Thursday, February 01, 2007

Court urged to rule on eavesdropping program

Reuters
Court urged to rule on eavesdropping program
By Andrea Hopkins

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - A U.S. civil rights group urged a federal appeals court on Wednesday to uphold a ruling against the Bush Administration's domestic spying program, although the White House has agreed a special court can monitor the eavesdropping.

The American Civil Liberties Union said its challenge to President George W. Bush's domestic wiretapping program should not be dropped simply because the government had volunteered, for now, not to renew the eavesdropping activities.

"It's this court's duty to serve as check on the arbitrary exercise of government power to wiretap American citizens on American soil," ACLU lead attorney Ann Beeson told a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

She noted the Bush Administration was still claiming the "inherent authority" to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant, and that nothing would stop it from withdrawing from the monitoring system in the future.

"A failure to decide the case could leave it up to the president to decide when and whether to obey the law," Beeson said.

A lawyer for the government urged the court to dismiss the case, saying Bush's decision to allow a secret panel of judges who oversee the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor the program meant there was no longer a civil rights issue at stake.

"Those orders have eliminated the central premise for the plaintiffs' legal challenge in this case," said U.S. Justice Department lawyer Greg Garre. "What's left of this case is ... whether the president can authorize electronic surveillance outside of FISA in the future."

The panel of judges, two Republicans and a Democrat, questioned both sides but made no immediate ruling. It may be weeks before a decision is taken.

POLITICAL UPROAR

The surveillance program, exposed by The New York Times in December 2005, was authorized by Bush to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens, without first obtaining a court warrant.

It caused a political uproar among Democrats and some Republicans, as well as civil rights activists, who said it violated U.S. law.

A U.S. district court in August ruled the program violated the Constitution and a 1978 law prohibiting surveillance of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without the approval of the special surveillance court, but the government appealed.

The ACLU plaintiffs include lawyers who say they cannot defend clients accused of terrorism because the government, under they wiretapping program, can listen into attorney-client conversations.

White House officials defended the program for more than a year, saying the warrantless surveillance that began soon after the 2001 attacks had helped protect against terrorism.

Under threat of investigation by a new Democratic-controlled Congress, the Bush administration announced in mid-January an end to the program and said it would work with the secret federal court that issues warrants for electronic surveillance inside the United States.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday he would let selected members of Congress see secret court documents that authorized Bush's newly revised domestic spying program.




Read More...

U.S. lets lawmakers see court spying documents

Reuters
U.S. lets lawmakers see court spying documents
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday he would let selected members of the Democratic-led U.S. Congress see secret court documents that authorized President George W. Bush's newly revised domestic spying program.

Lawmakers and civil liberties groups called it a significant first step for an administration that in the past often refused to provide information to Congress, but they urged the Bush administration to provide full details about the program.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said he would review the documents and then decide if "further (congressional) oversight or legislative action is necessary."


In Cincinnati on Wednesday, the American Civil LibertiesUnion urged a federal appeals court to uphold a lower-court ruling against the domestic spying program, even though the White House had agreed a special court could monitor the eavesdropping.

A U.S. district court in August ruled the program violated the Constitution and a 1978 law prohibiting surveillance of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without the approval of the special court. The government appealed.

On January 17, the administration announced an end to the 5-year-old warrantless surveillance program, two weeks after Democrats took control of Congress and vowed to bring the program in line with the law. The surveillance program will now be subject to approval from the secret U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Critics had charged Bush overstepped his power after the September 11 attacks with warrantless domestic spying as well as actions such as holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without charges and interrogations that some said amounted to torture.

At a January 18 Judiciary Committee hearing, Democrats and Republicans alike demanded that Gonzales provide details about the agreement the Justice Department had reached with the secret court.

They cited a letter from the presiding judge stating the court would have no objections to giving the committee confidential information, but that it would be up to the Justice Department.

After considering it for nearly two weeks, Gonzales said he was now prepared to allow certain members of Congress to see the court's orders and other related documents.

'JUST THE BEGINNING'

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, called Gonzales' decision "a significant step forward. I'm going to reserve judgment on the program itself until I have had a chance to review it," he said.

Gonzales said the Bush administration was prepared to provide access to the secret court documents to Leahy and Specter as well as to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

The highly classified documents would not be released publicly, he said.

The ACLU called making the documents available to key lawmakers a good first step, but urged Gonzales to provide Congress with full details about the program.

The ACLU's lead attorney in the appeals court case argued the group's legal challenge to the domestic wiretapping program should not be dropped simply because the government had volunteered not to renew the warrantless eavesdropping activities.

Saying the Bush administration was still claiming the "inherent authority" to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant, Ann Beeson told the three-judge panel that "a failure to decide the case could leave it up to the president to decide when and whether to obey the law."

(Additional reporting by Andrea Hopkins in Cincinnati and James Vicini in Washington)




Read More...

Texas liberal political wit Molly Ivins dies of cancer

Reuters
Texas liberal political wit Ivins dies of cancer
By Bruce Nichols

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Molly Ivins, the best-selling author and columnist who aimed her razor-sharp barbs at politicians and dubbed President George W. Bush "Shrub," died on Wednesday. She was 62.

Diagnosed with breast cancer in 1999, Ivins had been undergoing her third series of treatments when she died at home.

Ivins was one of the most prominent critics of Bush in print -- her columns ran in 400 newspapers twice weekly -- and on the speaking circuit.

"She was sort of a modern Mark Twain," said Jake Bernstein, editor of the liberal journal Texas Observer.

Ivins, a three-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, tempered her strong liberal views with humor.

"I never saw her angry, 'kicking the dog' angry," said longtime friend and writer Kaye Northcott. "She could always find something funny and that was her salvation. She stayed optimistic."

Her newspaper columns and essays were turned into four books, and she co-authored two others about Bush, whom she knew from the time they were both teenagers in Houston.

"Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush" was published in 2000. "Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America" in 2003.

Bush and first lady Laura Bush extended their condolences to Ivins' family and friends.

"Molly Ivins was a Texas original. ... I respected her convictions, her passionate belief in the power of words and her ability to turn a phrase. She fought her illness with that same passion. Her quick wit and commitment to her beliefs will be missed," the president said in a statement.

Born in California, Ivins moved with her family to Houston as a child and grew up in a wealthy neighborhood, although she rejected her high-toned Republican upbringing.

Ivins graduated from Smith College in Massachusetts, earned a master's degree in journalism at Columbia University in New York and studied politics in Paris.

She started her journalism career in the complaint department at the Houston Chronicle, worked as a police reporter at the Minneapolis Tribune in Minnesota and was Denver bureau chief for The New York Times.

But her voice as a writer and speaker was Texan, a physically imposing, salty-tongued but genteel Southerner who could punctuate her sharpest jabs with a sudden smile.

"She always had a love affair with Texas," Bernstein said.

Ivins co-edited the Texas Observer with Northcott from 1970 to 1976, winning the job with a witty letter that complained that Minnesota was short on scandals.

She attained fame at The Dallas Times-Herald and, when that paper folded, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. But she hit her stride at the Observer, a cheeky, muckraking periodical.

"That's when she ... developed her voice," Bernstein said. "We like to joke Texas is the strangest state and Molly really channeled that."




Read More...

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

U.S. may have botched training of Iraqis

Yahoo! News
U.S. may have botched training of Iraqis
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

Training the police is as important to stabilizing Iraq as building an effective army there, but the United States has botched the job by assigning the wrong agencies to the task, two members of the Iraq Study Group said Wednesday.

"The police training system has not gone well," said former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the bipartisan commission.

For a second day, a key Republican directly challenged President Bush to do more than pay "lip service" to this and other recommendations on how to resolve the troubled conflict in Iraq.

"As a nation we'd be much better off if the executive branch were not so insular," said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa. "I'd think the executive branch would be well advised to do more than have a meeting and a news conference to give in-depth consideration to what is being proposed here."

According to the report, co-authored by Hamilton and former Attorney General Edwin Meese, the U.S. erred by first assigning the task of shaping the judicial system in a largely lawless country to the State Department and private contractors who "did not have the expertise or the manpower to get the job done."

In 2004, the mission was assigned to the Defense Department, which devoted more money to the task. But department officials also were insufficiently trained for the job, Hamilton and Meese said.

As a result, Iraq has little if any on-the-street law enforcement personnel or a functioning judicial system free of corruption, they said.

Justice Department officials, they said, should lead the work of transforming the system. Police executives and supervisors should replace the military police personnel now assigned.

And the FBI should expand its investigative and forensic training in Iraq, Hamilton and Meese told the panel.

The recommendations about the Iraqi judicial system were included in the Iraq Study Group's report last year, but got little attention. Hamilton and Meese said Wednesday that unless the U.S. helps create a capable, trained professional police force and functioning criminal justice system, "ordinary Iraqis will not live in peace and will not have confidence in their new government."

"Long-term security depends as much on the Iraqi police and judicial system as the Iraqi Army," they testified.

The hearing comes as lawmakers increasingly line up against President Bush's escalation of the unpopular war in Iraq, many citing the findings of the Iraq Study Group as they urge an end to U.S. involvement there.

Wednesday's hearing gave committee Democrats a fresh opportunity to take a swipe at the White House.

"If the administration had been serious and competent about establishing a functioning democracy in Iraq, it would have seen the need for a trustworthy criminal justice system in which all Iraqis could have confidence," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., said in prepared remarks.

With a Senate showdown just days away, No. 2 GOP leader Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) of Mississippi said he had concerns with each of a host of resolutions introduced so far on the war. If Republican leaders do not rally behind a single proposal, the party could avoid taking a clear, united stance on the widely unpopular Iraq war — a consequence Lott suggested he wouldn't mind.

"To herd the cat some times you have to let them stray," he said. "Think about that. Keeping them together by letting them stray."

The Iraq Study Group recommended the administration pull U.S. combat brigades out of Iraq by early 2008, launch new diplomatic initiatives with Iran and Syria and vastly increase the number of U.S. military advisers in the country.

Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, in subtle disagreement with the Bush administration, told Wednesday's hearing that the United States should always be ready to negotiate, including with Iran and Syria as part of a regional conference that he proposed for dealing with Iraq.

But Kissinger described radical Islamic fundamentalism promoted by Iran as the biggest threat to the area, and said that "I see little incentive Iran has to help us solve the Iraq problem."

In prepared testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared to line up with senators opposing President Bush's buildup in Iraq.

"I could have supported an increase in troops if that increase had been tied to a clear, important and achievable mission, and if we were guaranteed that our troops would have the best training and equipment," she said.

AP Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid contributed to this report from Washington.

___

On the Net:

Iraq Study Group: http://www.usip.org

Senate Judiciary Committee: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov


Read More...

Congress can halt Iraq war, experts tell lawmakers

Reuters
Congress can halt Iraq war, experts tell lawmakers
By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress has the power to end the war in Iraq, a former Bush administration attorney and other high-powered legal experts told a Senate hearing on Tuesday.

Facing mounting opposition over his Iraq troop increase plan, President George W. Bush insisted it would be "too extreme" if lawmakers pass a resolution condemning his Iraq policy.

Four out of five experts called before the Senate Judiciary Committee said Congress could go even further and restrict or stop U.S. involvement in Iraq if it chose.

"I think the constitutional scheme does give Congress broad authority to terminate a war," said Bradford Berenson, a Washington lawyer who was a White House associate counsel under Bush from 2001 to 2003.

"It is ultimately Congress that decides the size, scope and duration of the use of military force," said Walter Dellinger, former acting solicitor general, the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, in 1996-97.

The hearing was frequently punctuated by outbursts from more than a dozen anti-war protesters, who were asked several times to be quiet but not thrown out.

A subcommittee chairman who ran the hearing, Sen. Russ Feingold, said he would introduce a bill prohibiting the use of funds for the war six months after enactment.

"Today we've heard convincing testimony and analysis that Congress has the power to stop the war if it wants to," said Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat.

The Senate is poised to take up a resolution opposing Bush's recent decision to add 21,500 troops in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said this debate would take place next week.

"I wouldn't say it's unpatriotic. I think it's -- I think it is too extreme," Bush said in an ABC News interview when asked whether it would be unpatriotic for Congress to pass a resolution condemning his Iraq policy.

Any such resolution would not be binding on the president, while legislation to cut funds -- assuming it passed -- would be. However, cutting funds is much more controversial as many lawmakers do not want to do so when troops are abroad.

Despite growing rancor over the troop build-up, the White House said Bush won agreement from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a bipartisan advisory group on Iraq. Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the panel's makeup would be announced shortly and it would meet next week.

WHO'S THE DECIDER?

The expert who took a more limited view of Congress' powers, Robert Turner of the University of Virginia, echoed Bush's assertion that in matters of war, he is in charge.

"In the conduct of war, in the conduct of foreign affairs, the president is in fact the decider," he said. He suggested lawmakers might need to "run for president" if they wanted to manage war policy. A half-dozen U.S. senators already have expressed an interest in running for the White House in 2008.

One presidential hopeful, Illinois Democrat Barack Obama, unveiled a bill to cap U.S. troops in Iraq at the January 10 level, before Bush added more; start a phased pullout in May, and get all combat brigades out by March 31, 2008.

The other experts at the hearing said that while the Constitution makes the president commander-in-chief of U.S. forces, Congress' constitutional power to declare war and fund the military gave it power to stop what it had set in motion.

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said: "I would respectfully suggest to the president that he is not the sole 'decider' ... The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."

Perino said: "The president is not the only decision-maker, but he is the only commander-in-chief". If they (in Congress) have a better plan for securing Baghdad and turning a corner in Iraq, he wants to hear it."

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Matt Spetalnick)




Read More...

Congress to test bounds of its war powers

USA TODAY
Congress to test bounds of its war powers

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Senate Republican on Tuesday directly challenged President Bush's declaration that "I am the decision-maker" on issues of war.

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said during a hearing on Congress' war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over Iraq war policy. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility," Specter said.

ON DEADLINE: The 'decider' debate

The question of whether to use its power over the government's purse strings to force an end to the war in Iraq, and under what conditions, is among the issues faced by the newly empowered Democratic majority in Congress, and even some of the president's political allies as well.

No one challenges the notion that Congress can stop a war by canceling its funding. In fact, Vice President Dick Cheney challenged Congress to back up its objections to Bush's plan to put 21,500 more troops in Iraq by zeroing out the war budget.

Underlying Cheney's gambit is the consensus understanding that such a drastic move is doubtful because it would be fraught with political peril.

But there are other legislative options to force the war's end, say majority Democrats and some of Bush's traditional Republican allies.

The alternatives range from capping the number of troops permitted in Iraq to cutting off funding for troop deployments beyond a certain date or setting an end date for the war.

"The Constitution makes Congress a coequal branch of government. It's time we start acting like it," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who is chairing a hearing Tuesday on Congress' war powers and forwarding legislation to eventually prohibit funding for the deployment of troops to Iraq.

His proposal, like many others designed to force an end to U.S. involvement in the bloody conflict, is far from having enough support even to come up for a vote on the Senate floor.

Closer to that threshold is a non-binding resolution declaring that Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Anbar province is "not in the national interest." The Senate could take up that measure early next month.

But some senators, complaining that the resolution is symbolic, are forwarding tougher bills.

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, for example, is a sponsor of a bill that would call for troops to come home in 180 days and allow for a minimum number of forces to be left behind to hunt down terrorists and train Iraqi security forces.

"Read the Constitution," Boxer told her colleagues last week. "The Congress has the power to declare war. And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."

Congress used its war powers to cut off or put conditions on funding for the Vietnam war and conflicts in Cambodia, Somalia and Bosnia.

Under the Constitution, lawmakers have the ability to declare war and fund military operations, while the president has control of military forces.

But presidents also can veto legislation and Bush likely has enough support in Congress on Iraq to withstand any veto override attempts.

Managing a war — in effect what Boxer and Feingold are proposing — is the president's job, some lawmakers and scholars say.

"In an ongoing operation, you've got to defer to the commander in chief," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. But the veteran senator and former Navy secretary said he understands the debate over Congress' ability to check the executive branch.

"Once Congress raises an army, it's his to command," said Robert Turner, a law professor at the University of Virginia who was to testify Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In recent decades, presidents have routinely bypassed Congress when deploying troops to fight. Not since World War II has Congress issued an official declaration of war, despite lengthy wars fought in Vietnam and Korea.

Congress does not have to approve military maneuvers.

John Yoo, who as a Justice Department lawyer helped write the 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion, called that document a political one designed only to bring Democrats on board and spread accountability for the conflict.

The resolution passed by a 296-133 vote in the then-GOP-run House and 77-23 in the Democratic-led Senate, but it was not considered a declaration of war.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-30-congress-war-powers_x.htm?csp=34





Read More...

Soldier's Death Strengthens Senators' Antiwar Resolve

Reuters
Soldier's Death Strengthens Senators' Antiwar Resolve
Kerry, Dodd Demand Stronger Challenge to Bush
By Jonathan Weisman and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers

Just before Christmas, an Army captain named Brian Freeman cornered Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) at a Baghdad helicopter landing zone. The war was going badly, he told them. Troops were stretched so thin they were doing tasks they never dreamed of, let alone trained for.

Freeman, 31, took a short holiday leave to see his 14-month-old daughter and 2-year-old son, returned to his base in Karbala, Iraq, and less than two weeks ago died in a hail of bullets and grenades. Insurgents, dressed in U.S. military uniforms, speaking English and driving black American SUVs, got through a checkpoint and attacked, kidnapped four soldiers and later shot them. Freeman died in the assault, the fifth casualty of the brazen attack.

The death of the West Point graduate -- a star athlete from Temecula, Calif., who ran bobsleds and skeletons with Winter Olympians -- has radicalized Dodd, energized Kerry and girded the ever-more confrontational stance of Democrats in the Senate. Freeman's death has reverberated on the Senate floor, in committee deliberations and on television talk shows.

"This was the kind of person you don't forget," Dodd said yesterday. "You mention the number dead, 3,000, the 22,000 wounded, and you almost see the eyes glaze over. But you talk about an individual like this, who was doing his job, a hell of a job, but was also willing to talk about what was wrong, it's a way to really bring it to life, to connect."

"When I returned from war, almost 40 years ago now, I stood up and spoke from my heart and my gut about what I thought was wrong," Kerry said on the Senate floor last week as he recounted his meeting with Freeman. "I asked the question in 1971: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? . . . I never thought that I would be reliving the need to ask that question again."

On Thursday, Freeman will be memorialized at his home in California, just days before the Senate takes up a resolution formally stating Congress's opposition to the president's plan to add 21,500 troops to the U.S. force in Iraq. There is no way to know what Freeman would have thought of it, but he would not have been shy about offering his opinion, Dodd said.

Freeman had served out his five-year active-duty tour well before he was sent to Iraq. He graduated from West Point in 1999, then in 2002 was accepted into the Army World Class Athlete Program, training with the U.S. bobsled and skeleton teams in Lake Placid, N.Y.

"It's no exaggeration, he was definitely one of the nicest guys in the start house," said Steve Peters, a team official.

In 2004, eager to get on with his career and family life, Freeman moved into the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), a pool of trained soldiers not assigned to any unit, to serve out the rest of his eight-year mandatory obligation.

He was in California with a civilian job, a 1-year-old son named Gunnar and another baby on the way in the fall of 2005 when a shortage of officers prompted a large call-up by the IRR of West Point graduates from the classes of 1998 and later -- many of whom had only a few months of service left.

"He was an augmentee, who happened to be called up to fill a slot," said Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Edmond, a full-time staff member at the 412th Civil Affairs Battalion in Whitehall, Ohio, which Freeman was called to join. "It's almost to fill a void," he said, commenting on the Army's deepening manpower shortage, especially in the reserve, which requires it to cobble together units with people from across the country.

Charlotte Freeman, Freeman's wife, recalled her husband's shock upon receiving an Army telegram ordering him back to active duty. "He walked into the house and was totally white," she said yesterday. "He had moved on" from the Army.

"For my sake, he tried to get out" of the deployment, she said. But she knew he felt torn. "A part of him felt very guilty, because he had never gone to Iraq. He had dodged that bullet," she said.

Concerned about leaving his wife while she was pregnant, Freeman was able to obtain a three-month deferral and spend time with their newborn daughter, Ingrid. Just after Christmas in 2005, he grew so concerned about his pending deployment -- and his lack of qualifications to be a civil affairs officer -- that he anxiously contacted a reporter for The Washington Post.

Maj. Tony Nichols, who commanded a tank company that Freeman served in during his active duty, said Freeman "would have gone with a tank crew . . . in a heartbeat" but felt uneasy going with an unfamiliar civil affairs team.

Once in Iraq, Freeman was dismayed to find that his training "had no relation to what they were actually doing," Charlotte Freeman said. "He was appalled," enduring danger but seeing no clear mission, she said. Moreover, he believed that the Iraqis "didn't want us there."

Still, he did his best, working with the governor of Karbala to try to improve security and touching individual lives, such as helping an Iraqi boy who needed heart surgery and obtaining death benefits for an Iraqi interpreter's family. "He truly wanted to make a difference," Charlotte said.

Late last year, Freeman approached the senators at Landing Zone Washington, in Baghdad's Green Zone, "almost out of the shadows," Dodd recalled.

Even though he felt nervous, he told his wife later, he delivered his message with urgency. Soldiers were being deployed to do missions that they were utterly untrained to do; Freeman, for example, an armor officer, had been sent to help foster democracy and rebuild an Iraqi civil society. State Department personnel who could do those jobs were restricted in their travel off military bases by regional security officers who said it was unsafe for them to venture out.

"Senator, it's nuts over here," Dodd quoted Freeman as saying.

Calling him "ridiculously" bright, Nichols said Freeman did not oppose the war but "wanted it to be done better and smarter."

After Dodd mentioned an unnamed Army captain's concerns on NBC's "Meet The Press," Freeman e-mailed him to bring up another concern: the mistreatment of Iraqi interpreters by military contractors.

The connection between Dodd and Freeman went beyond a chance encounter and an exchange of e-mails. On Jan. 20, the day of Freeman's death, his wife was visiting his mother in Utah when a neighbor called to say that a military vehicle had stopped by the Freeman home. Frantic for news, Charlotte Freeman contacted Dodd's staff. The senator's aides learned of Brian Freeman's fate from the Defense Department and helped get military officials dispatched to his wife.

Kerry took the news personally, aides said. In Freeman, he saw something of himself -- a promising young officer, articulate and politically minded. But Kerry made it back from Vietnam.

"All that loss, for what?" Dodd asked.

It was not just Freeman's death that deeply troubled and provoked the two senators, but the way he died, in an apparent betrayal by Iraqi allies. In the days after Freeman's death, Dodd drafted legislation to cap the number of troops in Iraq. Last week in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry backed Dodd in a failed effort to attach the legislative cap to the nonbinding resolution of opposition.

And both men are demanding that the Senate push the confrontation with Bush further. Kerry has resurrected his call for legislation setting a date certain for the withdrawal of troops.

"The notion of sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, what the hell does that mean?" Dodd asked yesterday. "Is that all you got?"

Read More...

Judith Miller and the Bloodbath in Iraq

Huffington Post
Joseph A. Palermo
Judith Miller and the Bloodbath in Iraq

W. Bush, New York, Syria, Scooter Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Baghdad

When Judith Miller appears on our TV screens milking her latest fifteen minutes of fame because she's a star witness in the Scooter Libby trial, we should be reminded that she, perhaps more than any other member of the press, greased the propaganda wheels in the lead up to the Iraq invasion.

In their infamous September 8, 2002, above the fold, front-page story in the New York Times, "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts" -- the same story that Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney cited in their appearances that Sunday morning on the political talk shows, the reporters Judith Miller and Michael Gordon offered the following tidbits:

"Senior administration officials insist that the dimensions, specifications, and numbers of the tubes Iraq sought to buy show that they were intended for the nuclear program."

"Although administration officials say they have no proof that Baghdad possesses the smallpox virus, intelligence sources say they cannot rule that out."

"Still, Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war."

And who could ever forget the coup de grace?

"The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud."

Judith Miller went on to write several more propaganda pieces for the Bush Administration doing everything in her "journalistic" power to sell her fellow citizens on the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMDs, and the need for the United States to strike preemptively against the regime. She teamed up again with Gordon, who has become a darling on the television news circuit, to write the September 13, 2002 piece, "White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons," which only expanded on their earlier falsehoods. Several members of Congress mentioned the story of the nuclear threat as a reason for voting to authorize the war.

On April 21, 2003, Judith Miller, now working as an embedded reporter with the U.S. military's MET Alpha, wrote the story, "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert." In this piece of propaganda, Miller claims without evidence or proof that the Iraqis destroyed or shipped to Syria their vast stockpiles of WMDs. Miller's anonymous source was a guy claiming to be an "Iraqi scientist," and she tells her readers that she "was permitted to see him from a distance at the sites where he said that material from the arms program was buried. Clad in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap, he pointed to several spots in the sand where he said chemical precursors and other weapons material were buried."

This "Iraqi scientist," who turned out to be bogus, allowed Miller to appear on PBS's Newshour with Jim Lehrer and have the following exchange:

Q. Has the unit you've been traveling with found any proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

A. Judith Miller: Well, I think they found something more than a smoking gun. What they've found . . . is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist, as we've called him, who really worked on the programs, who knows them first hand.

Q. Does this confirm in a way the insistence coming from the U.S. government that after the war, various Iraqi tongues would loosen, and there might be people who would be willing to help?

A. Judith Miller: Yes, it clearly does. . . . That's what the Bush administration has finally done. They have changed the political environment, and they've enabled people like the scientists that MET Alpha has found to come forth.

But Miller kept on shilling for the Neo-Cons long after her role as an apparatchik in the Bush Administration's Propaganda Ministry had been exposed. On September 16, 2003, the New York Times ran yet another Miller story with the headline: "Senior U.S. Official To Level Weapons Charges Against Syria." The scoop was handed to her to create a buzz for the testimony to Congress the following day. The "senior official" was none other than the bellicose Neo-Con, John R. Bolton, who was then the undersecretary of state for arms control. Miller wrote that the leaked testimony came to her from "individuals who feel that the accusations against Syria have received insufficient attention." At a time when the Neo-Cons were riding high and hunting for fresh game, Miller offered her stenography services to them so they could vent their warmongering against Syria.

Judith Miller should be held accountable for serving as the chief stenographer for George W. Bush's lies that have produced the horror in Iraq. As the occupying power, the United States is responsible under international law for the civilian deaths and suffering in Iraq. Judith Miller shares this responsibility for the bloodbath in Iraq. At a critical time, Miller was in a unique position of influence in America because of her high perch at the nation's "paper of record," her perfectly timed repetition of official lies, and because it was her articles to which Bush, Cheney, and Rice pointed to give their own lies the credibility they needed to reverberate convincingly throughout our political discourse.




Read More...

Jeralyn Merritt

Huffington Post
Jeralyn Merritt
Judy Miller's Note-Triggered Memories

What an afternoon at the Scooter Libby trial. This is what I came to Washington for -- that sense of being right in the middle of the action, totally engrossed in the moment, never once looking at my watch, and when 5:00 came, wishing we didn't have to go home.

The day began slowly enough, with David Addington still on the stand and Libby lawyer Ted Wells questioning him about documents for almost two hours.
Enough about that.

The main attraction was journalist and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller. She looked stunning, very pretty and impeccably groomed. The reporters in the courtroom all turned to watch her stride into the courtroom, chin up. Her lawyer, Washington powerhouse Bob Bennett, took a seat behind the Government's table. She was calm as she took the stand.

Fitzgerald did a crisp and clean direct examination, taking only 40 minutes to go through her career, how she hooked up with Libby, their meetings, her legal fight over being subpoenaed, her 85 days in jail, and her two subsequent grand jury appearances. Judy and Fitz were like a well-oiled machine. Unlike Ari who played to the jury, Judy directed her answers to Fitz, occasionally turning to the jury to explain a term, but then returning her attention to Fitz. The jury hung on to every word.

For the whole story, read Marcy Wheeler's great live-blogging. Shorter version: She met with an agitated, frustrated Scooter Libby on June 23, 2003. Libby complained to her about Joseph Wilson, whom he called "that clandestine guy," and Wilson's attack on the Administration's WMD claims, which he called "an irrelevant ruse." During this off-the-record meeting, Libby told her Wilson's wife worked in "the Bureau" which at first she interpreted as being the F.B.I., but then figured out he meant the C.I.A. and its non-proliferation division.

They met again on July 8, spending two hours in the dining room of the St. Regis hotel. Libby again was agitated. They had a wide-ranging discussion on the intelligence leading up to the war, and Libby asked her to not to mention him, but to attribute his statements to a former Hill staffer. He told her Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA's WINPAC, the unit focused on WMD's.

She spoke to Libby twice on the phone on July 12. He didn't tell her where he got the information about Valerie Wilson and they had no discussions about whether her status was covert. Fitz then took her through her legal fight to avoid testifying which she said was the result of her not having received a personal, voluntary waiver from Scooter. As soon as she did, and as soon as Fitz agreed to limit her questioning to the topic of Libby, Wilson and Plame, she agreed to testify. The day after leaving jail, she went before the grand jury and told them about the July 8 meeting and July 12 calls, but had forgotten the June 23 meeting. That night, she found notes of the June 23 meeting, had Bennett call Fitz, and returned to the grand jury to describe that meeting in detail, her memory having been refreshed by her notes.

Judy, you see, has a note-triggered memory. She can forget an event even happened, but upon finding notes that it did, she remembers not only the event itself but details beyond those contained in the notes. Until she found those notes, she had zero recollection of having met with Libby on June 23, let alone what he told her. Once she reviewed her notes, she regained her independent memory of the meeting, Scooter's demeanor and his disclosures about Joseph and Valerie Wilson.

Enter Libby lawyer Bill Jeffress. He's a little guy, but a dynamo. Focused, no nonsense, polite but firm and pressing. He challenged Judy again and again on her selective memory, eliciting answers like, "I don't remember what I remembered then" and "Counselor, I already said, I didn't remember it, I just didn't remember it." Yet, she's now sure Libby told her about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. It's not that she was repeating what was in her notes, she said, it's that her notes brought back her independent memory.

Jeffress, being a skilled lawyer, began to test her credibility on her note-triggered memories. And that's what brought the trial to a standstill. She told him that she had no memory of discussing Valerie Plame Wilson before her June 23 meeting with Libby. He introduces a paragraph from an affidavit she signed, in which she mentions other sources for information related to Wilson's July 6 New York Times op-ed. Jeffress wants to know whether she can remember who those sources were and if so, he's going to ask her to identify them. Sidebar after sidebar results.

This isn't about the First Amendment, it's about Libby's right to impeach Miller's credibility, Wells argues. Fitz says asking her about sources related to the op-ed as opposed only to sources of information about Valerie Plame Wilson and her employment is too broad and not relevant to the case. Bennett weighs in. They go back and forth, and I'm nodding my head in agreement with each of them as they argue opposite sides. The Judge leans toward Fitz's position but is clearly concerned about not wanting to infringe on Libby's 6th Amendment right to confront and impeach Miller.

Judy by this time is clearly frustrated and anxious. She's repeatedly sorting her bangs, blowing her nose and taking sips of water. Finally, the Judge says he's going to sleep on it and he'll have an answer in the morning.

It's going to be a long night for Judy Miller. In the end, I think the Judge will split the baby, telling Jeffress he can ask about her other sources for information about Joseph and Valerie Wilson, but not other sources for the broader topic of everything in Wilson's July 6 oped.

What's the best that can happen for Libby? That the jury will conclude Miller's memory is so unreliable and selective they can't trust any of it. The worst? That some of the jurors will recognize themselves in Judy's account of her note-triggered memory. I know I do.

Matthew Cooper will follow Judy Miller. He and his lawyer were at the courthouse, waiting in the wings today, relieved I think they had another day before facing what's sure to be a grueling grilling by Jeffress.

Read More...

Scientists charge White House pressure on warming

Reuters
Scientists charge White House pressure on warming
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. scientists were pressured to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of a former oil-industry lobbyist, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday.

"Our investigations found high-quality science struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

A survey by the group found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 incidents.

"Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.

Rick Piltz, a former U.S. government scientist who said he resigned in 2005 after pressure to soft-pedal findings on global warming, told the committee in prepared testimony that former White House official Phil Cooney took an active role in casting doubt on the consequences of global climate change.

Cooney, who was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, resigned in 2005 to work for oil giant ExxonMobil.

Documents on global climate change required Cooney's review and approval, Piltz said.

"His edits of program reports, which had been drafted and approved by career science program managers, had the cumulative effect of adding an enhanced sense of scientific uncertainty about global warming and minimizing its likely consequences," Piltz said.

Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who chairs the committee, complained that the White House has balked at supplying documents requested over six months to investigate these allegations.

"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," Waxman said. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."

Kristen Hellmer of the Council on Environmental Quality said the council had been cooperating with Congress. When asked about allegations of political interference in scientific documents, she said, "We do have in place a very transparent system in science reporting."

The hearing was one of two on Tuesday spotlighting global climate change; a Senate forum featured testimony from members including presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois among Democrats and Republican John McCain of Arizona.

President George W. Bush's position on global warming has evolved over his presidency, from open skepticism about the reality of the phenomenon to acknowledgment at a global summit last year that climate change is occurring and human activities speed it up.

In his State of the Union address on January 23, Bush called climate change "a serious challenge" that should be addressed by technology and greater use of alternative sources of energy. But he stopped short of calling for mandatory limits on U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed in part for global warming.

These discussions are part of the run-up to release of a major United Nations report on climate change, scheduled for Friday in Paris. Drafts of the report strengthened the case that humans are the principal cause of global warming after 1950.




Read More...

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Dictator-In-Chief

The New York Times
Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, “This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable.”

Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush.

Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public.

Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations.

The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention.

Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued.

The Office of Management and Budget already has an elaborate process for the review of proposed rules. But in recent years, many agencies have circumvented this process by issuing guidance documents, which explain how they will enforce federal laws and contractual requirements.

Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order “achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government.”

“Having lost control of Congress,” Mr. Strauss said, “the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.”

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said: “The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests.”

Business groups hailed the initiative.

“This is the most serious attempt by any chief executive to get control over the regulatory process, which spews out thousands of regulations a year,” said William L. Kovacs, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce. “Because of the executive order, regulations will be less onerous and more reasonable. Federal officials will have to pay more attention to the costs imposed on business, state and local governments, and society.”

Under the executive order, each federal agency must estimate “the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all its regulations” each year. Until now, agencies often tallied the costs and the benefits of major rules one by one, without measuring the cumulative effects.

Gary D. Bass, executive director of O.M.B. Watch, a liberal-leaning consumer group that monitors the Office of Management and Budget, criticized Mr. Bush’s order, saying, “It will result in more delay and more White House control over the day-to-day work of federal agencies.”

“By requiring agencies to show a ‘market failure,’ ” Dr. Bass said, “President Bush has created another hurdle for agencies to clear before they can issue rules protecting public health and safety.”

Wesley P. Warren, program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who worked at the White House for seven years under President Bill Clinton, said, “The executive order is a backdoor attempt to prevent E.P.A. from being able to enforce environmental safeguards that keep cancer-causing chemicals and other pollutants out of the air and water.”

Business groups have complained about the proliferation of guidance documents. David W. Beier, a senior vice president of Amgen, the biotechnology company, said Medicare officials had issued such documents “with little or no public input.”

Hugh M. O’Neill, a vice president of the pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis, said guidance documents sometimes undermined or negated the effects of formal regulations.

In theory, guidance documents do not have the force of law. But the White House said the documents needed closer scrutiny because they “can have coercive effects” and “can impose significant costs” on the public. Many guidance documents are made available to regulated industries but not to the public.

Paul R. Noe, who worked on regulatory policy at the White House from 2001 to 2006, said such aberrations would soon end. “In the past, guidance documents were often issued in the dark,” Mr. Noe said. “The executive order will ensure they are issued in the sunshine, with more opportunity for public comment.”

Under the new White House policy, any guidance document expected to have an economic effect of $100 million a year or more must be posted on the Internet, and agencies must invite public comment, except in emergencies in which the White House grants an exemption.

The White House told agencies that in writing guidance documents, they could not impose new legal obligations on anyone and could not use “mandatory language such as ‘shall,’ ‘must,’ ‘required’ or ‘requirement.’ ”

The executive order was issued as White House aides were preparing for a battle over the nomination of Susan E. Dudley to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.

President Bush first nominated Ms. Dudley last August. The nomination died in the Senate, under a barrage of criticism from environmental and consumer groups, which said she had been hostile to government regulation. Mr. Bush nominated her again on Jan. 9.

With Democrats in control, the Senate appears unlikely to confirm Ms. Dudley. But under the Constitution, the president could appoint her while the Senate is in recess, allowing her to serve through next year.

Some of Ms. Dudley’s views are reflected in the executive order. In a primer on regulation written in 2005, while she was at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University in Northern Virginia, Ms. Dudley said that government regulation was generally not warranted “in the absence of a significant market failure.”

She did not return calls seeking comment on Monday.





Read More...

Tony Snow: "I Don't Think [Bush] Really Thought A Lot About" Iraq Protest

Tony Snow: "I Don't Think [Bush] Really Thought A Lot About" Iraq Protest
White House

From The White House Press Briefing:

Q What did the President think of the march on Washington?

MR. SNOW: I don't think he really thought a lot about it.



Read entire transcript here.


Read More...

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...

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...

Monday, January 29, 2007

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...

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...

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...

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Who Asked You?

Read More...

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

Read More...

Stubborn

Read More...

Not Listening

Read More...

Some Have Even Gone To The Other Side

Read More...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...