is expeacted that he will start talking soon, as part of a self-serving effort to defend a former aide. But once the vice president's done giving that testimony, how hard would it be for him to head over to Capitol Hill and respond to all the questions that members of Congress have been preparing to ask?

It was revealed Tuesday that Cheney will be called to testify on behalf of his former chief of staff, I. Scooter Libby.

Libby stands accused of perjury and obstruction of justice in an upcoming trial involving issues that arose from alleged efforts by the Vice President's office to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife, former CIA operative Valarie Plame, for revealing that the Bush-Cheney administration had manipulated intelligence to make the "case" for invading and occupying Iraq.

Cheney, who resisted testifying before the 9/11 Commission until the bitter end, is reportedly willing to take the stand in Libby's defense.

William Jeffress, one of Libby's attorneys, says of the vice president: "We don't expect him to resist."

Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for the vice president, seemed to confirm that sentiment when she told reporters that, "We've cooperated fully in this matter and will continue to do so in fairness to the parties involved."

Since schedules and notes -- some in the vice president's own handwriting -- confirm that Cheney was involved in conversations about using his office to discredit Wilson, his willingness to testify in the Libby case becomes particularly significant.

Of course, the vice president will make it his purpose to protect his former chief of staff, the loyal retainer who has been described as "Cheney's Cheney." But his openness to testifying under oath about this matter would seem to open the door for him to testify before Congress regarding the matter.

Gerald Ford, while serving as president, testified before a Congressional committee about his 1974 pardon of his scandal-plagued predecessor, Richard Nixon. So there is a clear precedent. And members of the House have already requested that Cheney come clean.

A little more than a year ago, three key members of the House -- Michigan Democrat John Conyers, the incoming chair of the Judiciary Committee; California Democrat Henry Waxman, the incoming chair of the Government Reform Committee; and New York Democrat Maurice Hinchey, one of the most outspoken critics of the administration's misuse of intelligence during the period before the Iraq War began -- sent a letter to the Vice President's office in which they asked the Cheney to "make yourself available to appear before Congress to explain the details and reasons for your office's involvement -- and your personal involvement -- in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative."

At the time the letter was sent, Hinchey said, "We are going to do everything we can to force this administration and this Congress to face up to the truth and to face up to their responsibility under the Constitution."

The congressman explained that, "The people who wrote the Constitution that set this government up knew what they were doing. They knew what would happen if you let a regime go its own way without oversight. That's why they set up the system of checks and balances. This Congress has shunned its responsibility, tossed its obligations under the Constitution aside – allowing the administration to do whatever it chooses, even to the point of looking aside when the administration lies to Congress and violates federal laws. That's got to stop. We cannot have a monolithic government. We have to restore some balance, where the legislative branch is a part of this process. And we think that one way to do that is by asking the vice president, in light of the questions that have arisen with regards to his actions, to come to Congress and answer the questions that are on the minds of the American people and their representatives."

Cheney showed little regard for Congress when Republicans were in charge of the House and Senate. And no one expects him to display any more respect for the system of checks and balances now that Democrats are in control.

But if the vice president is willing to testify in Libby's trial, then surely Congress has not just the right but the Constitutional duty to suggest that Cheney must also take questions from the Congress.

Read More...

Summary only...

Al Gore: The Voice Of Reality, 2006

Huffington Post
Bob Cesca
Al Gore: The Voice Of Reality, 2006

For the last three years, at around this time of year, I've made an effort to recognize and blog about a public figure who, despite the odds, managed to break through the craptastical quantities of horseshit we hear every day to speak strongly, fearlessly and precisely about the realities of our national situation. The qualifications to become a Voice of Reality are simple. 1) A Voice of Reality must speak about controversial issues, 2) a Voice of Reality must never backpedal, and finally, 3) a Voice of Reality be firmly grounded in the reality-based community... of course. I began this annual tradition on my old blog (which I don't update anymore) and now, if you'll indulge me, I'd like to continue that tradition here.

In 2004, the honor went to Richard Clarke for being the first former White House official to apologize for 9/11 and speak out about the administration's failure to prevent the attack. In 2005, it was Keith Olbermann for, among other things, being the only reporter to cover the irregularities of the 2004 election; for standing his ground against his corporate bosses; for taking on Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh; and for delivering what was a truly historic special comment about the Katrina disaster.

This year's Voice of Reality is former Vice President Al Gore for An Inconvenient Truth and for elevating the urgency of global warming to a position close -- close -- to where it should be on our collective national roster of vital issues.

Two nights ago, I bought the DVD of Mr. Gore's documentary. You know, for the hilarious bonus feature outtakes in which Burgess Meredith says, "Look's like Chuck's taking a ride on the wild baloney pony." That was awesome. No wait. Never mind. There aren't any outtakes on the DVD, although the producers could've put together a wickedly funny montage of Senator Inhofe clips. Global warming is "a hoax," Inhofe says. Ha! Not as funny as Chuck riding the baloney pony but it's definitely way up there. Seriously though, while watching An Inconvenient Truth again last night, the documentary carried more weight and was exponentially more powerful (apart from the fact that it was 65°F yesterday -- in Pennsylvania) than it was when I first watched it in theaters.

And here's why. During the 2006 elections, the global warming issue was almost entirely ignored in the national discourse. Of course, ending the Iraq War was, and deservedly so, the issue. But despite it's actual degree of national and global urgency, I can't remember a single congressional debate or campaign commercial or pundit roundtable in which global warming held the position of importance it requires. For most of the Summer, Iraq aside, global warming seemed poised to become, for the first time ever, a major campaign issue due in large part to Mr. Gore's documentary as well as, you know, the melt-your-dog's-brain heat. Yet as soon as Labor Day rolled around and the campaign season kicked into high gear, it vanished from the traditional media headlines and political stump speeches.

The candidates, incumbents and challengers alike, all but ignored Mr. Gore's historic theatrical warnings at their own peril -- peril, not just because this issue impacts all of humanity, but also peril in terms of votes.

Shortly after the election, Zogby released a poll which received very little attention but ought to be required reading for every candidate and pundit as we careen towards 2008:

...a solid majority (58%) of voters agreed their elected officials "should make combating global warming a high priority." Three-quarters (75%) of Americans who voted in the mid-term elections say the "U.S. Congress should pass legislation promoting renewable and alternative energy sources as an effective way to reduce global warming pollution." [...] Global warming may have contributed to the erosion of support for Republicans among religious voters - 50 percent of Catholics identified global warming as important in their 2006 vote.

"Solid majority"? Religious voters abandoned the GOP partly over global warming? 75-percent of voters want global warming legislation? Comparatively, "only" 54 percent of Americans want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq (CNN poll here. Note the photo of the president's creepy black eyeballs). Imagine if the candidates had capitalized on the voter enthusiasm for global warming legislation and said just a little more about the issue in their literature and commercials. Global warming, given a little more attention, could very well have meant the difference between winning and losing. More importantly, however, the numbers tell us that Americans gave the new Congress more than just a mandate to end the war, but also a mandate to end global warming. And much of the credit for this level of voter awareness and concern has to be given to Mr. Gore. And it goes without saying, the poll numbers seem to indicate that if Al Gore were to run for president on this issue, he'd win.

Meanwhile, as we near the beginning of January and the 110th Congress, what about adding the following to Speaker Pelosi's list:

1) A comprehensive carbon emissions tax on industry.
2) Renewed and increased tax breaks for hybrid vehicle purchases.
3) Real tax incentives for green technology investment.
4) And here's a wild idea I just thought of: free low wattage fluorescent light bulbs for every low income and elderly American. In other words, a 100 percent tax refund for every low wattage light bulb purchased. Call it the Affordable Electricity Act. Low income households and senior citizens would save on their electricity bills and get their bulbs for free while we reduce carbon emissions.

It doesn't take much from the government to make a real difference. So who among the 110th will listen Mr. Gore and take the lead next year? More importantly, who will give global warming the campaign trail props it deserves? Put it this way, potential 2008 candidates, you'll win if you do. And ultimately, we'll all win if you do.

Read More...

Summary only...

GOP Rep. Sends Letter On First Muslim In Congress: "If American Citizens Don't Wake Up There Will Likely Be Many More'

tpmmuckraker.com
In Letter, GOP Rep Fears Influx of Muslims
By Paul Kiel

In a letter sent out to select supporters earlier this month reacting to the controversy (among certain extreme conservatives, at least) over Muslim representative-elect Keith Ellison's (D-MN) decision to be sworn in on the Koran, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) sent a short letter to supporters warning that the U.S. must close its borders to guard against the influx of still more Muslims. In it, he also proudly recounts his retort to a Muslim student who asked him why he did not include the Koran with The Ten Commandments on his wall. "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office," he says he told the student.

The letter, which by some horrible error in Goode's office was sent to the chair of the local Sierra Club chapter, was obtained by Charlottesville's C-Ville Weekly. Goode's spokesman, after correcting my pronunciation of his boss' name (it rhymes with "food") refused to expand beyond Goode's comment to the Weekly of “I wrote the letter. I think it speaks for itself,” although I was invited to fax in a question to the congressman.

"[I]f American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran," the letter reads. "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."

The text is reproduced below. (Thanks to Waldo Jaquith)

The text of the letter:

Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

Read More...

Summary only...

Goldman Chairman Gets a Bonus of $53.4 Million

The New York Times
Goldman Chairman Gets a Bonus of $53.4 Million
By JENNY ANDERSON

Goldman Sachs paid Lloyd C. Blankfein, its chairman and chief executive, a bonus of $53.4 million in 2006, the highest ever for a Wall Street chief executive.

Added to his $600,000 salary, the bonus means that Mr. Blankfein will make $54 million this year, up from $38 million last year. The bank’s compensation committee awarded him $27.3 million in cash, $15.7 million in restricted stock and options to buy Goldman stock valued at $10.5 million.

The payout comes a week after Goldman reported a record profit of $9.5 billion, or $19.69 per diluted share, in 2006. Its stock price is up almost 60 percent for the year, and the firm’s market capitalization is nearly $90 billion, more than triple its value when it went public in May 1999.

Mr. Blankfein took over as chairman and chief executive in June, when President Bush named the former chief, Henry M. Paulson Jr., to be Treasury secretary.

Goldman’s co-presidents, Gary D. Cohn, 46, and Jon Winkelried, 47, each received $25.7 million in restricted stock and options. John L. Weinberg, co-head of investment banking, was awarded $15.2 million in restricted stock and options.

It has been a good year to be on Wall Street and an even better one to be running the show. John J. Mack, chief executive of Morgan Stanley, received a $41.1 million bonus last week — also a record, but a record that lasted less than a week. He is also entitled to $5.2 million in 2006, part of a five-year signing bonus, bringing his total 2006 compensation to $46.6 million.

Richard S. Fuld Jr., chairman and chief executive of Lehman Brothers, is also having a good year. The bank recently disclosed that he would be paid $189 million over 10 years as a result of changes in options grants precipitated by the firm’s stock appreciation. He was also awarded $11 million in options last week.

Bolstered by record trading, banking and asset management profits, Wall Street banks are tripping over themselves in press releases to avoid using the word “record” too many times.

The soaring revenues, profits and per-share earnings will also benefit New York.

Securities industry employees in New York City will receive almost $24 billion in compensation this year, up 17 percent from a year ago, according to data provided by Alan G. Hevesi, New York State comptroller. That will translate to $1.6 billion in tax revenue for New York State and $500 million for New York City.

The $24 billion represents only what New York employees have earned. Globally, individual banks are paying record amounts in compensation. Investment banks generally pay about 48 percent to 50 percent of net revenue in compensation.

Goldman paid its 26,467 employees $16.5 billion in compensation in 2006, an average of $622,000 per employee. Lehman Brothers paid $8.67 billion, or $334,000 per employee, and Bear Stearns, $320,000. Employees at Morgan Stanley earned $264,715 per person.

Top-flight investment bankers earned $20 million to $25 million; traders earn a percentage of what they make for the firm, and those who performed well could take home as much as $50 million, compensation specialists estimated.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush Signs 3 Health Care-Related Bills

Daily Press
Bush Signs 3 Health Care-Related Bills
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Tuesday signed bills to raise federal funding for autism, shift AIDS money to rural areas and the South and create a government unit to oversee response to a bird flu pandemic or bioterrorism attack.

The autism bill increases federal funding by 50 percent for the disorder, which afflicts 1.5 million people in the United States.

Congress voted on Dec. 7 to significantly increase federal funding to identify the cause of autism, now diagnosed in one in 166 children. The Senate, acting a day after House passage, approved on a voice vote legislation that authorizes $945 million over five years for autism research, screening and treatment.

The legislation provides the National Institutes of Health with a list of possible research areas related to autism spectrum disorder, including an examination of whether the increase in autism diagnoses is caused by environmental factors.

"By creating a national education program for doctors and the public about autism, this legislation will help more people recognize the symptoms of autism," Bush said in a statement. "This will lead to early identification and intervention, which is critical for children with autism."

The AIDS legislation Bush signed will shift care and treatment money to rural areas and the South.

The House on Dec. 9 agreed by voice vote to renew the $2.1 billion-annual Ryan White CARE Act. The Senate passed the bill earlier after senators from New York and New Jersey dropped their opposition, accepting a compromise that settled months of dispute just as Congress adjourned for the year.

Lawmakers from some urban areas feared losing money under a five-year renewal of the law. The final deal renews it for three years. That allows earlier reviews of the formulas for distributing money and eliminates the large dollar cuts in the final years that threatened some areas.

AIDS began as a big-city epidemic affecting mainly gay white men. The updates, the first since 2000, aim to spread money more equally around the country. Current law had only counted patients with full-blown AIDS. The revision also counts patients with the HIV virus who have not developed AIDS. That change favors the South and rural areas, for example, where the disease is a newer phenomenon.

The president also signed a bill to create a new agency within the Health and Human Services Department to oversee the development of medicine and equipment to respond to a bird flu pandemic or a bioterrorism attack.

"It will increase our preparedness and response capabilities for public health emergencies by increasing our medical surge capacity, strengthening our public health infrastructure, and clarifying the responsibilities of federal officials," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said.

---

The bills are:

Combating Autism Act of 2006 S. 843

Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act S. 3678

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006 H.R. 6143

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

Read More...

Summary only...

Costs for Iraq war approach record: U.S. official

Reuters
Costs for Iraq war approach record: U.S. official

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. costs for the Iraq war are likely to exceed $110 billion this year, approaching the record reached in the fiscal year that just ended, White House budget director Rob Portman told reporters on Tuesday.

Portman also predicted that strong revenue growth would help bring down the overall U.S. budget deficit, offsetting some of the war costs.

Asked if he thought the deficit for fiscal year 2007 would come in below the forecast of $339 billion the White House gave a few months ago, Portman replied, "Yes, I do."

Read More...

Summary only...

Cheney to be called to testify in CIA leak case

Reuters
Cheney to be called to testify in CIA leak case
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney will be called to testify as a defense witness at the trial of his former top aide who is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case, a defense lawyer said on Tuesday.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, is accused of lying to investigators as they sought to find out who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003 after her diplomat husband accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to build its case for invading Iraq.

Administration critics accuse the White House of deliberately blowing Plame's undercover status to retaliate against a critic of its case for war. The White House denies it deliberately revealed her identity.

Testimony by a sitting vice president at a criminal trial may be unprecedented, legal experts have said, though sitting presidents, such as Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford, have given testimony in court cases.

"We're calling the vice president," defense lawyer Theodore Wells said at a hearing ahead of the trial, which is scheduled to start on January 16.

Wells disclosed the defense plan after special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton that the prosecution did not intend to call Cheney.

CHENEY WILL COOPERATE FULLY

"We've cooperated fully in this matter and we'll continue to do so," said Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for the vice president, declining further comment on the proceedings.

Cheney would be the most eagerly anticipated witness of the trial, which is expected to last up to six weeks with testimony likely from a number of other current or former top administration officials.

Both Cheney and President George W. Bush were interviewed by prosecutors as part of the investigation by Fitzgerald into who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity to the news media.

In May, Fitzgerald said in court papers that Cheney could be called to testify because his hand-written notes appeared on a July 6, 2003, article written by Plame's husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, that accused the administration of twisting intelligence before the war in Iraq.

Fitzgerald gave no explanation at the hearing of why he had decided not to call Cheney as a prosecution witness.

It could be because Cheney would be supportive of his former long-time aide. In a recent televised interview, Cheney called Libby "one of the finest men I've ever known."

Defense attorneys did not say whether Cheney would testify in the courtroom or would give videotaped testimony.

According to the indictment, Libby learned from Cheney himself on June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked in the counterproliferation division of the CIA.

Libby has pleaded not guilty to the five counts that accuse him of obstructing justice, perjury and lying.

His main defense is that he was so busy in Cheney's office working on important national security issues that he simply did not remember all details of his conversations with reporters about Plame.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky)

Read More...

Summary only...

The Rules Regarding Senate Vacancy

Bob Moss provides the following corrections to news stories stating that should the seemingly recovering Senator from South Dakota resign or not recover, the Governor would appoint his successor. Bob writes:

The Seventeenth Amendment, the text of which is easily accessible to the public, provides that

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

The 17th Amendment, of course, provided for direct elections of Senators. Prior to that, Senators were selected by state legislatures (Article I, section 3). Reporters, editors, and everyone else except a few of your listeners appear to be reading Article I, section 3, par. 2, without noticing that the relevant text is in brackets, indicating that it has been amended:

[and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.]

In accordance with the 17th Amendment, South Dakota law provides that

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-11-1




12-11-1. Special election to fill congressional vacancy--Time of election of representative. If a vacancy occurs in the office of a senator or representative in the United States Congress it shall be the duty of the Governor within ten days of the occurrence, to issue a proclamation setting the date of and calling for a special election for the purpose of filling such vacancy. If either a primary or general election is to be held within six months, an election to fill a vacancy in the office of representative in the United States Congress shall be held in conjunction with that election, otherwise the election shall be held not less than eighty nor more than ninety days after the vacancy occurs.

Source: SL 1890, ch 84, § 19; RPolC 1903, § 1956; SL 1915, ch 182, § 2; RC 1919, §§ 7214, 7308; SL 1929, ch 117, § 5; SDC 1939, §§ 16.0602, 16.1401; SDCL, § 12-11-2; SL 1974, ch 118, § 46; SL 1979, ch 99, § 5.

Read More...

Summary only...

US grandmother becomes a cause celebre as she faces a second trial over anti-war protest

US grandmother becomes a cause celebre as she faces a second trial over anti-war protest
Associated Press

BENNINGTON, Vermont -- Meet the anti-war movement's newest folk hero: 69-year-old Rosemarie Jackowski, whose arrest during an anti-war protest has made her a cause celebre.

A prosecutor's plan to retry her for blocking traffic while protesting the Iraq war is turning the feisty 4-foot-10 inch (1.47 meters) former schoolteacher into a darling of the dove crowd.

Bloggers have rallied behind her, peaceniks are deluging her with messages of support, and advocates have established a defense fund.

"She's not a loony toon by any means," said Andrew Schoerke, 73, a retired U.S. Navy captain who was arrested with her. "She's a very down to earth, sensible, caring person with some very strong convictions."

Jackowski was one of a dozen protesters arrested at a March 20, 2003 protest, staged within hours of the start of the United States' "shock and awe" bombing campaign in Iraq. Carrying a sign that read "Impeach Bush" on one side and listed U.S. "war crimes" on the other, Jackowski refused police orders to get out of the street and was arrested for blocking traffic.

"It was really hard for me to stand there and just hold my sign," she said in an interview. "I came from a strict ethnic, religious background. I was taught to never ever be disobedient to anyone — teacher, parent, policeman. That was my very first act of disobedience to anyone."

Asked during booking whether she had any aliases, she replied: "Yes, I do. 'Mom.'"

To police, it was no laughing matter.

The protest clogged traffic in this southern Vermont town's busiest intersection, delaying at least one hospital-bound ambulance and infuriating truck drivers and others.

"It wasn't about the war in Iraq," said police Lt. Paul Doucette, who ordered the arrests at the scene. "It was public safety at risk. This whole scene could've turned very ugly very quickly. So we did what was best. Now all of them have paid the price, except this one."

The other members of the so-called "Bennington 12" pleaded guilty and were accepted into a court-ordered program for first-time offenders. Jackowski refused, saying she did nothing wrong. After a one-day trial, a jury took less than 15 minutes to find her guilty.

She appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, her attorney insisting that the disorderly persons charge could only stick if it were proven she intended to disrupt traffic.

On Nov. 22, the justices threw out her conviction, saying trial Judge David Suntag erred in telling jurors they could convict her if they believed she was "practically certain" her conduct would cause public disruption.

Last week, Bennington County State's Attorney William Wright said he would seek to try her again.

"At this juncture, we are going forward with the case," he told the Bennington Banner newspaper. "We think that the evidence was overwhelming in our view, and we think that the jury should have another opportunity to decide Ms. Jackowski's guilt or innocence."

Wright, who lost his re-election and will be leaving office next month, did not return several calls seeking comment.

"It's time for everybody to just walk away from this case," said Stephen Saltonstall, her attorney. "This is an elderly woman who did something out of conscience. I believe she has been punished enough."

For her part, Jackowski — who gives her grandchildren "Give peace a chance" T-shirts and collects peace signs in her modest home — insists that the bombing of Iraqi civilians during the war is grounds enough for her actions. She has no intention of pleading guilty or admitting she was wrong.

"I will never say I'm sorry for what I did," she said Wednesday. "I don't care if they want to lock me up for life."

She could get 60 days in jail if convicted. First, she needs an attorney for the retrial although no date has been set.

Saltonstall has asked to withdraw as her lawyer because the prosecutor who handled the first trial has since joined his firm. She has been contacted by others, but money is an object. Jackowski, who lives alone, subsists on pension checks and said she can't afford high-priced counsel.

"I'm just a little old grandmother who has been really, really affected by the fact that my government is bombing children in Iraq. I can't tell you how deeply I feel about this," she said.

Doucette, the police lieutenant, doesn't buy it.

"What upsets me personally is 'Oh, they're going to send a grandmother to jail.' This isn't about being a grandmother, it isn't about being 70 years old. It's about 'You broke the law and now you have to suffer the consequences.'"

Read More...

Summary only...

Mom asks that wrenching war story end

Des Moines Register
Mom asks that wrenching war story end
By John Carlson

Norwalk, Ia. - You'd have to be the mother of a Marine or soldier to have any real idea what's going through Kimberly Downing's head.

She's spent too many months dreading a knock on the door from a military officer bringing the worst possible news. Or a phone call from a sympathetic sergeant telling her of another explosion - and another injury - to another child.

"My family has given enough to this war," said the 44-year-old Norwalk woman. "No more. They can't ask any more of us. I'll do whatever it takes to make sure my son isn't sent back over there again."

You've heard and read the stories of soldiers and Marines. This is a mom's war story.

In 2004, Kimberly's husband, Jeff, a member of the Marine Reserves, and her sons, Ryan and Justen, active-duty Marines, all were in Iraq at the same time.

Jeff, a Des Moines firefighter, made it home from that deployment without injury. Ryan, now 23, was caught in a hellish firefight in Ramadi in April of that year and wasn't so lucky.

"Ryan was shot in the leg," she said. "He still has shrapnel in the arm, neck and shoulder. He had a hearing loss. He recovered as much as he could, I guess. Now he's back over there. And he's been wounded again."

Justen, now 21, was injured by an improvised explosive device attack in that first deployment.

"He said he thought he was dead after that one," Kimberly said. "He was back over there in 2005, and was in a Humvee accident. He had a head injury and was hospitalized for three days."

Then came word Justen has been ordered on a third seven-month deployment to Iraq and is scheduled to leave with his unit early next year.

This woman, who describes herself as a "pissed-off mom," vows to make sure it doesn't happen.

She's just one woman trying to influence a sprawling military bureaucracy to do what she believes is the right thing for her family. The way Kimberly sees it, she has no choice.

"This is something I have to do," she said, sitting on the edge of a couch in the family's comfortable new home south of Norwalk. "I'm not anti-military, and I'm proud of my husband and sons and their service. I'm not political. I'm not going to stand in front of the White House with a sign, screaming at the president. I just know that sending Justen back over there is morally wrong."

She also knows that her sons enlisted together of their own free will, without coercion, in July 2003. Yes, it was over her objections - the truth is, she begged them not to go - but they wouldn't listen. They'd played football and wrestled in school. They had jobs. And the way they saw it, they had a duty.

"They both said, 'Mom, this is something we have to do.' They knew they'd be sent to Iraq, but they were ready to go. They'd been obsessed with the Marine Corps since they were little boys. I thought they'd outgrown it, until that master gunnery sergeant sat in my living room and they signed the papers. A year later, my sons and Jeff were all in Iraq."

Kimberly met Jeff in her native California when Jeff was stationed there as an active-duty Marine. He adopted Ryan and Justen after their marriage 13 years ago. He became a Marine Corps reservist, but left the service when his enlistment ended after returning from Iraq.

"He knew I couldn't deal with three of them in Iraq again," said Kimberly. "... People ask me how I function. Sometimes I don't function. I don't sleep. I don't like to leave the house. Then I think I can't sit here anymore."

Not that she expects most people to understand what it's like, sitting at home with her husband and their 11-year-old daughter, Megan, worrying about her boys.

It may even be worse when she hears the details.

"You want to know what it's like? Here's the report I got last week from a sergeant who called to tell me Ryan had been wounded again and was in a military hospital. His unit was under heavy attack. He was shooting out the top of a Humvee. A tank (American) was behind them. The tank fired a round over the Humvee and he was injured. Two days before that he was shot in the head. The helmet kept it from killing him, but he was knocked out. He's had two head traumas in a week's time. He only got back over there a month ago."

Kimberly talked to Ryan on the phone, and he said he's doing OK.

"He told me, 'Hey, at least I'm talking to you, Mom.' He should be back with his unit now. He already had two Purple Hearts before this last thing. I asked the sergeant who called to tell me Ryan was hurt, 'How many times do you have to get hurt to get out of that place?' He said, 'A lot.' "

The family has no word on when Ryan will be home. He originally was told his unit would do a "quick in and out" stay of a just few weeks. There's talk now it will be an open-ended deployment.

Justen is another matter. He and Ryan are both due for discharge from active duty in July, but his scheduled third deployment is to begin in February. Which would leave him in Iraq until September if he is required to stay for the full tour.

"Justen has been injured twice. He has a Purple Heart. He knows I don't want him to go back. They both know it. ... Look, I don't want them out of the Marines before their enlistment is up. I know I can't get Ryan home, and I don't know what chance I have to keep Justen from going. But I'm not going to stop trying. Every male in this family has been to Iraq. ... How much are we supposed to give for this war?"

She has written to Iowa's Sen. Tom Harkin for help, and a staffer in his office has asked for more information.

Kimberly is hopeful, but she knows the Marine Corps doesn't base its duty assignments on the outrage of a mom in Iowa.

"I'm just a little person saying what I think needs to be said. I'll get down on my knees and beg somebody if that's what it takes. I just want somebody to do the right thing. My family has given way more than it's share."

Read More...

Summary only...