House Democrat vows scrutiny on homeland security

Reuters
House Democrat vows scrutiny on homeland security
By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The new Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives homeland security panel on Monday vowed aggressive scrutiny of Bush administration policies to protect the United States from attack.

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi said the House Committee on Homeland Security would take a hard look at efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to integrate the 22 agencies that comprise its operations.

"DHS has got to get its house in order," Thompson said in a speech laying out his priorities for the panel following the Democratic takeover of Congress earlier this month.

"I look at homeland security and I say we have to have a vision, otherwise we will perish," he said.

Thompson said the 33-member committee would examine closely the massive department's organizational and management structure.

Critics say the Department of Homeland Security, which Congress established in 2002 in response to the September 11 attacks, will take years to become a coordinated, effective government bureaucracy.

Thompson specifically called into question a recent DHS reorganization that he said puts the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which oversees U.S. disaster response, in the same program as the US-VISIT immigration and border security program.

But Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said US-VISIT and FEMA were not being placed together and issued a department statement showing that the immigration and border security initiative would operate under a separate directorate.

'A GOOD SIGN'

FEMA has been widely criticized for mounting an inadequate response to disasters created by hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

Thompson said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has shown a willingness to work with the Democrat-controlled panel since Democrats won control of Congress in the November election.

"We have met more with the secretary since November 7 than we met the entire year of 2006. So hopefully that's a good sign," he said at a luncheon co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute.

Thompson said he would propose legislation next month to upgrade the U.S. mass transit rail and bus systems. He said the United States currently spends $9 per passenger on air security but only 2 cents per passenger on rail security.

"It's one of those unmet needs," he said. "Not only will we look at tunnels and other things but we'll also look at the transportation of hazardous materials."

Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Stewart Baker said the Bush administration was ready for Thompson's new legislative oversight measure.

"We expect it. In some respects, it will make us a better department," Baker said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer contradicts Libby in court

Reuters
Former Bush spokesman contradicts Libby in court
By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer on Monday contradicted the story former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby has told about when he first learned the identity of a CIA operative whose cover was blown in the press.

Fleischer testified in Libby's perjury trial that the former vice presidential aide first told him the CIA operative's identity over lunch on July 7, 2003, three days before Libby has told prosecutors he first learned her name.

Fleischer, President George W. Bush's first press secretary, was the fourth government official to offer testimony at odds with Libby's account.

Libby resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff when he was charged with lying to investigators as they sought to determine who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the news media in 2003 after her husband criticized the Bush administration for manipulating intelligence on Iraq.

No one has been charged with intentionally blowing Plame's cover. Libby's lawyers say he first learned that Plame was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson from Tim Russert, the NBC News Washington bureau chief, around July 10, 2003.

Fleischer, who agreed to testify in exchange for a guarantee of immunity, said Libby told him about Plame the day after Wilson publicly charged the Bush administration with ignoring his findings that Saddam Hussein had not sought uranium from Niger. The administration used the story about Saddam seeking uranium to bolster its case for the Iraq war.

"I just remember him saying she works at the CIA, that she works in the counter-proliferation division," Fleischer testified.

"My sense was, this is kind of newsy, this is information nobody knows about," he said.

Wilson's charges came at a time when the White House was trying to blame the CIA for Bush's prior assertion that Iraq was seeking nuclear-weapons material from Africa.

Fleischer said he thought Libby was telling him about Plame to undermine Wilson's credibility and imply that she had arranged for her husband to go on the trip to Niger.

"What I was hearing was there was nepotism at the CIA, that somebody got a job because of a family member's position," Fleischer said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Don't Fear a Filibuster

Huffington Post
Paul Loeb
Don't Fear a Filibuster

With the federal minimum wage now 28 percent lower, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than it was fifty years ago, Senate Republicans are nonetheless threatening to filibuster its increase. This leaves the Democrats with a choice, which will set the tone for future legislation. They can cave to Republican demands to add questionable business tax breaks, a response Montana Democrat Max Baucus embraces.
Or they can use their time, while the debate goes on, to highlight the fundamental issues at stake, hammering the Republicans with their opposition to this most modest step toward helping low-income working Americans. Ted Kennedy did this when he challenged the $200 billion of amendments offered in an attempt to derail the bill, and then asked "When does the greed stop?"

That's a great response, echoing Jim Webb's powerful rejoinder to Bush's State of the Union Address. But imagine if debate did grind on for weeks, and the Republicans had to justify again and again why they've blocked such an increase for ten years. The Republicans can cite discredited assumptions about how a reasonable minimum wage hurts small businesses. (Between 1998 and 2001, the number of small business establishments actually grew twice as fast in states with higher minimum wages than lower ones, and total employment grew faster as well.). They can endlessly quote Rush Limbaugh or even read the phone book. But the voters have already heard and rejected all these arguments in the recent minimum wage referendums in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Ohio. So the Democrats will only gain if they follow Kennedy's lead and are blunt about how much Republican policies have helped open up economic divides until our country is beginning to resemble a third-world lootacracy. The longer the Republicans obstruct the passage of this bill, the more political support the Democrats are likely to gain. And that's going to give them leverage for future bills and future electoral campaigns.

That doesn't mean the Democrats should be unreasonable. If there are amendments that would genuinely make the minimum wage increase a better bill, it makes sense to include them, or consider them in future legislation, as soon as the basic wage increase is passed. There's nothing wrong, for instance, with the proposal to extend tax credit for employers who hire low-income or disadvantaged workers. But businesses have gotten $300 billion in tax breaks since the last federal minimum wage raise. A bill that simply raises the minimum wage bill should stand on its own, as it has in states across the country that have set their own higher standards. The Democrats shouldn't shy away from a fight where what they're standing for is both morally right and has the backing of most Americans.

As was true when the Republicans controlled the House and Senate, the more the Democrats back down, the more the Republicans will demand. So if the Democrats cave and accept regressive components to the minimum wage bill, they'll likely be forced to do the same on all their future bills, like the ones the House just passed to cut student loan rates, negotiate lower prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients, increase stem cell research, and support renewable energy by cutting oil company subsidies.

The filibuster allows a minority of Senators to block specific legislation they oppose. But it also helps shape a larger political context, a fight for public support. The Democrats lost moral credibility when enough caved to pass Republican measures like Bush's regressive tax changes and draconian bankruptcy bill. They would have gained by filibustering them and making clear the winners and losers, and the United States would have gained as well. They would have similarly gained by going to the mat to block Samuel Alito, or to stop the Iraq war before it happened. The roles are now reversed as the Republicans use the filibuster to block legislation that begins to reverse some of the ground lost during the past half dozen years. Certainly the perfect can become the enemy of the good. Successful politics often requires compromise. To the degree that Republicans raise legitimate concerns, Democrats can and should incorporate them when drafting their bills. But caving automatically to Republican obstructionism means letting them continue to damage a common future. It squanders a moment where we could begin to hold them accountable for their actions. Now that the Democrats have the chance to set the agenda, they need to find the courage to pursue it without being intimidated.


Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time.

Read More...

Summary only...

Product Alert: A Disastrously Defective Bush

Huffington Post
Davis Sweet
Product Alert: A Disastrously Defective Bush

Dear Consumer,

We understand you have purchased or otherwise received a "George Bush, Commander-in-Chief" model 2.0a ("GB-CIC2.0a" or "Bush"). Recent media reports have brought to our attention several serious flaws in this product, so we are warning all owners to take urgent action to protect themselves and their families.

Potentially dangerous defects may include:

1. Sudden changes in diction, accent, and/or apparent understanding of words, incoming and outgoing. The GB-CIC2.0a speech engine is based on the notoriously virus-prone "Lucidity and Honesty" library from RightWing Technologies. Some malware experts believe that this component was corrupted with the "dRIVAL 'n' 0bfuSKATEion" virus from infamous hacker Karl "Elizabeth" Rove.

2. Inexplicably thin skin. The Bush may become hyper-sensitive to questions, criticism, and/or startling realities, believing them, and everything else, to be personal attacks on him. Observed reactions include name-calling, pouting, and poorly concealed drinking binges.

3. "Fighting" political "battles" with real, live troops. The Bush is unable to distinguish warlike rhetorical metaphors from reality. First observed when the Bush, installed as a cheerleader at a college football game, demanded that the players literally "Kill 'em!" (see "Connecticut v. Yale Defensive Line," 1968)

Suggested course of action:

If your Bush displays any of these traits or behaviors, it is most likely beyond repair. You may be able to uninstall it or render it effectively harmless if you have a working copy of "Congress v.110," though reports indicate a Trojan horse has infected and possibly crippled that program.

Read More...

Summary only...

Exposing ExxonMobil

Huffington Post
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Exposing ExxonMobil

In a quarter-page advertorial in Thursday's New York Times, ExxonMobil launched a new greenwashing campaign to salvage its earned reputation as Earth's number one global warming villain. For over a decade the giant oil company has waged a successful multi-million dollar propaganda campaign to deceive the public about global warming. Using phony think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, scientists-for-hire called biostitutes, slick public relations firms, and their indentured servants in the political process, they have intentionally defrauded the public by promoting the notion that global warming is a hoax or a sketchy theory that requires more study.

The company now asserts that its position on global warming has been "misunderstood," but its decade of mischief is well documented.

Exxon has dished out at least $19 million dollars since the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol (1997) to fund an elaborate network including over 75 industry front groups mobilized in a misleading campaign to cloud the public's understanding of global warming. Their objective has been to counter balance the overwhelming scientific evidence of man-induced climate change with pseudo scientific denials to derail reforms that might effect corporate profits. In 2005, ExxonMobil paid over $3.5 million to 49 different front groups, according to the company's own records, which are collected each year by ExxonSecrets.org and the ExxposeExxon coalition. A report released earlier this month by the Union of Concerned Scientists traces the roots of this fraudulent propaganda broadside - and many of its prime actors - back to the tobacco industry's tactical war on science.

Exxon has also used vast political contributions to guide the Bush administration's posturing on climate change. ExxonMobil successfully arranged the ousting of the world's top climate scientist Robert Watson as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An Exxon memo to President Bush's top staffers obtained by NRDC through the Freedom of Information Act asks bluntly, "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?" The White House's carbon cronies obligingly complied, arranging for Watson's dismissal. He was replaced by a little known scientist from New Delhi who would not be regularly available for Congressional hearings.

A 2002 Exxon memo recently obtained by Greenpeace through FOIA coaches one of the President's top environmental advisers Philip Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality on how to "improve" administration research on climate change by emphasizing "significant uncertainties" in the science. The New York Times later revealed that Cooney, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute which is generously funded by Exxon, made myriad changes to government climate studies designed to weaken their strong conclusions about the need to act on global warming. Typically Cooney would insert the words "significant and fundamental" before "uncertainties" in the reports. Cooney, a non scientist, helped suppress or alter several major taxpayer funded scientific studies on global warming including a decade-long study commissioned by this President's father. Cooney resigned two days after the Times broke the story. But don't feel badly. Within a week ExxonMobil announced it had hired him.

Exxon has responded to roars of recent outrage over its anti-social antics by announcing that it has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute which has collected over $2 million from the oil giant since 1998 to weave lies about climate change - and 4-5 other groups that Exxon refused to name. Exxon's new contrition is hardly sincere. The company still continues to fund 40 other groups in its unrelenting campaign of deception. Two weeks ago, the ExxposeExxon coalition - composed of America's most respected environmental groups, including NRDC, the Sierra Club and U.S. PIRG - asked Exxon to disclose the names of all the other groups the company funded this year and the nature of the work they are doing for ExxonMobil. Exxon did not respond to the request.

As further evidence of the company's insincerity, Exxon's chief executive and CEO Rex Tillerson, on Friday told world leaders in Davos that oil companies should not be held responsible for global warming. The blame, he argued, rests instead with the very consumers and government officials his company has spent millions of dollars manipulating and defrauding.

America is a decade late in addressing the serious threat from global warming largely due to ExxonMobil's campaign of deliberate deception. ExxonMobil's conduct amounts to a war on civilization. The company can't simply sweep this legacy of fraud and villainy under the rug with a paid op-ed campaign in the New York Times, or with oily statements shifting the blame to consumers. The company needs to cease its campaign of deception completely if it is to genuinely atone for its crimes against humanity.

ExxonMobil might also apply some of its record profits - estimated at $37 billion last year - toward meaningful solutions to global warming as other U.S. companies have done. For starters ExxonMobil might consider joining a coalition of ten major companies - including industry giants like DuPont, Dow and Alcoa - and leading environmental groups which last week launched the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, calling for firm limits on carbon dioxide emissions to aggressively combat climate change.

stopglobalwarming.org

Read More...

Summary only...

Who Asked You?

Read More...

Summary only...

What Will Happen If We Put All The Americans Out Of Work?

Read More...

Summary only...

Stubborn

Read More...

Summary only...

Not Listening

Read More...

Summary only...

Some Have Even Gone To The Other Side

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraqi Prime Minister wants troops to leave

washingtonpost.com
Pelosi, Maliki Discuss Timing of Drawdown
4 Slain GIs Were Abducted, U.S. Says
By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Staff Writer

BAGHDAD, Jan. 26 -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), visiting Baghdad on Friday in her new capacity as House speaker, that he would like to see 50,000 U.S. troops leave by the end of the year, Iraqi officials said.

Pelosi's primary concern in meeting Maliki appeared to be to determine how soon he thought the United States could withdraw its soldiers from Iraq, said Ali Dabbagh, the prime minister's spokesman.

The U.S. military, reversing earlier statements, acknowledged Friday that four of five soldiers killed last Saturday had been abducted before being executed. The abductions followed a brazen attack on a government building in the southern city of Karbala.

Military officials earlier this week had dissuaded The Washington Post from reporting an account of the abductions, saying it was inaccurate. The account had been provided by Iraqi officials and witnesses.

Pelosi, a critic of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, told the prime minister that she and fellow Democrats are eager to see a prompt transition of authority, Maliki's office said in a statement.

"The prime minister assured them that they could speed up the withdrawal of the troops if the equipment and training of the national forces could be speeded up," Dabbagh said Friday night in an interview.

Pelosi's visit occurs as the Bush administration is sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, where sectarian violence continues, impunity is widespread and the government struggles to provide basic services.

"The purpose of our trip was fact-finding, and we're in the process of doing that," Pelosi told Iraqi television reporters.

The military's statement Friday, issued following the release of an Associated Press report on the Karbala attack, provides this account of the killings:

The assailants traveled in at least five sport-utility vehicles and wore what looked like U.S. military uniforms, which allowed them to approach the building without raising suspicion. The fighters, armed with U.S.-type weapons, attacked a group of American soldiers inside with grenades and rifles. One U.S. soldier was killed.

The assailants captured four others. Several miles away at a checkpoint, the convoy drew the suspicion of Iraqi police, who followed the vehicles. The pursuit prompted the attackers to abandon five SUVs before they escaped.

Iraqi police found the bodies of two American soldiers handcuffed together in the back of one of the vehicles; both had been shot in the head. Another soldier, also shot, was found dead on the ground. A fourth soldier, who also had been shot in the head, died en route to a hospital.

"The precision of the attack, the equipment used and the possible use of explosives to destroy the military vehicles in the compound suggests that the attack was well rehearsed prior to execution," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a military spokesman.

Also Friday, the military said a Marine died fighting in Anbar province, in western Iraq, one of the most dangerous parts of the country.

Friday morning, a bomb left in a plastic bag detonated in the Souq al-Ghazil pet market, in a heavily Shiite area of central Baghdad, killing at least 16 people and injuring more than 35, Iraqi officials said.

Staff writer Jonathan Weisman in Washington, special correspondent Waleed Saffar in Baghdad and other Washington Post staff in Iraq contributed to this report.


/span>

Read More...

Summary only...

Rove, White House Spokesman Get Subpoenas

ABC News
Rove, White House Spokesman Get Subpoenas
White House Bigwigs Called to Testify in Defense of Former Vice Presidential Aide 'Scooter' Libby
By JOHN HENDREN

Jan. 27, 2007 — - Presidential advisor Karl Rove and White House communications director Dan Bartlett have received subpoenas to testify for the defense at the trial of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, ABC News has learned from a lawyer with knowledge of the case.

The Libby defense indicated in March 2006 court papers that Karl Rove will be a "key witness" in the trial, and will testify concerning a conversation with Libby on July 10 or 11, 2003, regarding columnist Robert Novak's intent to print a story about Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA.

Trial watchers said the subpoenas make it clearer than ever that Libby's defense team will seek to put the Bush administration and its policies on trial.

"This is obviously primarily about the guilt or innocence of the defendant," former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder told ABC News. "But in a larger sense, it's going to be an examination and perhaps even a trial about how this administration has conducted itself on matters of national security and on Iraq, specifically."

Libby is charged with perjury, making false statements and obstructing an investigation. His troubles began in 2003, when the name of a covert CIA operative, Plame, was leaked to a reporter. Naming a clandestine government operative is a crime.

The leak, according to the prosecution, marked an effort to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who was critical of President Bush's claim during a State of the Union address that Iraq had been trying to acquire uranium from Niger.

Since then, the White House claim of Iraq's alleged effort to acquire nuclear materials has been widely discredited as false, and even the Bush administration no longer supports it. The perjury case centers largely on when Libby discovered Plame's name.

The latest subpoenas add two more high-profile witnesses to a trial that has already drawn in an impressive cadre of some of Washington's most prominent and politically connected figures.

Among the potential witnesses for the government's case against Libby, compiled based on statements made in court and more than 250 filings in the case, are:

Tim Russert of NBC News, host of "Meet the Press"
Judith Miller, a former New York Times reporter
Matt Cooper, a former Time reporter currently with Condé Nast
Marc Grossman, former Under Secretary of State
David Addington, the vice president's chief of staff
Craig Schmall, a CIA briefer who Libby spoke to about leaks from the CIA
Robert Grenier; a "senior CIA official" described in paragraph 7 of the indictment- who might have told Libby that Valerie Plame directed Wilson's Niger trip
Ari Fleischer; Former White House Press Secretary Libby allegedly told him Plame worked for the CIA

Yet Libby's witness list is even more impressive, as it includes a sitting vice president:

Vice President Dick Cheney
Rove
NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell, who hosted "Meet the Press" when Wilson appeared on the program
Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state and a source for Novak
George Tenet, former CIA director
Bill Harlow, a former CIA spokesman who told Catherine Martin, Cheney's director of communications, that Plame did work for the CIA
Bob Novak, who used Rove, Harlow and Armitage as the sources of his article that first disclosed Plame's name
John McLaughlin, director of central intelligence
Stephen Hadley, national security advisor
Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame (Wilson is attempting to quash this subpoena)
Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, who taped an interview with Armitage that the Libby defense has sought in a subpoena

It's been an extraordinary week in the trial.

Libby told investigators that he thought he heard Plame's name from a reporter. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald opened his case on Jan. 23 by arguing that Libby must have lied to investigators because he had been speaking of Plame before he spoke to NBC's Tim Russert.

Libby's defense has suggested Libby made an honest mistake.

Libby's lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., has made Rove a key figure in the case, saying that in order to protect Rove as a possible leaker, "Scooter Libby was to be sacrificed."

Fitzgerald has ruled out charges against Rove in the case. But in May 2006, ABC News reported the Libby defense said in open court that it would seek Rove's testimony for Libby's defense.

It was also disclosed this week that Cheney wrote a note that Libby's defense argues shows that Libby was a scapegoat.

"Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder," Cheney wrote.

It's not clear how the claim that Libby was sacrificed for Rove's benefit helps Libby in the case. But the argument embarrasses the secretive Bush administration and potentially increases sympathy for him among a jury that was heavily vetted because so many potential jurors -- including one CIA agent -- had at least tangential ties to the case in a capital known for its tangled relationships.

"What I think they're trying to do is contrast that he's a busy guy who obviously could be expected not to remember a variety of things," Holder said, "and beyond that to show that he was being taken advantage of by other people in the administration."

Although Rove was called for the defense, Holder said, that doesn't mean he will be cooperative.

"They might even try to have him declared a hostile witness," Holder said.

Libby's attorneys also indicated they want to know more about immunity granted reluctantly by prosecutors to another presidential aide, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

ABC News' Jason Ryan contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

Holocaust Day marked in Europe

BBC NEWS
Holocaust Day marked in Europe
Events have been taking place to mark Holocaust Memorial Day in memory of the six million Jews and other victims of the Nazi death camps.

Most of the commemorations take place on 27 January - the date on which the Auschwitz concentration camp was liberated by the Soviets in 1945.

Victims of more recent atrocities are also being remembered.

On the eve of the memorial, the UN General Assembly on Friday adopted a resolution condemning Holocaust denial.

The resolution, proposed by the United States and co-sponsored by more than 100 countries, says "ignoring the historical fact of these terrible events increases the risk they will be repeated".

The resolution does not mention any particular country, but diplomats said it was aimed at Iran, which has cast doubt on the Nazi genocide of Jews during World War ll.

'Dignity of Difference'

Two years ago, the UN designated 27 January as the date for international commemorations.

Events this year included a ceremony at the former concentration camp of Sachsenhausen in Germany.

There was also a wreath-laying ceremony on Berlin's Putlitz Bridge, where there is a plaque commemorating the deportation of the city's Jewish community during the Nazi regime.

The bridge has been targeted in the past by far-right groups.

At Saturday's ceremony, the head of the Green Party, Claudia Roth, said: "We all have a responsibility to combat anti-Semitic and far-right attitudes."

It was a view echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who urged "all courageous democrats" to fight against the far-right NPD party, which is represented in regional parliaments.

On Saturday evening, hundreds of people attended a concert at Berlin Cathedral. The proceeds will go to a group that provides counselling and support for survivors of the Holocaust living in Israel.

Events have been organised in the UK with the message "The Dignity of Difference" and with the aim of educating people about the dangers of anti-Semitism, racism and all forms of discrimination.

The victims of other atrocities of the 20th Century, including in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo, are also being honoured.

Some six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust - the attempt by Nazi Germany to exterminate Europe's Jewish population during World War ll.

The Nazis also targeted other groups who were seen by them as racially inferior or degenerate, including Slavs, Roma, homosexuals and disabled people.

It is estimated that about 1.5m people were killed at Auschwitz, the biggest of the concentration camps.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6305005.stm

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush Admin. Fights Climate Treaty Before Release Of Major Report

Guardian Unlimited
US answer to global warming: smoke and giant space mirrors
Washington urges scientists to develop ways to reflect sunlight as 'insurance'
David Adam, environment correspondent

The US government wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming, the Guardian has learned. It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change, the first part of which will be published on Friday.

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions - as sought by Tony Blair. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing treaty which the US administration opposes.

The final IPCC report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise a new emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.

The US response, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each IPCC report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1% of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulphate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission is based on the views of dozens of government officials and is accompanied by a letter signed by Harlan Watson, senior climate negotiator at the US state department. It complains the IPCC draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting". It takes issue with a statement that "one weakness of the [Kyoto] protocol, however, is its non-ratificiation by some significant greenhouse gas emitters" and asks: "Is this the only weakness worth mentioning? Are there others?"

It also insists the wording on the ineffectiveness of voluntary agreements be altered to include "a number of them have had significant impacts" and complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change." It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

The IPCC report is made up of three sections. The first, on the science of climate change, will be launched on Friday. Sections on the impact and mitigation of climate change - in which the US wants to include references to the sun-blocking technology - will follow later this year.

The likely contents of the report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. Next week's science report will say there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise another 1.5C to 5.8C this century depending on emissions. The US response shows it accepts these statements, but it disagrees with a more tentative conclusion that rising temperatures have made hurricanes more powerful.

· See the US document here

Read More...

Summary only...

Tens of thousands demand U.S. get out of Iraq

Reuters
Tens of thousands demand U.S. get out of Iraq
By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Chanting "bring our troops home," tens of thousands of anti-war protesters rallied in front of the U.S. Capitol on Saturday to pressure the government to get out of Iraq.

Veterans and military families joined some lawmakers, peace groups and actors including Vietnam war protester Jane Fonda to urge Congress and President George W. Bush to stop funding the war and pull troops from Iraq.

"When I served in the war, I thought I was serving honorably. Instead, I was sent to war ... for causes that have proved fraudulent," said Iraq war veteran Garett Reppenhagen.

"We need to put pressure on our elected government and force them to ... bring the troops home," the former sniper said to cheers from a sign-waving crowd.

Tens of thousands of people attended the rally on the National Mall, according to a park police officer.

For more than two hours, speakers atop a stage that also held a flag-draped coffin criticized Bush and the U.S. presence in Iraq before protesters marched around the Capitol.

In the crowd, a group of families of soldiers killed in Iraq held pictures of their loved ones, including one photo of a soldier in full dress uniform lying in a coffin.

More than 3,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The protest was one of several held around the United States. In California, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in San Francisco and Los Angeles, where several dozen people carried flag-draped, mock coffins.

Protesters also planned coordinated efforts in Washington and across the country over the next week to lobby lawmakers to take action against the war.

DISAPPROVE OF MORE TROOPS

Bush's approval ratings have dropped to some of the weakest of his presidency and polls show a majority of Americans disapprove of his plan to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq.

But Bush said he has no intention of backing off his plan.

Asked about the protests, White House national security adviser spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Bush "understands that Americans want to see a conclusion to the war in Iraq and the new strategy is designed to do just that."

The demonstrations come amid growing efforts by lawmakers to protest Bush's plans in Iraq. The Senate Foreign Relations committee passed a resolution on Wednesday opposing the plan to send more troops.

Protesters are trying to send Bush and Congress a message that Americans do not support the war.

"I'm convinced this is Bush's war. He has his own agenda there," said Anne Chay, holding a sign with a picture of her 19-year-old son, John, who is serving in Iraq. "We're serving no purpose there."

Fonda, who was criticized for her opposition to the Vietnam War, drew huge cheers when she addressed the crowd. She noted that she had not spoken at an anti-war rally in 34 years.

"Silence is no longer an option," she said. "I'm so sad we have to do this -- that we did not learn from the lessons of the Vietnam War."

Democratic Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said the November 7 election -- which gave Democrats control of both houses of Congress -- showed Americans want change.

"It takes the ... outrage of the American people to force Washington to do the right thing," he said. "We've got to hold more of these ... until our government gets the message -- Out if Iraq immediately. This year. We've got to go."

(Additional reporting by Timothy Ryan in Washington and Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles)

Read More...

Summary only...

That Anti-War March Won't Change Anything- But Here's What Will

Huffington Post
Russell Shaw
That Anti-War March Won't Change Anything- But Here's What Will

Oh sure, it felt good to march, or/and watch the marchers.

Let's see who was there. Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, reviled-by-the-warmongering-right Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, John Conyers, some pissed-off current service members and vets who felt they were lied to about the reasons to attack Iraq.

Big deal. Not an attitude-changer in the month.

No one to make pro-war Senators quake in their booths.

Venting for a just cause always feels good, but it seems as though almost everyone who was trotted out yesterday is a regular target of the pro-surge neocon camp. The slurs are already coming: ultra-liberal Hollywood, very liberal Congresspeople, "disloyal" soldiers.

And the brave soldiers and vets who did march yesterday will be demonized, just like the anti-war vets (including Kerry) were during and after Vietnam. Most wars have their dissident soliders, and you can bet the pro-war types have already factored that in to their political calculus going forward.

But now that the march is over, the question is, what do we need to dramatically downshift this war?

First, we either need to get a veto-proof Congressional majority prepared to draw down this war, or Bush rethinking his position. Right now, we don't have the numbers to override a veto or to get Bush to reconsider this disaster.

One thing that might help: sensibly lobbying the GOP Senators who are up in 2008, as well as the pro-war Representatives from competitve districts. Don't send Robbins and Sarandon. Send those who are prepared with economic and other arguments that might turn some of these people around.

Second, let's work on Bush. When he said "global climate change" during the State of the Union, that was a big transformation for him to even utter the term. But how did he get there? Major corporations- a natural pro-Bush constituency- are raising their voices about the scientific certainty involved, and the changes that must be made. Even some evangelicals- also part of Bush's base- are speaking out about what they now see as a need to protect creation.

My point is that at least in the "global climate change" issue, evolved assumptions on the part of Bush's two key constituencies has convinced him to respond- at least rhetorically.

Now that we have a template for observing what forces can move this stubborn President even a bit- would it not be a good idea to try and convince at least some of Bush's corporate and evangelical fans that it's time we draw down our troops in Iraq? Form groups and alliances of these folks, and get them to speak out as well as speak to the powers that be.

Read More...

Summary only...

People with Real Problems who President Bush Did Not Point to in the Gallery during the State of the Union

Huffington Post
Steve Clemons
People with Real Problems who President Bush Did Not Point to in the Gallery during the State of the Union

I haven't posted a follow up piece on the broader parts of the President's State of the Union Address -- beyond this foreign policy essay -- and I haven't posted on Senator Chuck Hagel's impressive and courageous leadership on the Iraq War Resolution this week, as well as Senator Biden's leadership -- because I have just been seriously depressed and distracted by an encounter I had the night of the State of the Union speech.

We all have personal stories. We know people who are sick, who die, who need a helping hand. But in Washington, we deal with the macro-dimensions of policy and we rarely think about the individuals involved. That's why I don't think Barbara Boxer was out of line in any way at all by admitting that both she and Condi Rice were a step removed from the real costs and consequences of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the President does get to "point up at the gallery" in the Chamber of the House of Representatives on the night of the State of the Union address and point to heroes who did something significant and who can possibly inspire others. Hillary Clinton can pick names and questions from tens of thousands she received in her "Conversations with Americans" and "humanize" an interaction that is nonetheless symbolic and can't really be more than a macro-level encounter with the millions of people who have to consider voting for her or someone else.

But on the night of the President's State of the Union, I met a young man whose situation is probably like many Americans -- too many -- and whose story needs to be revealed and considered.

Like some the President noted Wednesday night, this young man really deserves to be pointed to in a gallery in the House of Representatives or Senate.

In fact, Speaker Pelosi or Senator Reid should invite this young man to sit in the Gallery during a Congressional Session -- and they should speak to him, recognize the burdens he is carrying on behalf of his family and how the environment for working families in this country is hell for some. His story is tragic, and yet this kid is a hero in my mind for what he is doing -- and someone, or many of us, should be trying to help him and others like him.

So, I'm going to point at the Gallery, my own gallery, for a moment -- and I hope that Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid consider my proposal about this guy and his situation, or others like him.

Until they do offer to invite him to the House or Senate, I am going to keep his identity concealed as far as the blog goes, but if they do want to do something extraordinary for an impressive person then I will reveal who he is in some way that does not damage his current work situation.

I do want people to help him.

I attended Wednesday night a quite splashy State of the Union pre-party sponsored by the Atlantic Monthly. One interesting thing I noticed about the attendees this year as opposed to earlier years is that the Republicans were there in force. John Boehner and Roy Blunt hovered a long time in the spectacular reception foyer of the Thomas Jefferson Building. Some Dems were there -- but last year, there were many more. An indication of change.

At 7:30 pm, Al Jazeera had arranged for me to be picked up by a town car and driven to their studio so that I could do an evening of political commentary, along with a Republican party strategist, on the State of the Union. But when I got outside, the Capitol had become like the Green Zone in Baghdad with a curfew.

Police were everywhere. There was absolutely no vehicle traffic around the entire Congressional complex, including the Capitol and all of the House and Senate office buildings. So, I had to walk from the Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building to Louisiana and D Streets -- pretty far for a guy who had thrown his back over the weekend.

By the time I got there, a military or police guy dressed in black with an M-16 was seriously hassling the driver of the car I was supposed to get into -- and the fact that he was a 22 year old Afghan-American sent off a number of red flags that made the security folks think there was something was up. They searched him, made him open the trunk and searched the car as he waited for me -- but the guy tenaciously waited until I got there and then drove me to the studio at 16th & K.

I do a lot of TV work, more lately, and most of the studios -- CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera -- send town cars to drive their talking head talent to and from their offices or homes. I know many of the drivers, and most of them are middle-aged, know the city unbelievably well, and have an odd kind of confidence that comes from driving around people like James Woolsey, Mike Isikoff, Richard Perle and others and eavesdropping discreetly on their cell phone calls that they make in the car. These drivers know a lot -- and are great sources of interesting gossip.

This kid was new, and it was obvious. This is also the first time that he had had an encounter with an M-16 carrying Capitol policeman who didn't do anything inappropriate perhaps but who probably thought that a young, clean cut guy who has dark Middle Eastern/South Asian features parking a black town car near the Capitol on State of the Union night was exactly what he was trained to disrupt.

I talk to people -- all sorts of folks. It's how I learn things, particularly people who work on the periphery and sometimes right in the chambers of powerful political players. But I just wanted to calm this guy down and help him get me to the studio as I was already late.

I asked him questions -- and as I asked more, our exchange got quickly beyond the bland, impersonal banter of most town car talk. I want to emphasize that this young man did not set out to reveal his personal story to me. I want his employers to know -- in case they read this -- that he was the epitome of a professional. I pushed him, tactfully, to answer my line of questions -- some of which I sort of boldly put to him and which perhaps because of his youth and inexperience he answered honestly and without guile or shading.

This young man is a 22 year old American of Afghan descent, born and raised in Fairfax, Virginia. He is sharp-looking and personable, but innocent of politics and how the sharks and barracudas of Washington that he's driving around really operate.

He has been driving for just two months and has been logging 100 to 120 hours a week. He starts driving at about 11 am, or earlier and works until 4 am in the morning, every day of the week.

There are only 168 hours in a week, and I validated by drivers at the town car service today that he is in fact working the number of hours he reported.

What he is doing is unsustainable, and as I pressed him on why he seemed to be engaged in this desperate-sounding work pace, his voice quivered and told me that he had to support his family because his father and mother had both become ill.

He was the kind of guy who just doesn't talk much, but it was clear that he wasn't going to refuse to answer my questions -- and I pried, perhaps inappropriately.

His 43-year old father had male breast cancer which has now evolved into bone cancer. His father was some kind of techician or engineer, and his father had no health insurance. His mother also has some kind of throat ailment that he could not define for me very well, but she is also unable to work.

He has three younger sisters -- and after his father fell ill, this driver had to withdraw from the ITT Technical Institute where he was two semesters away from getting an MIS degree (Management Information Systems) in business technology. The college tried to work with him given the tragic nature of what has happened to his father and organize a morning set of course that he could work through at 8 am, but he could not do it because he was getting just no sleep.

Wow. This is the nicest young man you could imagine -- born in this county in an immigrant family that has worked hard to get ahead -- and like any family, or perhaps many families, something unexpected has torpedoes the family's ability to stay afloat. I felt that I could sense how close his family was because it was clear to me that this person was not yet street-smart, had been sheltered by close parents and family and now was just trying to figure out things in a world that was moving very fast, and in which he felt like he was losing his grip.

Knowing that the President was going to address health care issues that very night, I asked if his dad had gone right away to get treated when he knew he was ill with the first round of health care. He responded that his dad avoided going because he didn't have health care but that also tried at various times to go anyway -- and that the doctors didn't want to see him or treat him because he had no coverage.

He had no coverage. The doctors did not want to treat him.

The breast cancer worsened and I think (as I don't know health patterns of this sort well) metastasized into bone cancer.

The driver's father is now receiving some kind of chemotherapy, but to me -- the situation sounds bleak.

As he drove me down K Street, he said that he had driven a couple of people who knew about these health realities and asked them what he might do that he wasn't doing, and as he told me that a couple had said that the chances for his father were dim, and that his dad "probably wouldn't make it," tears welled up in this kid's eyes.

And then I had to go hear the President talk about health care and that he was going to create a new category of deductions for the poor to deduct some health insurance costs from their taxes:

And so tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents.

Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills.

At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans. (Applause.)

My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

I'm not going to take a pot shot at the President's plan and say that it's just not fixing the problems of the guy I met Wednesday night. The President or anyone working at the highest level of political discourse in health care can't get lost in the weeds of individual problems.

But i was hearing and looking at a weed that just needs some kind of attention.

And when I heard the President point into the Gallery -- as all Presidents do -- to salute a guy who risked his life for someone in the New York subway, or made a lot of money as an entrepreneur working in child education products, or threw himself into harm's way in a gun fight to protect someone and kept fighting despite some serious wounds -- I think that this young town car driver I met is just as much a hero in trying to take on something at 22 years of age -- no degree -- and work an insane number of hours that very few of us watching the President or sitting in the Congressional Chamber or enjoying our crab dip and pork fiesta at the State of the Union/Atlantic Monthly pre-party gala could handle.

This kid needs help or he's going to collapse. And there are no doubt many others out there like him who need help too. We have to get health care realities changed in this country -- and what the President suggests just does not do it. But I'll leave that policy debate for another day.

This kid needs a break from someone with resources. He needs to finish his last two semesters at ITT and to do that he either needs an offset from a job that is more rational that helps him pay the costs for his family and allow the school to again put together the arrangement so that he can both manage work and his courses.

He is not well-trained, and he doesn't have much experience -- but he really does need to be given a chance by someone. Interview him if you are in the area and you have something a sharp, young guy without a degree but who seems hard-working, dependable and trainable might be able to do.

Another way to help him for those well-heeled types who are constantly in town cars in Washington, DC is to request his car which is encouraged. I will convey his "driver number" and the name of the car to credible people who contact me via email if they wish to help him. The drivers of these cars receive about 30% of the income and the limo service from which they rent the cars for their shifts take about 70%. Just something to know about.

My email address is steve@thewashingtonnote.com.

Another way to help this kid is to contribute to him. I don't know any slick ways to do that. But people can send him checks if they like -- and I would be happy to provide contact information so that can be done. This would not be a deductible charity. It's just helping someone out with some funds to offset his time so that he can finish his school.

There is no way that this young man can make his situation work the way he is going.

Folks can send money to "The Washington Note/Qaiss Fund" if you like at:

The Washington Note 1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20009

I will then just transfer these funds to him. And I guess paypal can work as well -- but I would need donors to specify in their paypal request that the donation was intended for this young man and his family. Just label it "Qaiss".

I rarely do this. It feels awkward now. I'm going to post this in a couple of places including my own blog, Huffington Post, and TPM Cafe.

And as I said, I know this is long, rambling, and a "pointing at the Gallery" exercise. But this guy -- and others -- deserve to be pointed to and supported. I really was inspired by this young man's commitment to his family and his selflessness.

What I know though is that he just can't survive his situation he's in, and he and his family will be in even worse dire circumstances than they are now when he collapses.

And at the root of this is a family who has and had no health care. Just like millions of others, and increasingly more each year.

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

Read More...

Summary only...

Pelosi in Iraq to see for herself how war is going

Reuters
Pelosi in Iraq to see for herself how war is going

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a leading critic of President George W. Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, arrived in Baghdad on Friday for a closer view of a war she opposes.

Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office said he assured her he wanted his forces to take control of security from U.S. troops as soon as possible and called for an acceleration of their training and more military equipment.

A U.S. embassy official said Pelosi, the first woman speaker of the House, was in Iraq as part of a six-member congressional delegation for meetings with Iraqi and U.S. officials.

Pelosi emerged from her talks with Maliki saying "we come out with a greater understanding of each other's point of view".

She also said the delegation wanted to show U.S. troops in Iraq "the appreciation of the American people for what they are doing ... to applaud their patriotism, the sacrifice they are willing to make".

Pelosi has already said the new Democratic-controlled Congress will vote against the new strategy but will not seek to block funding for a troop increase.

Some 66 U.S. soldiers have died so far this month, taking the U.S. death toll since the war began in March 2003 to 3,067. Many of Bush's critics in Washington fear sending more troops will simply give militants more targets.

Bush has said the United States must not quit Iraq now as that would leave Iraqis prey to more sectarian violence and allow al Qaeda to operate from Iraq with impunity.

Pelosi, a key player in the Democratic takeover of Congress, has helped lead opposition in Washington to Bush's retooled Iraq strategy which envisages sending 21,500 more troops to help quell raging sectarian violence, especially in Baghdad.

She has accused Bush of playing politics with soldiers' lives and said after his State of the Union address to Congress this week that he had ignored the concerns of the American public over the unpopular war.

Democrats are pushing for a phased withdrawal from Iraq. Opinion polls show Americans are strongly opposed to Bush's plan for a troop increase.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fifteen Palestinians killed in Gaza clashes between Hamas and Fatah

Reuters
Fifteen Palestinians killed in Gaza clashes
By Nidal al-Mughrabi

GAZA (Reuters) - Rival Palestinian factions clashed in the Gaza Strip on Friday, killing 15 people including a two-year-old child, and a Fatah-linked group said it had captured 24 Hamas hostages.

The death toll in a wave of bombings and shootings is the highest in internal Palestinian fighting in a single day of violence since Hamas's rise to power exactly a year ago.

In Jabalya in the northern Gaza Strip, Hamas gunmen besieged and later stormed the house of senior Fatah militant Mansour Shalayel, who they accused of shooting a Hamas supporter.

Security forces said they managed to regain control of the house and drive away the attackers and free Shalayel and other people who were holed up inside the house unharmed.

Hamas disputed Fatah's claim of success and said they were in control of the house. Shalayel had not been seen late on Friday and his whereabouts or condition were not known.

Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades said it had seized 24 Hamas supporters in Gaza and the West Bank and threatened a "severe response" if Hamas gunmen harmed Shalayel.

Residents said gunfire echoed across Gaza late on Friday and both Hamas and Fatah forces deployed on the streets. Two rocket-propelled grenades were fired at Fatah's Preventive Security headquarters in Gaza City.

A rocket-propelled grenade was also fired at the house of Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas and caused extensive damage, a Hamas official said. He added that Zahar's family members were inside the house at the time but were unharmed.

The mounting violence prompted Hamas to call off the talks over forming a coalition government which could ease a U.S.-led boycott imposed after Hamas won a parliamentary poll a year ago.

"The Fatah movement continues to give a factional, political and media cover to the killers. Hamas has therefore decided to suspend all talks with Fatah," spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said.

Fatah spokesman Tawfiq Abu Khoussa blamed the talks breakdown on Hamas.

"Hamas is responsible for the current wave of clashes and crimes. A bloody party within Hamas is not willing to pursue the dialogue and continues to kill Fatah members," he said.

At least eight Hamas supporters, a militant from Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, five others and the young child who died in crossfire in southern Gaza, fell victim after the violence began with a bombing on Thursday.

Hamas vowed revenge for the killing of their members and of the leader named Zuhair al-Mansi which spokesman Barhoum described as a "grave crime".

The fighting coincided with a rally by thousands of Hamas supporters to mark the first anniversary of the Islamist group's election victory over the once-dominant Fatah last year.

In the occupied West Bank city of Nablus, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades paraded a group of nine youths it had captured and threatened revenge if Shalayel was hurt. The youths were later freed unharmed. In Gaza, 15 hostages were still being held.

In the West Bank town of Tulkarm unknown gunmen shot and critically wounded a Hamas official as he left evening prayers.

PALESTINIAN INFIGHTING

Around 40 Palestinians have been killed in fighting between rival groups since President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah called last month for presidential and parliamentary elections after a previous round of unity talks broke down.

Hamas has said any snap poll would amount to a coup. But it has struggled to govern since taking office in March under the weight of sanctions imposed because of its refusal to recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by interim peace deals.

Abbas, a moderate, and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal pledged on Sunday to curb Palestinian bloodshed after inconclusive talks to end their power struggle and form a unity government.

Hamas leaders remained defiant on Friday as they marked the anniversary of its January 25, 2006 election victory.

Hamas leaders have offered Israel a long-term truce in return for a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, although the Islamist group's charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Hamas continues to say that it will not formally recognize Israel.

(Additional reporting by Mohammed Assadi in Ramallah)

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraq vice president: U.S. invasion was "idiot decision"

AlertNet
DAVOS-U.S. invasion was "idiot decision"-Iraq vice president
By Stella Dawson

DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan 25 (Reuters) - The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an "idiot decision" and Iraqi troops now need to secure Baghdad to ensure the country's future, Vice-President Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Thursday.

"Iraq was put under occupation, which was an idiot decision," Mahdi said at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Mahdi said the Iraqi government planned to bring troops in to Baghdad from surrounding areas and said it was "a technical question" for the United States to decide whether to deploy more soldiers.

President George W. Bush plans to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq, a move widely criticised in the United States. On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted against the decision, which is due to go before the Senate next week.

"If we can win this war in Baghdad then I think we can change the course of events," Mahdi told a panel on the state of affairs in Iraq.

"As Iraqis, we think we need more (Iraqi) troops in Baghdad, and we are calling for some regiments to come from other parts of the country," he said.

Mahdi's party, the powerful Shi'ite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was one of the exiled opposition parties consulted by Washington as it planned the invasion.

Its leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is a key figure behind the U.S.-backed national unity government.

MORE CHAOS?

Some commentators are concerned that without the support of U.S. troops in Iraq, the already boiling sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi'ites could break out into ever greater killing sprees.

Adnan Pachachi, a member of Iraq's parliament and a former acting speaker, said that if the United States could not stay in Iraq, other troops should be drafted in. "If because of domestic pressure in the United States, the U.S. feels it is not possible to continue undertaking this burden, then I think we should consider going to the United Nations and having an international force," said Pachachi.

"This is a last resort really, otherwise there would be total chaos in the country."

Bush, who this week pleaded for the United States to give his new Iraq plan a chance, does not have to abide by a Senate resolution if legislators vote against sending more troops.

Read More...

Summary only...

Vermont resident aims to impeach Bush

Rutland Herald
Resident aims to impeach
By Daniel Barlow

BRATTLEBORO — Kurt Daims is tired of Vermont towns just talking about impeaching President Bush. He wants the Windham County town he lives in to actually begin working on it.

Daims, a retired engineer and local activist, is gathering signatures to place a resolution on Brattleboro's Town Meeting agenda that would put 1 percent of the municipality's budget toward working for Bush's impeachment.

He said the approximately $120,000 of the proposed 2007 Brattleboro budget could be spent on a municipal impeachment staff. That staff would lobby the U.S. Congress to pass impeachment legislation, Daims explained.

"I know 1 percent sounds nominal, but it could have a big impact," he said. "If we can use our tax dollars to go to war, why can't we use them to impeach the president?"

Brattleboro, along with several other Windham County towns, voted to impeach President Bush back in March 2006. The impeachment movement in the state of Vermont was founded behind Dan DeWalt, a Newfane man who gained national attention when he first proposed that his small town tackle the measure.

As many as 40 Vermont towns may be tackling the same question this year while others will face resolutions calling on Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

Daims said he supports that measure, but said he feels there is little actual action behind the gesture. Sometimes residents in Brattleboro have a habit of talking issues through, but not acting on them, he said.

"We need to hire a professional who knows how to get impeachment legislation proposed," Daims said.

Brattleboro Select Board Chairman Steve Steidle said he wouldn't want to speculate what would be cut from the budget to allocate the impeachment funds if such a measure passed. But he thinks it's an odd idea since impeachment of the president is far outside of the town's powers.

"We're working hard to put together a respectable budget," Steidle said. "I don't think people want us to spend money on something that really has no chance of having an impact."

There is some doubt the measure will be posed to Brattleboro voters. Daims said he has gathered about 150 of the 450 signatures needed to get an advisory question before voters and the final deadline is Thursday.

Also, he said, it's not clear if the question will be placed on the town meeting ballot or on the agenda of representative town meeting — a form of government in the town that has 140 elected officials cast votes on town and school budgets.

Town Clerk Annette Cappy said some of the few signatures that have arrived at her office have been discounted because of duplicates and residency issues.

But Daims is increasing his signature gathering drive this week with an appearance Monday morning on Steve West's local talk show on WKVT. And an advertisement promoting the drive will appear in a local newspaper tomorrow, he said.

"I went door-to-door on Sunday," he said. "Out of the houses that were occupied, three out of four people signed on."

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush Stays the Course, Whatever the Cost

Newsweek.com
Fineman: Bush Stays the Course, Whatever the Cost
Bush is sticking to his vision, no matter what Congress and the country think.
By Howard Fineman

Jan. 23, 2007 - George W. Bush wanted to be Harry Truman (patron saint of embattled presidents) in his State of the Union speech, but he may have reminded voters of Slim Pickens in "Dr. Strangelove." You know the famous scene: the giddy pilot in a cowboy hat hops aboard his own payload to Armageddon.

Say this about the president: he is going to stick with his vision, his strategy and his decisions on Iraq—no matter what the world, the American voters, the new Democratic Congress, the ’08 presidential contenders or even his fellow Republicans want.

All the buzz before the speech was that Bush would do something of a quick shuffle past Iraq. Yes, there was much domestic throat clearing—more than a half hour’s worth of it (though not a single mention of Katrina and New Orleans)—but when it came time to turn to Iraq and the “war on terror” he did not flinch.

Nothing he said was remarkably new—which, in and of itself was nothing short of remarkable.

Bush said, with all earnestness, that his goal in Iraq and the Middle East was—and our goal must be—to “remove conditions that inspire hatred” there. However, it is hard to find a dispassionate observer of the war who thinks that we have achieved that goal. Sadly, even many of our own military people say that just the opposite is true. Our presence has inflamed hatred, not doused it.

Without a trace of irony, he told the Congress: “Whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure.” But most Americans have concluded that we already have failed.

The speech was worlds away from the dim and dolorous address he gave the other week on the details of his new Iraq strategy—troop escalation, reinforcement or surge. Surrounded by the bright lights and trappings of authority, he was workman-like and confident. Measured by the number of times he got Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stand up and applaud, he did a decent job of suggesting measures that he and the Democratic Congress could work on together.

But all of that was beside the point. The war in Iraq has cost 3,000 lives, half a trillion dollars and, just as important, has cost the United States precious standing and moral authority in the world at large. All of that will damage us diplomatically, militarily and economically. The dollar is down, the euro is up; America, sadly, is regarded in much of the world as almost as great a threat to peace as the “evil” people we have been fighting for six years.

None of that seems to matter much to the president.

He seems to live in a different world. Most of us increasingly live in a wiki world, where the digital, online search for information and enlightenment is a collaborative enterprise - the cumulative, exponential power of many minds.

Our president, whom I used to view as a gregarious man, does not scour the world for information. He likes the “one riot, one ranger” theory of life. I think back to 2000, and remember the bus he rented on the campaign trail in New Hampshire. It had a big captain’s chair, and even a small Persian rug and a clock on the wall, but there was something isolating about it - it was not configured to accommodate a big crowd of people gathering around. He seemed to be relieved to escape into it.

No, he wants the Democrats to join him in creating a “special advisory council on the war on terror.” It may be a little late for that--like asking them to join him for the payload ride down.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16779495/site/newsweek/

Read More...

Summary only...

The speech's key points and their context

USA TODAY
The speech's key points and their context

What the president said on the critical issues of the coming year.

Balanced budget

What President Bush said: "In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government and balance the federal budget."

Context: Bush inherited a $128 billion budget surplus. Within three years, a recession and the war on terrorism turned it into a $412 billion deficit.

Rising tax receipts fueled by record corporate profits have since driven the deficit down to $248 billion.

Getting back to balance won't be easy if the president is realistic about the future costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impact of extending his tax cuts, which he vows to do. Bush will be long gone before any balanced budget is enacted. Even if balance is achieved, the long-term growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security threaten much larger deficits in the future.

Economy

What Bush said: "A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy — and that is what we have. Unemployment is low, inflation is low and wages are rising."

Context: The economy, while slowing, continues to be a bright spot for the president. Americans' earnings are keeping ahead of inflation, interest rates have stabilized, the jobless rate remains low at 4.5%, and more jobs have been created for 40 consecutive months. Gasoline prices are down from their summer peak; health care inflation, while high, is the lowest since 1999. Tax collections are running 8.2% higher than a year ago.

Whether this is tied to Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 remains in dispute. Bush says he can balance the budget by 2012 while making all his tax cuts permanent. Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia focused his response on the uneven nature of the recovery, which is "almost as if we are living in two different countries." He and other Democrats want to redirect spending on tax cuts and the Iraq war to items such as health care, education and alternative energy. Expect a clash of priorities over the 2008 budget that Bush will unveil Feb. 5.

Education

What Bush said: "Five years ago we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act. … And because we acted, students are performing better." Bush wants the act reauthorized.

Context: No Child Left Behind, Bush's ambitious 2002 education overhaul law, remains one of his few bipartisan successes. It expires this year, and Congress must reauthorize it. That effort could meet stiff resistance as lawmakers try to hold it off until after the 2008 election.

Members on both sides of the aisle have good reasons to wait: Many Democrats, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, don't like the law's annual tests and punishments for failing schools. Reid said the law may need some "fine-tuning." Republican lawmakers in states such as Utah and Virginia have criticized the law for allowing too much government intervention.

Ethics and earmarks

What Bush said: "Let us work together to reform the budget process … expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress … and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session."

Context: Congress has required more public disclosure of earmarks, as the special projects that lawmakers quietly insert in spending bills are known. Lawmakers have not called for reductions; many defend the practice because they know best what their states and districts need.

Bush wants to go further; he wants line-item veto power to eliminate earmarks, an idea Democratic leaders reject.

The use of earmarks has mushroomed in recent years — with $67 billion in taxpayer money going to these special projects in fiscal year 2006 alone, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Global disease

What Bush said: "We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger, poverty and disease — and that is precisely what America is doing."

Context: In 2003, Bush announced a five-year, $15 billion initiative to combat AIDS, the largest international health campaign to target a single disease. The program targets 15 countries that are home to about half the world's 39 million people who are HIV-positive. Bush has also called for Congress to reauthorize the $2.1 billion Ryan White Care Act, the largest federal program for people with HIV/AIDS.

The White House says that before the program, 50,000 people were receiving drug treatment for AIDS, while today, more than 800,000 people are receiving medications. Democrats have acknowledged the treatment success of the 2003 Bush plan, but Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., has proposed a bill to remove requirements that promote abstinence-until-marriage programs.

Bush announced a $1.2 billion, five-year plan in 2005 to control malaria in Africa. The goal of the initiative is to cut malaria deaths by half in 15 target countries.

Homeland security

What Bush said: "The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a nation at war."

Context: Port security became a major issue last year, and Congress is pushing it again in 2007. House Democrats this month passed a sweeping bill that would require inspections of all cargo on passenger airplanes and screening of cargo containers before they're loaded on ships headed to U.S. ports. The White House and some senators in both parties have questioned how the government will pay for the inspections. They also expressed concern the screening could hamper trade for limited security benefits. The Senate has not yet passed a version of the bill.

Immigration

What Bush said: "Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America, with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. … Let us have a serious, civil and conclusive debate — so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law."

Context: Immigration is one issue where Democrats and Bush are likely to reach a deal. Bush has been pressing since taking office for a major overhaul of immigration laws that would include giving legal status to an estimated 12 million people now living in the country illegally.

Last year, the Senate approved a bipartisan bill that met the president's requirements, but House Republicans blocked it. Now Democrats are in charge and are making it a priority.

Bipartisan negotiations already are underway to begin writing a bill that would beef up border security, create a secure ID system to help employers determine who can legally work for them and strengthen penalties on those who hire illegal employees. Still to be determined: how many of those now here illegally will be given a chance at citizenship, and how many conditions they will have to meet.

House Democrats have said they will reconsider legislation passed last year to build 700 miles of fence along the Mexican border. Government auditors have said the project could cost $30 billion.

Iran

What Bush said: "The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran and made it clear that the world will not allow … Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons."

Context: The Bush administration has intensified pressure on Iran to stop trying to make nuclear fuel and to stop backing Iraqis who target U.S. troops. European nations, such as France and Germany, urged the United States to talk to Iran; in May, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States would take part in multinational talks if Iran suspended uranium enrichment. Iran continued the program.

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution in December forbidding trade that could help Iran's nuclear or missile programs.

The Bush administration rejected the Iraq Study Group's call for U.S.-Iranian talks. Instead, the administration increased pressure to ban foreign investment in Iran's oil industry and to stop Iranian banks from using U.S. dollars. Bush also sent a second aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf.

Iraq

What Bush said: "Our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq — because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching."

Context: Attacks on U.S. troops and sectarian violence continue throughout Iraq. The Pentagon's most recent report to Congress in November noted a 22% increase in attacks. Sixty-eight percent of them are directed at U.S.-led coalition troops.

That has prompted Bush to forge a new strategy. The president's "new way forward" includes sending 21,500 additional U.S. troops and $1 billion in aid. The plan also would bolster the number of U.S. advisers in Iraqi security units.

Bush's plan has met opposition in Congress and among the public. Senators from both parties have proposed resolutions expressing disagreement with Bush.

More than 60% of Americans surveyed by USA TODAY said they support a non-binding congressional resolution that opposes sending more troops.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-23-sotu-key-points_x.htm?csp=34

Read More...

Summary only...

E. Howard Hunt, shadowy former CIA man who organized the Watergate break-in, dies

washingtonpost.com
Ex-Spy Crafted Watergate, Other Schemes
By Patricia Sullivan
Washington Post Staff Writer

E. Howard Hunt, 88, the shadowy former CIA man who organized the Watergate break-in and other "dirty tricks" that ultimately brought down the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, died of complications from pneumonia yesterday at a hospital in Miami.

The Watergate episode was the most notorious caper in a colorful career that included the overthrow of a Guatemalan president, oversight of a group of Cuban exiles in the Bay of Pigs fiasco and such over-the-top ideas as firebombing the Brookings Institution to distract guards while his crew burglarized the think tank.

Melodramatic and devious in character, resembling the actor Gene Hackman in appearance, Hunt donned a cheap red wig and wore a device that altered his gait while casing another burglary site -- the office of a psychiatrist to Daniel Ellsberg, who had released the classified Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War.

Hunt recruited four of the five Cuban exiles who broke into the Democratic national headquarters at the Watergate Hotel on June 17, 1972. He was watching the burglary from an adjacent building when the group was discovered and arrested, and it was his phone number in their address books that let investigators and reporters connect the break-in to the president and his reelection campaign.

Hunt's covert background included some 20 years in the CIA, where he helped overthrow the president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, in 1954. As the CIA station chief in Mexico City, he planted false newspaper stories about politicians who were out of favor. In 1961, he was the planning director for a group of Cuban exiles who unsuccessfully attempted to overthrow Fidel Castro by invading the island at the Bay of Pigs. That's where he met Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez and Frank Sturgis, whom he would recruit for a covert group of "plumbers" whose job it was to fix the "leaks" that threatened the Nixon administration.

Their first job was in Los Angeles, where they broke into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Back in Washington, Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy hatched the Watergate plan.

"What we were looking for is the same thing every congressional committee is looking for today, which was evidence of illegal foreign contributions," he told the Miami Herald in 1997. "That was the rationale for going in there. We'd heard rumors that both the Vietnamese and Fidel Castro were inserting funds illegally into the Democratic National Committee. And the idea was to look at the books, photograph them, in and out, and that's it. It didn't seem like such a deal to me. You know, I'd been doing that stuff for years, a 'black-bag job' into other embassies. But you know, I didn't have skilled people."

Hunt didn't let his loyalty to Nixon prevent him from pressuring his bosses for money. In a secretly recorded conversation in March 1973 that became one of the key pieces of evidence of the White House cover-up, White House Counsel John Dean told Nixon that "we're being blackmailed. . . . Hunt now is demanding another $72,000 for his own personal expenses; another $50,000 to pay his attorneys' fees."

After some further discussion, Nixon said: "If you need the money, I mean you could get the money. . . . I mean it's not easy, but it could be done."

Nixon, facing impeachment, resigned Aug. 9, 1974.

Hunt spent 33 months in prison for his role in the Watergate burglary. He was bitter that Nixon did not stand up for him. President Ronald Reagan rejected a pardon request for Hunt in 1983.

He was born Everette Howard Hunt in Hamburg, N.Y., on Oct. 9, 1918. He graduated from Brown University in 1940 and was commissioned as a Naval Reserve officer the following year. A talented writer, he worked as a correspondent for Life magazine until he was called to active duty during World War II. He served as a gunnery officer on a destroyer.

After the war, he received a Guggenheim fellowship and worked as a screenwriter before joining the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the CIA. He retired from the CIA in 1970 because "I found out the CIA was just infested with Democrats," he told Slate magazine in 2004.

Throughout his life, he wrote more than 80 spy novels and thrillers, usually under such pseudonyms as John Baxter, Robert Dietrich, David St. John, P.S. Donoghue, Gordon Davis or David St. John. He described one of his leading characters, Peter Ward, who shares some of his background as a Washington-dwelling Brown graduate, as "the secret agent with the taste and the talent for fine living."

Tad Szulc, a former New York Times reporter, wrote in the 1974 book "Compulsive Spy: The Strange Career of E. Howard Hunt" that Hunt was a relatively low-level CIA officer not well thought of by most of his colleagues and superiors. Hunt's autobiography, "American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond," has a March publication date.

Hunt declared bankruptcy in 1997, largely blaming his Watergate fines and legal fees. A $650,000 libel settlement he was awarded in 1981 stemming from an article alleging his involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was overturned, and he received none of that money.

In the past few years, Hunt lost a leg to complications from atherosclerosis, battled lymphoma in his jaw and used an electric wheelchair to get around.

Hunt's first wife, Dorothy Wetzel Day Goutiere, was killed in the Dec. 8, 1972, plane crash of United Airlines Flight 533 in Chicago. Congress, the FBI, and the National Transportation Safety Board investigated the crash, but they did not find any basis for determining that the crash was not purely accidental. The more than $10,000 in cash found in Dorothy Hunt's handbag was generally regarded as part of the "hush money" paid to Watergate defendants in an attempt to procure their silence regarding White House involvement.

Survivors include his wife of 30 years, Laura Martin Hunt of Miami; and six children.

Read More...

Summary only...

New U.S. Commander in Iraq Refuses to Promise Success

ABC News
New U.S. Commander in Iraq Refuses to Promise Success
Bush's Pick to Lead Iraq Tells Senators War 'Not Hopeless'
By JOHN HENDREN

Jan. 23, 2007 — - President Bush's pick as the new top commander on the ground in Iraq today offered a dour assessment of the war, calling the situation dire and making no promises of success.

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus told senators in his first appearance in a Capitol Hill hearing since being nominated as the four-star commander in Iraq that factional violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq has increased significantly since the bombing this past February of the Al-Askari mosque in Samarra, the third-holiest Shiite shrine.

"The escalation of violence in 2006 undermined the coalition strategy and raised the prospect of a failed Iraqi state, an outcome that would be in no group's interest, save that of certain extremist organizations and perhaps states in the region that wish Iraq and the [United] States ill," Petraeus told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"In truth, no one can predict the impact of a failed Iraq on regional stability, the international economy, the global war on terror, America's standing in the world and the lives of the Iraqi people," he said.

"The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard."

Nevertheless, he added "hard is not hopeless."

Petraeus is widely considered a leading intellectual light in the Army. He is expected to be easily confirmed, with even Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., saying that while he strenuously disagrees with the Bush administration's plan to "escalate" the war in Iraq by adding another 21,000 troops, he intended to vote to approve Petraeus.

"None of this will be rapid. In fact, the way ahead will be neither quick nor easy, and there undoubtedly will be tough days," Petraeus said. "We face a determined, adaptable, barbaric enemy. He will try to wait us out. In fact, any such endeavor is a test of wills, and there are no guarantees."

The general indicated he could not ensure success.

"The only assurance I can give you is that if confirmed, I will provide Multinational Force - Iraq the best leadership and direction I can muster," Petraeus said. "I will work to ensure unity of effort with the ambassador and our Iraqi and coalition partners; and I will provide my bosses and you with forthright, professional military advice."

Petraeus assured members that if he concluded that the current strategy would not succeed, "I will provide you with that assessment."

If approved, he will enter his third tour of duty in Iraq, after joining the initial invasion in 2003 as the commander of the 101st Airborne Division, then returning as the three-star head of training of Iraqi troops.

He would also be charged with carrying out a counterinsurgency doctrine set out in a new Army manual that Petraeus developed from the Army's doctrine and training command at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Those close to Petraeus have expressed disappointment that the region he controlled in northern Iraq, centered on Mosul, went from passive to explosive after the 101st left in 2004. Many blame the style of his successor, who they say antagonized Iraqis with a "death before dismount" approach that ended the close engagement with Iraqis Petraeus sought to pursue.

If confirmed by the Senate, as required, Petraeus would serve under a like-minded commander. President Bush has named Adm. William Fallon as his choice to head the U.S. Central Command.

Fallon, currently head of the Pentagon's Pacific Command, has pursued a nuanced approach to Chinese leaders who are aggressively rebuilding their military. He has traveled deeper into China than his predecessors and blended cooperation, including joint military exercises with the Chinese, with the implicit threat of military force, moving more carriers and bombers westward to Hawaii and Guam.

Both Petraeus and Fallon are expected to shift the emphasis of military operations in Iraq to win the security, and as a result the "hearts and minds," of Iraqis.

Petraeus supports President Bush's plan to move 17,500 additional troops into the capital of Baghdad in an effort to reduce residents' reliance on factional militias for security.

But Bush administration officials say they have also secured promises from the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the Americans would not be barred from entering such Shiite strongholds as the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City. That has been a problem in the past, as U.S. forces were barred by Maliki from pursuing suspected Shiite Muslim death squads as they fled to safe havens in Sadr City.

That puts Maliki in an especially difficult position. His Shiite-dominated governing coalition won with the support of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who nominally controls the Mahdi Army militia that is blamed for much of the factional violence in the capital.

The questioning of Petraeus often grew sharp in criticizing the Bush administration and his policy of increasing American troop levels in Iraq.

"We are in a dire situation," said Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, a Democratic presidential candidate, "in part because the Congress was supine under the Republican majority."

Nevertheless, senators were uniformly complimentary and respectful in addressing Petraeus, differentiating him from a Bush policy he would be required to oversee.

"You wrote the book, general, but the policy is not by the book," Clinton added.

Clinton called the policy of increasing troops "a dead end" and vowed to send a message to the Iraqis that they "cannot rely on the blood and treasure of Americans any longer."

The new general's plan to secure Baghdad threatens to increase casualties because a larger number of American troops would be more exposed. Petraeus said to secure Baghdad's population, "forces must locate with and live with that population."

He added, "certainly there will be soldiers literally on the road, there will be soldiers on the streets and so forth."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another presidential contender, asked Petraeus about congressional measures that would express the view of Congress that troop increases are the wrong policy and others that would actually bar funding for more troops.

"Suppose we send you over to your new job, general, only we tell you that we can't have -- you can't have any additional troops. Can you get your job done?," McCain asked.

"No, sir," Petraeus replied.

Read More...

Summary only...

Rehnquist's Stay on Court Forced O'Connor Out

ABC News
Rehnquist's Stay on Court Forced O'Connor Out
Death Created Double Vacancy Chief Justice Feared
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG

Jan. 23, 2007 — - In June of 2005, Sandra Day O'Connor seemed to be looking forward to another year on the court.

Her law clerks were hired for the next term and she had finalized her speaking schedule so it wouldn't conflict with the court's calendar for the new term. She assumed her old friend, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was ravaged with cancer, was going to retire in the next few weeks.

Earlier in the term she had met with Rehnquist, who had become increasingly frail. She had confided in him that because her devoted husband was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, she wouldn't be able to stay on the court indefinitely.

Although O'Connor thought Rehnquist might retire at the end of the term, at the meeting it was clear that he hadn't looked that far ahead into his own future. Ever worried about the court as an institution, he told her, "We don't need two vacancies." He advised her that they should wait.

"Let's talk later," he said.

By June, with only weeks left in the term, O'Connor went to visit her old friend again. Even though he had been coming to the court every day, she, like the other justices, still believed he would be retiring soon. She'd begun to think she would spend one more year on the court before retiring herself.

She knew that Rehnquist believed emphatically that the court shouldn't have two retirements at the same time. She guessed that he would imminently announce his retirement, allowing her to stay one more year.

She guessed wrong.

He stunned her by telling her: "I want to stay another year."

O'Connor was caught off guard. Rehnquist's implication was clear: She must retire now or be prepared to serve two more years. Rehnquist was unilaterally deciding both of their fates.

John O'Connor III had been her devoted husband and given her a lifetime of unconditional love and support. John was battling Alzheimer's, the same debilitating disease that crippled and killed the president who had nominated O'Connor as an associate justice two decades earlier.

It was her turn to support her husband, before the disease stole him from her for good. Even though she hadn't thought she'd be retiring at the end of the term, she deferred to Rehnquist, whom she had known for more than 50 years. "Well, okay," she said. "I'll retire then".

Days after the term ended and without even warning her own sons in advance, O'Connor sent a letter to the president announcing her retirement. "I wanted to convey one simple thing: that I'd decided to retire and that I respected the Court." Asked later about the timing of her retirement, O'Connor said "you make the decision, and you live with it."

Upon his diagnosis in the fall of 2004, Rehnquist had been told he would survive for less than a year. But Rehnquist, the man who loved to put down a one-dollar bet on almost anything -- the amount of snowfall, a football game, a congressional election -- wanted to beat the odds against his own diagnosis. Sadly, he died on Sept. 3, 2005.

As fate would have it, despite her retirement announcement, Sandra Day O'Connor returned to the bench in the fall of 2005. She would serve until both vacancies had been filled.

Read More...

Summary only...