Verdict may challenge Bush's case for tribunals

baltimoresun.com
Verdict may challenge Bush's case for tribunals
By Siobhan Gorman
Sun reporter

WASHINGTON

In winning the conviction of al-Qaida foot soldier Jose Padilla, the Bush administration might have paradoxically undercut a key tenet of the president's anti-terrorism strategy - that terrorists should be handled outside the regular court system.

The administration's ability to successfully prosecute an alleged terrorist in federal court will provide ammunition to those challenging the military tribunal system established by the administration, legal analysts said.

"What this demonstrates is that the administration's claim that the criminal justice system can't handle terrorists as criminals is a hoax," said Bruce Fein, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who has criticized President Bush's terrorism policies.

But administration officials said that every case is different and that the federal courts eventually proved to be the best option for Padilla, who was held as an enemy combatant for more than three years before being charged in federal court. That route would not necessarily be appropriate for other cases, they said.

The only remaining enemy combatant known to be held in the United States, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, is challenging his detention in a case before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the government is arguing he should be tried before a military tribunal.

Amid growing calls to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainees there have also launched several challenges, including a case arguing that they should be tried in federal court and not the tribunals. The Supreme Court plans to hear that case next term.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has argued that terrorism suspects should be treated as war combatants and that the U.S. government can hold them indefinitely without giving them access to a lawyer.

Opponents say that approach deprives the suspects of basic legal rights of due process and access to counsel.

Yesterday, they leapt on the guilty verdict as proof that terrorism suspects can be tried successfully in the federal courts and that the special legal systems Bush has created for them are unnecessary.

"This vindicates those who argue for federal court trials," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who tracks terrorism cases.

Winning the Padilla verdict, Fein said, might erode the government's case against al-Marri, who is being held at a navy brig in South Carolina.

Al-Marri was arrested in December 2001 while studying at a university in Peoria, Ill. He was initially held as a material witness in a terrorism investigation and later was charged with credit card fraud and lying to the FBI. But shortly before that case was to go to trial in 2003, Bush declared him an enemy combatant because he was believed to be a sleeper agent for al-Qaida.

In June, a 4th Circuit panel ruled that al-Marri, a Qatari national, should be either charged in the federal courts, held as a material witness in a grand jury investigation or released. The administration, which has maintained that al-Marri poses a grave security threat, asked the full 4th Circuit to hear the case, which many analysts expect will eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Fein said al-Marri could just as easily be prosecuted in federal court.

"What's this argument for holding him as an enemy combatant?" Fein said. The "flaw all along" with Bush's enemy combatant designations, he added, is that the president has not proved why it is necessary to hold alleged terrorists without charges.

Fein said the Padilla prosecution further illustrates the ability of the federal courts to convict someone on conspiracy charges before they ever commit a crime.

The outcome of Padilla's case will have a similar impact on the other cases challenging the administration's beleaguered military tribunals, established primarily to try detainees in Guantanamo Bay, legal analysts said.

"It helps the Guantanamo debate by way of showing that we can go to federal court with these cases, except maybe the most extreme ones," Tobias said, adding that he could not think of a case pending at Guantanamo that would qualify as too extreme to try in federal court.

At a briefing yesterday, acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford said that prosecuting terrorism suspects in the federal courts works only in certain cases.

"You have to look on a case-by-case basis, and you have to look at the unique circumstances of each case to figure out whether it will work," he said. "These particular charges [against Padilla] did work in a regular trial."

In cases that involve classified information, the federal courts are not appropriate, he said.

But the verdict might show that it is appropriate to try American citizens in federal courts rather than holding them indefinitely as enemy combatants or putting them before military tribunals, said David B. Rivkin, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan and elder Bush administrations and a frequent ally of the administration.

"It suggests that if you have an American defendant with conduct that took place at least partially on American soil, of course, it would work," Rivkin said. "But this is a very tiny percentage of the cases."

He added that he did not believe the Padilla verdict would undermine the administration's efforts to designate enemy combatants and try them in military tribunals.

One of the most controversial elements of Padilla's case was Bush's assertion of authority to declare a U.S. citizen arrested on American soil an enemy combatant and hold him indefinitely without access to a lawyer.

"The most troubling aspect of this case is we may never have a final ruling on his denial of his rights as a citizen," said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who is representing two terrorism suspects.

Padilla's challenge of his designation as an enemy combatant was about to go before the Supreme Court when the Justice Department announced in November 2005 that it had indicted him on terrorism conspiracy charges, and he was then transferred to a federal detention center in Miami.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Untold Story of the Cheney 'Quagmire' Video

washingtonpost.com
The Untold Story of the Cheney 'Quagmire' Video

When the C-SPAN producer toiling in obscurity last month reached for the tape, he had no clue how juicy a nugget he had unearthed. The tape was labeled simply, "Life and Career of Dick Cheney"; dated April 15, 1994.

When he found it in the archives, the producer was just looking for something mildly interesting to help fill the 12-hour Cheney marathon planned by C-SPAN 3. The "Life and Career of Dick Cheney," produced for C-SPAN's "American Profile" series, seemed like a good bet for the marathon; after all, those interviews were personality-based and less wonky, letting viewers get a real feel for Dick and his wife/political partner, Lynne.

But instead of love and marriage, the "Life and Career" tape offered up a much younger looking Cheney saying that a U.S. invasion to capture Baghdad and topple Saddam Hussein would be, well, a quagmire.

At the time of the interview 13 years ago, Cheney was the ex-defense secretary, camped out at the American Enterprise Institute and contemplating a run for president. Asked why he didn't think U.S. forces should have gone on to Baghdad during the first Persian Gulf War, he asked rhetorically, "How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?" He added, "It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."

The now famous "quagmire" tape, which has gotten over half a million views on YouTube, may well have remained buried in the archives for another decade (and doesn't Cheney wish it had!) if it hadn't been for that one C-SPAN producer, an affable young Irishman named Emmanuel Touhey.

Touhey didn't have time to review the entire hour-long tape before airing it, so he had no idea he was about to spark a firestorm on the Internet. And, at first, no one seemed to notice.

The Cheney tape re-aired for the first time since 1994 on July 11, 2007. But it wasn't until C-SPAN aired the interview again on August 9 (on the same channel, at the same time) that the blogosphere noticed.

As far as we know, the Cheney remarks on Iraq were first noticed by the site Grand Theft Country. When it quickly became an Internet phenomenon, Touhey was surprised. He said people have been calling C-SPAN over the past week asking when the network plans to air the Cheney segment again. (It doesn't, for the record.)

"I was quietly pleased with myself that I'd found a gem, however by accident," said Touhey, who, after nine years with C-SPAN is leaving next week to become a producer for The Diane Rehm Show. "I'm gleeful just from the perspective that it's getting a lot of attention. Any time C-SPAN 3 gets a lot of attention, I'm happy."

Asked what changed the vice president's mind about invading Iraq between 1994 and 2003, Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said she was not authorized to comment.

She did, however, direct us to an interview that ABC News conducted with Cheney in February of this year in which Cheney was asked how his views had changed from 1991, when he also spoke of military action in Iraq as a "quagmire."

"Well, I stand by what I said in '91," Cheney told ABC. "But look what's happened since then -- we had 9/11."

Now, about that faceless voice in the Cheney "quagmire" video -- it belongs to Bruce Collins, the corporate vice president and general counsel of C-SPAN who held the same title when he interviewed the former defense secretary and future vice president way back in 1994.

Collins shared with us a funny anecdote about that interview.

When he showed up at Cheney's office, he said the future Veep asked, "How much time do you need -- one, two minutes?" Collins explained it was an hour-long interview.

Cheney grumbled that he hadn't planned on that much time. Collins said the interview was for C-SPAN's "American Profile" series, which would give the audience a chance to learn more about Dick Cheney the man, where he comes from, how he thinks, how he lives.

"You mean, touchy feely?" Cheney replied, according to Collins.

"This is an opportunity to go beyond policy," Collins recalled saying.

To which Cheney growled, "Well, you know I'm a policy kinda guy."

And there you have it: Dick Cheney is not a touchy-feely kinda guy.

Watch the video below:

Posted by Mary Ann Akers | Permalink | Comments: (72)
Other Blogs' Comments: Technorati talk bubble Technorati
Posted at 9:28 AM ET, 08/15/2007
Rove Finds Himself in PETA's Crosshairs

As if he hasn't taken enough heat for what he did in the White House, Karl Rove is coming under fresh attack for what he plans to do after he leaves on August 31. Specifically, his Labor Day weekend plan to go dove hunting down in Texas, which The Sleuth disclosed earlier this week.

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was so outraged to learn about Rove's hunting excursion that it faxed a letter to the White House late Wednesday.

"Dear Mr. Rove," began the letter from President Ingrid E. Newkirk. "From your frequent hunting trips to your bizarre little rap at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner ("I like to go home, get a drink, and tear the tops off of small animals"), it is clear that you lack the ability to empathize with other living beings. You consistently prove that you care less about animal welfare than Alberto Gonzales cares about habeas corpus."

And if that isn't enough to make you think Ingrid needs to spend some time in anger management, wait 'til you hear the rest.

Newkirk notes that the first thing Rove plans to do upon leaving the White House at the end of his month is "go dove hunting, i.e., kill little birds who are the international symbol of peace. You will leave politics to spend more time with your family only to destroy the families of other species."

Her last line could well set off alarm bells at the Secret Service: "I have just one suggestion: Please take Dick Cheney along on your hunting trips."

No response yet from the White House. But if we get (non-Photoshopped) photos of Rove cuddling with his dogs, you'll be first to see them.

UPDATE Sorry, folks, no photos of Rove hugging puppies, bunnies or anything else that might disabuse PETA of the notion that he hates God's most vulnerable furry and feathered creatures. Instead, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino responded by taking a shot at both the animal-rights group and Democrats.

"Will PETA issue the same press release when the Democratic presidential candidates go out hunting in the next year to get their obligatory 'I'm a hunter too!' pictures taken? Just hope they know how to hold a gun properly -- it's a bummer for a candidate if a mistake is made for all the voters to see."


:

Posted by Mary Ann Akers | Permalink | Comments (113)
Other Blogs' Comments: Technorati talk bubble Technorati
Posted at 6:11 PM ET, 08/14/2007
Elizabeth Edwards: Obama Is a Copycat

Aspiring first lady Elizabeth Edwards is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of lifting her husband's best lines, in particular, the phrase "audacity of hope."

In an interview with the Progressive magazine, Edwards says:

"You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John's 2004 language, which is maybe not surprising since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John's mantra as well as anybody could know it. They've moved from 'hope is on the way' to 'the audacity of hope.' I'm constantly hearing things in a familiar tone."

Audacity of hope ... It does have a nice ring. Does Edwards have the trademark on it to prove Obama is ripping him off?

Not if you ask the Obama camp, which had no formal response to Mrs. Edwards's comment but pointed out Obama's history with the phrase.

The junior senator from Illinois referenced "audacity of hope" in his 1995 memoir "Dreams From My Father." The line, they said, was taken from a sermon preached by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright titled "The Audacity to Hope."

Furthermore, as recounted in a Christian Science Monitor article last month, "Wright impressed Obama, and by 1988 the younger man found himself in the pews, listening to parishioners clap and cry out as Wright spoke of 'the audacity of hope."

As the Chicago Tribune wrote in January, Obama based his 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention on Wright's "Audacity to Hope" sermon.

One Democratic operative out there on the campaign trail, who requested and was granted anonymity, insisted, "There's definitely a trend of Edwards leading and Obama following -- both rhetorically and on the substance."

Among the examples the Democrat cited was the much talked about moment at the Yearly Kos convention on August 4 when Edwards called on all the candidates in the Democratic field to "not take a dime" from lobbyists. That prompted Sen. Hillary Rodham to say "a lot" of lobbyists represent "real people."

Edwards, moments later, asked for a show of hands from audience members who have a Washington lobbyist working for them. As you might imagine, only a tiny smattering of hands went up.

So how does Obama play into this? The very next day Obama asked an audience in Nevada, "How many people here have a federal lobbyist?"

Asked whether John Edwards shares his wife's sentiment that Obama is a copycat, Edwards campaign spokesman Eric Schultz offered, "We've clearly been leading on the issues, and others are following. You've see that on health care, on energy, on closing unfair tax loopholes, and using funding authority to get our troops home from Iraq. John Edwards is shaping the Democratic agenda by proposing bold solutions and being honest about how to achieve them."

Posted by Mary Ann Akers | Permalink | Comments (40)
Other Blogs' Comments: Technorati talk bubble Technorati
Posted at 9:00 PM ET, 08/13/2007
Random Rummy August Sighting

Starting a war must really wear a guy down.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was spotted today having lunch at Morton's on Connecticut Ave. What was remarkable was not what he ordered, or with whom he dined, or how quintessentially condescending he may have been to the waiter.

No, what was remarkable was how, according to our (Republican) source, Rumsfeld's handlers had to help him onto the escalator and "held his elbow" and opened doors for him. "He looked old," our tipster said.

Hard to imagine that Rummy, 75, the tough guy with so much energy that he preferred standing while working rather than sitting on his duff all day, could suddenly need help getting on an escalator. But maybe this is a classic case of "this is now, that was then" (or vice versa).

At least Rumsfeld was tough enough to brave 90-plus degree Washington weather. He sat outside on the patio of Morton's, which is on the second story of the Washington Square Building and overlooks Connecticut Ave.

And to Rummy, it must have been an earthly delight, because his guest -- whose identity no one seemed to know -- was overheard saying when he arrived that he was meeting Rumsfeld in "the garden."

Posted by Mary Ann Akers | Permalink | Comments (19)
Other Blogs' Comments: Technorati talk bubble Technorati
Posted at 3:46 PM ET, 08/13/2007
Rove Resignation: It Was the Coffee!

The owner of theTwin Lakes Nordic Lodge in Twin Lakes, Colo., just sent us this photograph of the billboard outside his inn on the side of Highway 82.

Rove stopped for coffee last month in Colorado. He announced his resignation a few weeks later. There MUST be a connection, right? (Courtesy Charlie Gandy)

Innkeeper Charlie Gandy is playfully taking credit for Karl Rove's resignation. He's certain: It was his coffee that did it.

You see, it was there, at the Nordic Lodge, where Rove gave the first hint he'd be leaving the White House and writing a book. Rove stopped for a coffee and restroom break at the lodge last month on his way to Aspen to give a talk at the Aspen Institute.

He sure packed a lot into a 15-minute visit. Besides using the loo and drinking a little java, Rove talked to Gandy about his plans to write books after leaving the White House. (The White House confirmed Rove's intent to try "his hand at writing" nonfiction, which the Sleuth reported in this July 24th posting.) Also during that 15-minute interval, another visitor standing in the lobby of the lodge threatened to beat the daylights out of Rove -- a threat that never came to pass.

So Rove should have no problems handling his shotgun when he goes dove hunting Labor Day weekend, which will be his first vacation as a "civilian" upon leaving the White House on August 31st.

Posted by Mary Ann Akers | Permalink | Comments (10)
Other Blogs' Comments: Technorati talk bubble Technorati
Posted at 11:01 AM ET, 08/13/2007
A Hunting Rove Will Go

The first thing Karl Rove plans to do when he leaves the White House at the end of this month is go dove hunting in West Texas, The Sleuth has learned.

"He loves to go hunting," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says. (No word on whether the gunslinging vice president will be joining him.)

After a weekend of dove hunting, according to Perino, Rove will return to Washington to fetch his wife. The two of them, along with their dogs, will then drive down to the Emerald Coast in the Florida Panhandle where they have a home.

Rove, the man formerly known as Bush's Brain, is resigning from the White House at the end of this month and moving back to Texas, where he plans to write a book about President Bush's years in office.

Oddly, The Sleuth learned of Rove's book-writing plans last month from a guy who runs a lodge in the middle of Nowhere, Colo.

In an odd coincidence, The Sleuth wound up stopping at a lodge in tiny Twin Lakes, Colo., which Rove had visited just a week and-a-half prior. We learned from the lodge owner, a former Democratic Texas state legislator whose demise Rove helped orchestrate, that Rove said he planned to write books after leaving the White House and that he still had "legal bills to pay."

Soon after that encounter, the White House confirmed to us that Rove did, indeed, plan to try his hand at nonfiction, though a spokeswoman said Rove was "all good on his legal bills." Rove again stressed that point in today's published interview with the Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot, saying of his legal bills, "every one has been paid."

As we reported on July 24, Rove, even after another visitor to the Twin Lakes Nordic Lodge threatened to kick Rove's you-know-what, wrote a thank-you note on White House stationery to innkeeper Charlie Gandy in which he said, "Nice to know there's life after politics."

Posted by Mary Ann Akers | Permalink | Comments (28)
Other Blogs' Comments: Technorati talk bubble Technorati
Posted at 10:58 AM ET, 08/10/2007
Do Tell: Rep. Steve Cohen on Acting, Warren Zevon and Impeaching the Attorney General

Meet freshman Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a fun-loving hipster in an aging man's body, a liberal Jew from a mostly black district (which is why he's at risk of being a one-termer), a lover of music and a Hollywood extra.

A baseball fan, Cohen, 58, talks about coming "to the majors," sitting on the House Judiciary Committee and getting the mouth-watering thrill of power from making the attorney general of the United States squirm. Cohen drops the "I" word and even suggests that, beyond impeachment, some of the harsher forms of interrogation under the Bush administration's extraordinary rendition program might be acceptable forms of punishment for Alberto Gonzales.

Less empowering is his office dog, a mixed breed pup who exacts her own form of torture on the congressman by leaving little piles on his office carpet. (He named the dog Jackie O in honor of the late former first lady and wife of his political hero, John F. Kennedy. A photo of JFK on the back of a convertible in Memphis, which Cohen took himself as a small boy, hangs on the congressman's wall.)

Cohen also discusses his close friendship with the late rock 'n roll icon Warren Zevon, how he wound up playing an obscure role in the 1993 film "The Firm," and how in the waning, contentious hours before Congress adjourned for its August recess he accidentally helped form a "Jewish section" in the House chamber, which Cohen - as he's prone to do with large spaces - imagines as a baseball stadium.


Sleuth: You have the distinction of being the first Jewish congressman from Tennessee, right?

Cohen: Yes, I am the first Jewish congressman from Tennessee. There are stories about Davy Crockett, but they're not verified. In the autopsy they thought maybe he was Jewish. Could have been an Indian thing.


Sleuth: But you're the real deal?

Cohen: I'm the real deal.


Sleuth: What's been your oddest moment so far in Congress?

Cohen: I think the other day when the [voting] machine broke down was pretty odd...and the Republicans were behaving rather inappropriate and Romper Roomish. And it reminded me of my buddy [Warren] Zevon's song, 'Disorder in the House.' And I was kind of thinking about it, you know: 'Disorder in the House. I was in the House when the House burned down. Home of the brave, land of the free, where the less you know the better off you'll be."


Sleuth: Tell me about your relationship with Warren Zevon.

Cohen: Warren and I became friends in 1993. He was in town for a concert, I went back and met him. We just hit it off. We became, over a little bit of time, the best of friends. There was Carl Hiaasen and other people. And I think several of us he told we were like the only brother he ever had. 'You're like my brother.' I discovered at the memorial service he also said that to Jorge Calderon and probably other people.

Sleuth: Are you a musician, was that part of your relationship?

Cohen: I play the iPod. But I love music. As a kid - I'm from Memphis - I did Elvis Presley in our spring festival. I did 'Don't Be Cruel.' I still cry at 'Love Me Tender.'


Sleuth: Did you hang out on Beale Street a lot?

Cohen: Beale Street's still pretty cool. Whenever B.B. [King]'s in town, I see BB. I saw Albert King whenever he came to town. In fact I represented Albert King. He was charged with gambling in a dice game. So I got this picture of me and Albert holding his booking number. I got him off the dice charge. So he died with a clean record as far as that charge went.


Sleuth: Tell me how you wound up in the Firm as an extra, and I think you were in another movie as well, weren't you?

Cohen: Well, John Grisham is from nearby. So...a lot of his movies...are set in Memphis....The head of the music commission lives down the street from me. She asked me if I wanted to come be an extra, I said sure, sure.

They had this massive buffet. And I'm not good at buffets, I absorb as much as I can, a heritage trait. They had these 16-ounce strips, gigantic potato, salad, asparagus and all that stuff. And I was stuffed. And at the next scene...they put this food in front of us, chicken salad. [I said], we can't eat all this. I was stuffed! I said, here's what we'll do. I will pass you the salt and pepper, you will salt and pepper your chicken salad and I'll salt and pepper mine. Then I will pass you the Tabasco sauce, nobody knows what we're eating. And then I will pass you the rolls and then we'll toast. Anything we can do but eat. So we did all this stuff and it turned out in the movie scene, we were on with me toasting my friend. And because of that, it was a pretty obvious spot of us in the background. And everybody who saw the movie recognized me. It was kind of a special scene for an extra.

Fred Thompson - he was like a regular actor, I was an extra. He was a United States senator, I was a state senator. Fred did big-time Supreme Court law, I did street law for Albert King, dice games, you know. So I always told Fred I was a junior Fred. Different parties, different philosophies, but whatever.


Sleuth: What about cultural clashes? You've got 435 people in there from all over the place, any memorable cultural clash that you've had so far with anybody?

Cohen: It wouldn't be a clash but the other night there was a very funny thing. The African-American members generally sit in the lower box seats so to speak, to the right of the rostrum. And the Hispanics generally sit in the upper deck, in kind of right center field, if you take it from home plate being the rostrum. And the Blue Dogs kind of get in center field. And the Jewish members have never sat together - intentionally. And the other night, I went and sat down, I tried to find a seat near a voting box. And Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) comes and sits next to me. And [John] Yarmuth (D-KY), who's my buddy, who's Jewish, sits next to him. And the next thing we know, Steve Kagen (D-Wisc.) came in...and then the next thing we look and there's Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) and there's Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and there's Steve Israel (D.N.Y.). And Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) and Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fla.) came by and I told her she couldn't sit with us because we were being Orthodox, she had to stay in the back row.

It was like the Jewish section. It was the first time we'd had that. And we had some laughs...That was just kind of a Cohenincidence.


Sleuth: So maybe this will start a tradition, you all will sit together from now on?

Cohen: I think it will be when God decides that we should, and it'll probably mostly be on Friday nights.


Sleuth: What's your favorite Zevon song? Do you have one?

Cohen: 'Sick' or...He called it 'Sick' - I thought it should have been called 'Friends' but Warren was noir, I was like, you know, not so noir. 'Keep Me In Your Heart' is a very touching song. There are several of his girlfriends thought that song was for them. Just like 'you're my brother.'


Sleuth: Sitting on Judiciary with the whole Gonzo controversy, that's gotta be....

Cohen: It's sadly funny. Because I'm working on articles of impeachment right now. [Gonzales] didn't remember anything. So I got to ask him, 'How do you know the president and the vice president didn't do that?' And he just stumbled and stammered. And I thought, this is pretty cool to watch the attorney general of the United States stumble and stammer.


Sleuth: So you think Gonzales should be impeached?

Cohen: I think he should be impeached. He has disgraced his office, he has disgraced his country, he has spoiled the Constitution. Going against hundreds of years of American tradition of fair play and due process... merits at minimum impeachment, at worst flogging.


Sleuth: Who are you going to support for president in the '08 campaign?

Cohen: Whoever gets the Democratic nomination for sure...I suspect it will be either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Sleuth: And would you rather see Hillary or Obama?

Cohen: I would not take a position on that at the present time. I have great respect for both these individuals. I think they're both very talented. I think Barack - I'm just amazed when I see him, how talented he is. But Hillary Clinton...I've got great respect for her experience. And I like Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton's my friend. So I'm torn.


Sleuth: Tell me about your dog.

Cohen: We've got an office dog. Harry Truman - I've got his picture up in my bathroom - said if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. We got an office dog that we adopted from a rescue agency. And the dog is named Jackie O. She's part poodle and part something else, I don't know, Schnauzer. Little dog. She basically lays around. She started to bark, but everybody loves her. And she kind of has the run of the place and likes to chew on people's shoes. And on the desk. And likes to poop in my office.
Play Video
VIDEO | Do Tell: Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tn.)


Posted by Mary Ann Akers | Permalink | Comments (8)
Other Blogs' Comments: Technorati talk bubble Technorati
Posted at 5:22 PM ET, 08/ 9/2007
Rep. Kuhl: Just Joking About Packing Heat

You can imagine how startled we were to read that Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-N.Y.) is considering arming himself in the wake of war protests at his district offices.

According to an editorial published Wednesday in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Kuhl - a man alleged to have once pulled two shotguns on his then wife at a 1994 dinner party - "has thought of arming himself, given the perception -- not accurate, he said -- that he is an inflexible supporter of President Bush's approach to the Iraq war."

The editorial board's blog quoted Kuhl as saying he has "thought about packing" in light of the perceived security threat to himself and his offices.

The paper's editorial admonished Kuhl, saying "any step along security lines may have a chilling effect on communication between constituents and a public official." Hinting that those who may disagree with Kuhl's stance in support of the Iraq war might be too intimidated to speak out if their congressman is packing heat, the editorial said, "It's more important than ever that ordinary citizens believe they can interact with their elected representatives without impediment."

A spokeswoman for Kuhl confirmed that Iraq war protestors targeted the congressman's offices in Bath and Fairport, New York, on Monday of this week but that Kuhl wasn't working at either office that day.

And while she acknowledged that the protests have made her boss rethink security, she disputed that Kuhl is seriously considering arming himself. "That comment was taken way out of context," the spokeswoman, Meghan Tisinger, told the Sleuth.

She said when Congressman Kuhl told the Democrat and Chronicle editorial board that he had "thought about packing" - he was just joking. (Get a sense of humor, people!) "It was one of those sarcastic, offhanded comments," she said.

Plus, Tisinger explained, Kuhl was joking about arming himself in the context of increased security on Capitol Hill in light of the approaching anniversary of 9/11.

According to the Associated Press and other news reports, divorce papers unearthed before the 2004 election (with the help of Kuhl's Democratic opponent) reveal Kuhl was alleged to have taken "out two shotguns and threatened to shoot plaintiff" during a 1994 dinner party at their home.

For anyone unnerved by the thought of Kuhl packing heat when he returns from recess next month, you can probably relax. While he does have a license to carry a firearm the good news is that, according to his spokeswoman, he doesn't exercise that right when he's working.


Posted by Mary Ann Akers | Permalink | Comments (12)
Other Blogs' Comments: Technorati talk bubble Technorati
Posted at 11:44 AM ET, 08/ 9/2007
Third Party Enters Spat Between Reps. Jackson Jr. and Lee Terry

A House floor spat between Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) has officially gotten out of hand. The FBI is now investigating a third party's involvement in the spat, which most likely has nothing to do with Jackson or Terry.

A man claiming to be a relative of Jackson walked into Terry's Omaha office last Friday and said he was "Jesse Jackson's (Jr.) hitman," a spokeswoman for Terry tells the Sleuth. The spokeswoman, Kristin Durbin, says the unidentified man told the receptionist "that he'd like to beat up Congressman Terry."

"These were inappropriate comments and the office contacted the Capitol Police after the man left," she said, adding, "The incident was referred to the FBI."

The man was described as five feet nine inches tall, white and in his early 50's, according to a local Omaha TV station.

The bizarre incident came just days after Jackson - a black belt in martial arts - and Terry - not a black belt - nearly came to blows on the House floor in the incredibly contentious final hours before Congress adjourned for August recess. The two of them never did "take it outside" as Jackson had suggested, and both later accused the other of cursing and instigating the argument.

Terry's District Manager, Tory Lucas, tells Omaha's Action 3 News, "Apparently the gentleman read the article about Congressman Terry's incident with Congressman Jackson. He referenced that article and said he'd like to fight Congressman Terry. He said he'd like to hit him and said he's Congressman Jackson's hit-man."

The man did not pull a weapon and left the building after about 10 minutes.

Posted by Mary Ann Akers | Permalink | Comments (3)
Other Blogs' Comments: Technorati talk bubble Technorati
Posted at 10:55 PM ET, 08/ 8/2007
Partisan Divide Over Barry Bonds?

While President Bush and Barack Obama deftly dodged the issue of Barry Bonds, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her GOP counterpart, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), made no bones about the way they feel.

Pelosi and Boehner were equally as resolved in their opposite reactions to Bonds' record-breaking homer Tuesday night. Then again, what else was Pelosi supposed to say about her district's controversial home-run king?

She wasn't there in person at San Francisco's AT&T Park to see Bonds hit No. 756 in the fifth inning against the Washington Nationals, but here's what she said in a statement:

"Barry Bonds etched his name into baseball's history books and took his rightful place among the sport's immortals. It was a great night for baseball and a great night for San Francisco -- the crowd went wild. It was particularly exciting to see Willie Mays embrace him on the field and see Hank Aaron congratulate him on the Jumbotron. As a season ticket holder, I am particularly glad it happened on the Giants' Italian night."

Boehner, a Cincinnati Reds fan, was less than thrilled. Asked by radio show host Frank Beckmann of WJR in Detroit whether Barry Bonds should have an asterisk next to his name in the history books Boehner emphatically replied, "Absolutely, absolutely, I'm a big Hank Aaron fan. He did it the right way - he earned it."

UPDATE: Later on Wednesday, after raising questons about whether he would or wouldn't, President Bush finally placed a congratulatory call to Bonds. (Bush did, after all, call Phil Mickelson after he won the 2004 Masters.)

For the record, put Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the bobbing-and-weaving department. For a guy who was so outspoken on the need for drug testing standards a few years ago after the Bonds controversy erupted, he sure is being tight-lipped now. His campaign did not respond to requests seeking the GOP presidential candidate's reaction to Bonds.

Posted by Mary Ann Akers | Permalink | Comments (18)
Other Blogs' Comments: Technorati talk bubble Technorati
Posted at 5:35 PM ET, 08/ 6/2007
Thompson Camp Tight-Lipped About Wife Jeri

Fred Thompson's "testing the waters" campaign hasn't done itself any favors by being so evasive when it comes to questions about Mrs. Thompson.

Perhaps if the topic weren't so shrouded in mystery, Newsweek magazine wouldn't have created a mini firestorm with its story this week suggesting Jeri Kehn Thompson may have been married before - and possibly never divorced - since her name pops up in public records as Jeri Kehn Alvey, which is the last name of her ex-boyfriend.

"It's unclear exactly when she may have been married or when she may have gotten divorced," the magazine wrote. "When asked directly about it, the campaign would neither confirm nor deny a previous marriage."

Why the secrecy?

It certainly piqued the interest of other political reporters who wondered why the campaign wouldn't have simply said "No, she has never been married before" if, in fact, she had never been married before.

The Post, in an in-depth profile of Jeri Thompson in Sunday's paper, reported that the would-be first lady lived with a guy named Bernard "Chip" Alvey and, in court judgments against her, used Alvey's last name. The paper attributed Alvey as saying the couple had never married.

By mid-day Monday, a Thompson spokeswoman confirmed to the Washington Post's Alec MacGillis, who co-wrote the Thompson profile, that Fred Thompson is indeed Jeri's first husband. But the Thompson camp provided no comment whatsoever for the Post profile of Mrs. Thompson that ran on Sunday.

Today, Fred Thompson, in an exclusive interview with the National Review's Byron York, provided a hint as to why his operation is so secretive when it comes to Jeri. Thompson spun it this way:

"I think the problem is that Jeri refuses to go out in public and behave like a candidate's wife before I'm a candidate. The fact that she's not out there promoting herself seems to greatly concern some people in the media, so they have gone back to old boyfriends, the families of old boyfriends, high-school classmates, basically anything that can be dredged up to fill this void that they perceive has been created."

The 64-year-old former senator also defended his 40-year-old wife's heavy-handed role in his presidential exploratory effort, whose early staff shakeup was partly the result of tension between aides and Mrs. Thompson. The way Thompson tells it, his wife was just following orders.

He said while he was disengaging himself from his radio and television contracts at the same time that his exploratory committee was getting underway, "I asked her to do certain things for me. She did what I asked her to do."

Meanwhile, asked when Mrs. Thompson would be playing a less mysterious and more visible role on the campaign trail, Thompson spokeswoman Linda Rozett said, "Sorry, I don't have a comment today."

Asked if the campaign had an official policy against answering questions about Mrs. Thompson, Rozett replied: "No. But for today, you'll have to say we declined to comment."

Posted by Mary Ann Akers

Read More...

Summary only...

FBI Director's Notes Contradict Gonzales's Version Of Ashcroft Visit

washingtonpost.com
FBI Director's Notes Contradict Gonzales's Version Of Ashcroft Visit
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer

Then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was "feeble," "barely articulate" and "stressed" moments after a hospital room confrontation in March 2004 with Alberto R. Gonzales, who wanted Ashcroft to approve a warrantless wiretapping program over Justice Department objections, according to notes from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III that were released yesterday.

One of Mueller's entries in five pages of a daily log pertaining to the dispute also indicated that Ashcroft's deputy was so concerned about undue pressure by Gonzales and other White House aides for the attorney general to back the wiretapping program that the deputy asked Mueller to bar anyone other than relatives from later entering Ashcroft's hospital room.

Mueller's description of Ashcroft's physical condition that night contrasts with testimony last month from Gonzales, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" and "did most of the talking" during the brief visit. It also confirms an account of the episode by former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, who said Ashcroft told the two men he was not well enough to make decisions in the hospital.

"Saw AG," Mueller writes in his notes for 8:10 p.m. on March 10, 2004, only minutes after Gonzales and White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. had visited Ashcroft. "Janet Ashcroft in the room. AG in chair; is feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed."

The typewritten notes, heavily censored before being turned over to the House Judiciary Committee, provide further insight into a tumultuous but secret legal battle that gripped the Justice Department and the White House in March 2004, after Justice lawyers determined that parts of the warrantless wiretapping program run by the National Security Agency were illegal.

Although Mueller did not directly witness the exchange between Ashcroft, Gonzales and Card, his notes recounted Comey's personal statement that Ashcroft at the outset said that "he was in no condition to decide issues." Ashcroft also told the two men he supported his deputy's position on the secret program, Mueller said Comey told him.

Comey had precipitated the confrontation by informing the White House days earlier that the Justice Department would not approve the wiretapping program's continuation in its present form. Gonzales and Card then decided to see if they could get Ashcroft to sign a certification that it was legal.

After the meeting concluded without success, the Bush administration decided to proceed with the program anyway. But Comey, Mueller and half a dozen or so other Justice Department officials threatened to resign if it was not changed. The standoff was averted after President Bush agreed to make changes, Mueller and others have testified, but the changes have never been described.

In his notes, Mueller recounts Comey's statement that Ashcroft complained to Gonzales and Card at the hospital about being "barred" from obtaining "the advice he needed" about the NSA program because of "strict compartmentalization rules" set by the White House. Although Ashcroft, as attorney general, had been fully briefed about the program, many of his senior legal advisers were not allowed to know about it, officials said.

Gonzales was White House counsel at the time of the hospital visit and replaced Ashcroft as attorney general in 2005. "We never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent," Gonzales testified, adding later: "Mr. Ashcroft talked about the legal issues in a lucid form, as I've heard him talk about legal issues in the White House."

But Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Mueller's notes "confirm an attempt to goad a sick and heavily medicated Ashcroft to approve the warrantless surveillance program. Particularly disconcerting is the new revelation that the White House sought Mr. Ashcroft's authorization for the surveillance program, yet refused to let him seek the advice he needed on the program."

The White House and Justice officials declined to comment. Neither Ashcroft nor his former staffers have commented publicly on the episode.

Although the broad outlines of the hospital visit have been reported in media accounts dating to early 2006, the episode attracted fresh attention after Comey's Senate testimony in May. Comey described his rush to Ashcroft's bedside before the visit by Gonzales and Card, and said Ashcroft, who was under sedation after gallbladder surgery, was initially disoriented and "pretty bad off," though he did speak coherently to Gonzales and Card.

Mueller, who had been dining with his wife and daughter that evening, wrote that Comey told him Ashcroft had reviewed for Gonzales and Card "the legal concerns relating to the program." Throughout his notes, he makes consistent references to a single "program" as the object of the dispute. Gonzales, in congressional testimony that he later clarified, said the dispute was about "other intelligence activities," rather than the warrantless wiretapping effort that Bush described as his "Terrorist Surveillance Program."

The notes list a series of high-level meetings about the spying program before and after the hospital visit, including meetings with Card, Gonzales and Michael V. Hayden, then the NSA director. The notes confirm a previously disclosed meeting on March 12 between Mueller and Bush, but the page of text describing the meeting is almost entirely blacked out.

The records show that Mueller met with Vice President Cheney in connection with the dispute later in the month, on March 23. A paragraph describing that meeting is also censored.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked the Justice Department's inspector general yesterday to investigate whether Gonzales has misled lawmakers in those and other statements, including some related to last year's controversial firings of nine U.S. attorneys. Other Democrats have asked for a full perjury investigation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Defense Agency Proposes Outsourcing More Spying; Contracts Worth $1 Billion Would Set Record

washingtonpost.com
Defense Agency Proposes Outsourcing More Spying
Contracts Worth $1 Billion Would Set Record
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer

The Defense Intelligence Agency is preparing to pay private contractors up to $1 billion to conduct core intelligence tasks of analysis and collection over the next five years, an amount that would set a record in the outsourcing of such functions by the Pentagon's top spying agency.

The proposed contracts, outlined in a recent early notice of the DIA's plans, reflect a continuing expansion of the Defense Department's intelligence-related work and fit a well-established pattern of Bush administration transfers of government work to private contractors.

Since 2000, the value of federal contracts signed by all agencies each year has more than doubled to reach $412 billion, with the largest growth at the Defense Department, according to a congressional tally in June. Outsourcing particularly accelerated among intelligence agencies after the 2001 terrorist attacks caught many of them unprepared to meet new demands with their existing workforce.

The DIA did not specify exactly what it wants the contractors to do but said it is seeking teams to fulfill "operational and mission requirements" that include intelligence "Gathering and Collection, Analysis, Utilization, and Strategy and Support." It holds out the possibility that five or more contractors may be hired and promised more details on Aug. 27.

The DIA's action comes a few months after CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, acting under pressure from Congress, announced a program to cut the agency's hiring of outside contractors by at least 10 percent. The CIA's effort was partly provoked by managers' frustration that officials with security clearances were frequently resigning to earn higher pay with government contractors while performing the same work -- a phenomenon that led lawmakers to complain that intelligence contract work was wasting money.

"Mind-blowing," was the reaction of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, when she learned of the DIA proposal. In a telephone interview, she described it as "definitely something to be concerned about."

In its notice, published on a procurement Web site, the DIA said that "the total price of all work to be performed under the contract(s) will exceed $1 billion," adding that the tally "is only an estimate and there is no guarantee that any orders will be placed."

A DIA spokesman, Cmdr. Terrence Sutherland, said this week that "this is the first DIA contract of its type specifically intended for the procurement of intelligence analysis and related services." He said the primary purpose of the proposal is to ensure that adequate outside support is ready to assist the DIA, as well as Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force intelligence centers and the military's overseas command centers.

In May, Schakowsky and Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) sponsored an amendment to the 2008 intelligence bill that requires the Defense Department to compile a database of all its intelligence-related contracts. The aim, Schakowsky said, is to force a review "of what contractors are doing and, importantly, whether contractors are performing inherently governmental functions."

Some activities, she said, are so sensitive that "if and when they are done," it may not be appropriate for the government to "contract these activities out."

Price asked during the debate whether contractors should be involved in intelligence collection and analysis, interrogation, and covert operations, or whether those activities are so sensitive that "they should only be performed by highly trained intelligence community professionals."

In a statement Friday, Price questioned whether "a contract award of this scale is consistent with the DNI's commitment to reduce the alarming portion of the intelligence budget that goes to private contractors." (DNI refers to the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell.)

The DIA is the country's major manager and producer of foreign military intelligence, with more than 11,000 military and civilian employees worldwide and a budget of nearly $1 billion. It has its own analysts from the various services as well as collectors of human intelligence in the Defense HUMINT Service. DIA also manages the Defense attaches stationed in embassies all over the world.

Unlike the CIA, the DIA outsources the major analytical products known as all-source intelligence reports, a senior intelligence official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

A former senior Pentagon intelligence official said yesterday that the DIA is struggling to do "the in-depth intelligence work required under present circumstances" and that is why it is preparing to contract for outside help. He cited the military's efforts in Iraq to provide human intelligence sources to forces that rotate out after tours of a single year. "That is hardly enough time to develop serious, dependable Iraqi sources," he said.

The former official added that for years intelligence has not been a prime career path for officers who seek to reach the top positions in the Army, which favors infantry, armor and special forces as the specializations that lead to promotions.

The war in Iraq has required the hiring of outside contractors by the Pentagon to perform not just security jobs but also the collection of intelligence used for force protection. Earlier this year, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a former head of the U.S. Central Command who today advises defense contractors, said there is a legitimate role for private firms in security missions. But he warned that problems can arise "when they take on quasi-military roles," such as planning intelligence operations.

In its report in June on the fiscal 2008 intelligence authorization bill, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence noted that Congress had allowed full-time positions in the intelligence community to grow 20 percent since Sept. 11. But personnel caps forced the agencies to turn to contractors.

The committee questioned the additional costs involved in using contractors, citing an estimate that a government civilian employee costs on average $126,500 a year, while the annual cost of a core contractor, including overhead and benefits, is $250,000.

Many companies that provide contract workers to the CIA and Pentagon intelligence agencies are headed by former employees of those agencies. For example, Abraxas, which is run by a former CIA case officer, has hired -- and then contracted out to the government -- more than 100 former intelligence employees over the past six years.

The CIA imposed a rule that former personnel cannot perform work with a CIA contractor in the 18 months after they leave the agency.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kids May Get Health Insurance, But What About Their Parents?

ABC News
Kids May Get Health Insurance, But What About Their Parents?

Opportunity 08 is an ABC News project with the Brookings Institution to help presidential candidates and the public focus on critical issues facing the nation.

This week Opportunity 08 takes a closer look at the difficult decisions around social insurance that will face the next president.

Congress is debating options for reauthorizing and expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). But what about health insurance for adults?

Only 66 percent of private full-time workers now have employer-sponsored health insurance, down from 80 percent in 1989. Part of the reason is that insurance is expensive. Global competitive pressures are encouraging many firms to eliminate both pensions and health care for their employees and retirees. And that trend is compounded by a continuing increase in the cost of health care, as well as the number of Americans over 65. Both for private retiree health insurance and for government-run programs like Medicare, costs are increasing exponentially.

William Galston of the Brookings Institution says that Americans have become accustomed to a federal government that can fulfill its core responsibilities while commandeering no more than one-fifth of GDP. He describes a tough fork in the road, "Over the next generation, we will face an historic choice: We can have a federal government that plays a significantly smaller role in reducing insecurity and sharing risk through insurance programs, or we can have a government that consumes a significantly higher share of GDP."

Addressing the shortfall in the financial security of Americans must start with distinguishing more clearly between savings and insurance, he argues.

" Personal saving should be the social strategy for events that are likely to occur, such as spending a significant number of years in retirement. " Insurance should be reserved for relatively low probability, high negative-impact events, like unemployment, catastrophic illnesses or injuries, or the early death of a spouse.

A full version of this proposal, as well as supporting background material, is available at www.opportunity08.org.

About the Experts and the Project

William A. GalstonWilliam A. Galston, a senior fellow at Brookings, is an expert in domestic policy as well as political campaigns and elections. He served as deputy assistant for domestic policy to President Clinton, and directed national efforts on civic renewal led by Sen. Sam Nunn and Secretary William Bennett. Galston also served as an advisor to presidential candidates Walter Mondale and Al Gore.

Opportunity 08Opportunity 08 aims to help 2008 presidential candidates and the public focus on critical issues facing the nation, presenting policy ideas on a wide array of domestic and foreign policy questions. The project is committed to providing both independent policy solutions and background material on issues of concern to voters.

Read More...

Summary only...

Federal Government to Pay $80,000 Settlement to Pair Arrested for Wearing Anti-Bush T-Shirts

ABC News
Feds Pay $80,000 Over Anti-Bush T-Shirts
Federal Government to Pay $80,000 Settlement to Pair Arrested for Wearing Anti-Bush T-Shirts
The Associated Press

CHARLESTON, W.Va.

A couple arrested at a rally after refusing to cover T-shirts that bore anti-President Bush slogans settled their lawsuit against the federal government for $80,000, the American Civil Liberties Union announced Thursday.

Nicole and Jeffery Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas, were handcuffed and removed from the July 4, 2004, rally at the state Capitol, where Bush gave a speech. A judge dismissed trespassing charges against them, and an order closing the case was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Charleston.

"This settlement is a real victory not only for our clients but for the First Amendment," said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia. "As a result of the Ranks' courageous stand, public officials will think twice before they eject peaceful protesters from public events for exercising their right to dissent."

White House spokesman Blair Jones said the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing.

"The parties understand that this settlement is a compromise of disputed claims to avoid the expenses and risks of litigation and is not an admission of fault, liability, or wrongful conduct," Jones said.

The front of the Ranks' homemade T-shirts bore the international symbol for "no" superimposed over the word "Bush." The back of Nicole Rank's T-shirt said "Love America, Hate Bush." On the back of Jeffery Rank's T-shirt was the message "Regime Change Starts at Home."

The ACLU said in a statement that a presidential advance manual makes it clear that the government tries to exclude dissenters from the president's appearances. "As a last resort," the manual says, "security should remove the demonstrators from the event."

Read More...

Summary only...

Spurning Criticism, Rove Puts Blame on Democrats

The New York Times
Spurning Criticism, Rove Puts Blame on Democrats
By JIM RUTENBERG

WACO, Tex., Aug. 18 — During the last eight years, Karl Rove has been lionized and vilified, heralded as making the unlikely election victories of President Bush possible and impugned as reaching too high from an unusually powerful White House perch.

In the eyes of his many detractors, he has helped to send the Bush presidency off track in the process.

But in an interview at an IHOP restaurant here, days after he announced his resignation as Mr. Bush’s top political adviser, Mr. Rove defiantly dismissed the rash of fresh critiques that have come his way in the last several days, blaming the Democrats for the divisive tone that has dominated Mr. Bush’s tenure and for which he has frequently taken the blame.

He said he had no regrets over what some even some allies have called his greatest missteps, like his trying and failing to pass a sweeping overhaul of the Social Security system at the start of Mr. Bush’s second term, and the degree to which he seemed to meld partisan politics and official White House policy in his dual duties as a deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush’s top political strategist.

He strenuously argued with the dominant characterization of him as the Oz — or, with Vice President Dick Cheney, the co-Oz — behind the curtain of Mr. Bush’s White House and presidency, declaring, “I’m the facilitator,” who has merely helped Mr. Bush as he has sought to shape his own views.

Mr. Rove at the same time described himself as an aggressive and studious inside player at the White House who is still one of the four or five officials forming Mr. Bush’s tight-knit, inner circle, but has had to work hard for the position. He dismissed what he called “the idea that I am somehow this all-powerful figure inside the White House.”

“What I’ve learned is that if I want my voice to be heard around the table,” Mr. Rove said, “it can’t simply be, ‘Well, he’s the long-term associate of Bush from Texas’ — I’ve got to dig in.”

And even as he prepares to leave his job, Mr. Rove showed that he is still very much the political maestro trying to corral his party, taking a call from Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, the general chairman of the Republican National Committee, while waiting for a table. He noted afterward that Mr. Martinez had recently been quoted criticizing fellow Republicans on immigration — questioning the approaches of the Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Mr. Rove said he reminded Mr. Martinez that the blame should be focused on a Democrat, namely Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, for what Mr. Rove characterized as failing to shepherd a comprehensive immigration plan the president supported. (Mr. Reid has placed the blame on the White House, saying it failed to forge the political consensus needed to pass the plan.)

There was one stark sign that Mr. Rove was truly leaving. He expressed what no White House aide would express publicly, though many very senior officials have shared the sentiment privately: that is, distaste for the president’s beloved Scottish terrier, Barney, who is seen by some as aloof and entitled. “Barney’s a lump,” he joked. Mr. Rove granted the interview as part of a farewell media tour as his detractors — including many Democrats but also some conservatives — stepped forward to dispute his legacy.

He was alternately emotional and nostalgic, clinical and unbowed, but rarely introspective, saying, “There will be time for regrets; there will be things that I didn’t do as well as I should have, there will be things that I’ve left undone.”

He only described one regret in particular: “I remember having a conversation with a colleague — I want to say not only a colleague, but a very close friend — and responding out of frustration at the end of a seemingly long, continuing dialogue that turned into an argument, and saying something unkind, and it was the worst I ever felt at the White House. I later apologized to him for it.”

Asked why some of his former colleagues, specifically his former deputy Matthew Dowd, have left Mr. Bush’s inner circle in bitterness, Mr. Rove said sadly, “I don’t know.”

In an interview with The New York Times earlier this year, Mr. Dowd, who is no longer on speaking terms with Mr. Rove, had lamented that Mr. Bush’s White House had not followed the style of Mr. Bush’s Texas statehouse in reaching out to Democrats. And Democrats are currently investigating whether Mr. Rove inappropriately pushed for the dismissal last year of several United States attorneys for political purposes. (“Everything was handled appropriately,” Mr. Rove said.)

“The dividers, over the last six years,” he said, “have been the Democrats, who have routinely said he was not elected, he’s illegitimate, he’s a liar, he deliberately misled the country.”

Mr. Rove was asked whether harsh Republican attacks on the national security credentials of various Democrats in 2002, orchestrated by him, had added to the climate. Among the advertisements that year was one from the Georgia Senate race in which the Republican, Saxby Chambliss, called the Democratic incumbent, Max Cleland, a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran soft on defense and flashed the menacing image of Osama Bin Laden.

“President Bush and the White House don’t write the ads for Senate candidates,” Mr. Rove said, calling himself “a convenient scapegoat,” and blaming Democrats for their losses.

Democrats and even some Republicans have criticized Mr. Rove this week for what they have described as a single-minded pursuit of his goal of a “durable” Republican majority, with policies aimed at stealing away traditional Democratic constituencies like Latinos or weakening Democratic power bases like unions.

Voicing indignation at such critiques, he said, “With all due respect, don’t you think they would like to have a durable Democratic majority and put us as an un-durable minority?”

He said, however, that he was pursuing the president’s policy wishes and not his own grand political aims; he described a process whereby Mr. Bush laid out his policy goals early on, and Mr. Rove helped flesh them out by putting him together with top intellectuals.

Members of both parties believe Mr. Rove miscalculated in pursuing the privatization of Social Security, when Mr. Bush was at a high point in the polls following his reelection but when there was little political will to get it done — a failure that some believe badly hurt the president’s standing.

Mr. Rove said that Mr. Bush had been committed to it for so long he had to pursue it, and he had succeeded in putting it on the national agenda for the future.

As Mr. Rove left the IHOP for his hotel here in Waco — some 20 miles from the president’s vacation ranch — it was evident the degree to which he had become a public figure. He was twice stopped by well-wishers who said they admired him.

Later, Mr. Rove sent a note: “I didn’t plant the guy at the IHOP or the woman at the hotel but it would be the subtle personal touch that the Evil Genius would do to throw you off the scent, don’t you think?”

Read More...

Summary only...

Concern Over Wider Spying Under New Law

The New York Times
Concern Over Wider Spying Under New Law
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.

Administration officials acknowledged that they had heard such concerns from Democrats in Congress recently, and that there was a continuing debate over the meaning of the legislative language. But they said the Democrats were simply raising theoretical questions based on a harsh interpretation of the legislation.

They also emphasized that there would be strict rules in place to minimize the extent to which Americans would be caught up in the surveillance.

The dispute illustrates how lawmakers, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought.

It also offers a case study in how changing a few words in a complex piece of legislation has the potential to fundamentally alter the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a landmark national security law. The new legislation is set to expire in less than six months; two weeks after it was signed into law, there is still heated debate over how much power Congress gave to the president.

“This may give the administration even more authority than people thought,” said David Kris, a former senior Justice Department lawyer in the Bush and Clinton administrations and a co-author of “National Security Investigation and Prosecutions,” a new book on surveillance law.

Several legal experts said that by redefining the meaning of “electronic surveillance,” the new law narrows the types of communications covered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, by indirectly giving the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States.

These new powers include the collection of business records, physical searches and so-called “trap and trace” operations, analyzing specific calling patterns.

For instance, the legislation would allow the government, under certain circumstances, to demand the business records of an American in Chicago without a warrant if it asserts that the search concerns its surveillance of a person who is in Paris, experts said.

It is possible that some of the changes were the unintended consequences of the rushed legislative process just before this month’s Congressional recess, rather than a purposeful effort by the administration to enhance its ability to spy on Americans.

“We did not cover ourselves in glory,” said one Democratic aide, referring to how the bill was compiled.

But a senior intelligence official who has been involved in the discussions on behalf of the administration said that the legislation was seen solely as a way to speed access to the communications of foreign targets, not to sweep up the communications of Americans by claiming to focus on foreigners.

“I don’t think it’s a fair reading,” the official said. “The intent here was pure: if you’re targeting someone outside the country, the fact that you’re doing the collection inside the country, that shouldn’t matter.” Democratic leaders have said they plan to push for a revision of the legislation as soon as September. “It was a legislative over-reach, limited in time,” said one Congressional Democratic aide. “But Democrats feel like they can regroup.”

Some civil rights advocates said they suspected that the administration made the language of the bill intentionally vague to allow it even broader discretion over wiretapping decisions. Whether intentional or not, the end result — according to top Democratic aides and other experts on national security law — is that the legislation may grant the government the right to collect a range of information on American citizens inside the United States without warrants, as long as the administration asserts that the spying concerns the monitoring of a person believed to be overseas.

In effect, they say, the legislation significantly relaxes the restrictions on how the government can conduct spying operations aimed at foreigners at the same time that it allows authorities to sweep up information about Americans.

These new powers are considered overly broad and troubling by some Congressional Democrats who raised their concerns with administration officials in private meetings this week.

“This shows why it is so risky to change the law by changing the definition” of something as basic as the meaning of electronic surveillance, said Suzanne Spaulding, a former Congressional staff member who is now a national security legal expert. “You end up with a broad range of consequences that you might not realize.”

The senior intelligence official acknowledged that Congressional staff members had raised concerns about the law in the meetings this week, and that ambiguities in the bill’s wording may have led to some confusion. “I’m sure there will be discussions about how and whether it should be fixed,” the official said.

Vanee Vines, a spokeswoman for the office of the director of national intelligence, said the concerns raised by Congressional officials about the wide scope of the new legislation were “speculative.” But she declined to discuss specific aspects of how the legislation would be enacted. The legislation gives the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broad discretion in enacting the new procedures and approving the way surveillance is conducted.

Bush administration officials said the new legislation, which amends FISA, was critical to fill an “intelligence gap” that had left the United States vulnerable to attack.

The legislation “restores FISA to its original and appropriate focus — protecting the privacy of Americans,” said Brian Roehrkasse, Justice Department spokesman. “The act makes clear that we do not need a court order to target for foreign intelligence collection persons located outside the United States, but it also retains FISA’s fundamental requirement of court orders when the target is in the United States.”

The measure, which President Bush signed into law on Aug. 5, was written and pushed through both the House and Senate so quickly that few in Congress had time to absorb its full impact, some Congressional aides say.

Though many Democratic leaders opposed the final version of the legislation, they did not work forcefully to block its passage, largely out of fear that they would be criticized by President Bush and Republican leaders during the August recess as being soft on terrorism.

Yet Bush administration officials have already signaled that, in their view, the president retains his constitutional authority to do whatever it takes to protect the country, regardless of any action Congress takes. At a tense meeting last week with lawyers from a range of private groups active in the wiretapping issue, senior Justice Department officials refused to commit the administration to adhering to the limits laid out in the new legislation and left open the possibility that the president could once again use what they have said in other instances is his constitutional authority to act outside the regulations set by Congress.

At the meeting, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, “is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president’s Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence.”

Brian Walsh, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who attended the same private meeting with Justice Department officials, acknowledged that the meeting — intended by the administration to solicit recommendations on the wiretapping legislation — became quite heated at times. But he said he thought the administration’s stance on the president’s commander-in-chief powers was “a wise course.”

“They were careful not to concede any authority that they believe they have under Article II,” Mr. Walsh said. “If they think they have the constitutional authority, it wouldn’t make sense to commit to not using it.”

Asked whether the administration considered the new legislation legally binding, Ms. Vines, the national intelligence office spokeswoman, said: “We’re going to follow the law and carry it out as it’s been passed.”

Mr. Bush issued a so-called signing statement about the legislation when he signed it into law, but the statement did not assert his presidential authority to override the legislative limits.

At the Justice Department session, critics of the legislation also complained to administration officials about the diminished role of the FISA court, which is limited to determining whether the procedures set up by the executive administration for intercepting foreign intelligence are “clearly erroneous” or not.

That limitation sets a high bar to set off any court intervention, argued Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who also attended the Justice Department meeting.

“You’ve turned the court into a spectator,” Mr. Rotenberg said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Cheney's "Iraq Flip-Flop" Explained: DICK IS DEAD!

The Huffington Post
Martin Lewis
Cheney's "Iraq Flip-Flop" Explained: DICK IS DEAD!


Dick or Dupe?

For the last few days, experts have been trying to comprehend the baffling change of heart and mind by Dick Cheney on the topic of Iraq. There is a monumental 180-degree difference between the Dick Cheney seen in the recently unearthed 1994 C-Span footage who calmly explains why it would be a terrible disaster for America to invade Iraq -- and the Dick Cheney we have all seen since 2001 who is the primary cheerleader for the Iraq war and occupation which has resulted in the death of nearly 4,000 Americans.

Now it can be explained. The individual who has been serving as Vice-President since January 2001 is NOT the real Dick Cheney! The real Dick is DEAD! The Vice President is a substitute Dick!

As readers may recall -- in the middle of the Florida recount (or NON-recount as it happened) around Thanksgiving 2000 -- Dick Cheney suffered his fourth heart attack and was rushed to hospital. The official story of course was that he recovered. But what actually happened is that Cheney died in the hospital -- which created a terrible dilemma for the team attempting to place George W. Bush in the White House.

The solution was simple. Karl Rove replaced the dead Cheney with a lookalike robot! An artificial Dick! And while the cyborg RESEMBLES the real Cheney -- it lacks the intelligence, insight, compassion, wisdom and grace of the man it replaced. (It's also a poor shot when shit-faced.)

The clues that tell us Dick Is Dead are all there. It's just that we have just been ignoring them ...

Clue #1

The iconic photo of the Fab Four of the Bush administration in 2004 - walking along a shabby road in Crawford, Texas.




We see Condi, dressed in a black suit symbolizing the mourner. George, dressed in half-sleeve light-colored shirt symbolizes the preacher or heavenly body. Donald in dockers and open-neck shirt symbolizes the gravedigger. And "Dick" -- out of step with the others -- and barefoot (an Indian symbol of death) symbolizes the corpse.

Clue #2

On the videotape showing George W. Bush posing with a plastic prop turkey at the carefully stage-managed photo-op with a handful of US troops in Iraq at Thanksgiving 2003, the President is heard mumbling to the troops what he claims was "cranberry sauce ..." But careful examination by top audiologists reveals that what he is actually saying is "I buried Dick ..."



Clue #3

If you watch the videotape of Bush's key 2004 debate with John Kerry and run the tape backwards -- at one point he clearly says "Turn Me On Dead Man" -- a "subliminable" message from Bush that he would like the dead Cheney to turn on the wireless receiver in Bush's suit jacket used to whisper prompts into his earpiece telling him what to say.



Clue #4

If you look extremely carefully at the transcript of Bush's "Axis Of Evil" speech -- when the third letter of every nineteenth word is joined up and translated into Albanian -- it reads: "Here's another clue for you lot -- the Veep is a bot"

Clue #5

In the recent photo of "Cheney" in his official Vietnam Veteran Draft-Dodger uniform ("I had other priorities") the VP is wearing a black badge on his left arm that has the initials "O.P.D." on it. "Obviously Phony Dick"



I am sure that there are other clues I have missed. Please submit your own evidence that DICK IS DEAD!

Photographic Restorations courtesy of David Haber

Read More...

Summary only...

Jabs Fly In Run-Up to Sunday's Democratic Debate

ABC News
The Note: Edwards, Obama Ready Debate Attacks
Jabs Fly In Run-Up to Sunday's Democratic Debate
By RICK KLEIN

Aug. 19, 2007 —

Thanks, Sen. Barack Obama, for ensuring that these gatherings will grow less frequent, and thanks, former senator John Edwards, for guaranteeing that jabs will fly.

Thanks, Sen. Joe Biden, for giving us a new ad to mull over (his first), and thanks, former President Bill Clinton, for channeling John Kerry.

And, of course, thanks, former senator Fred Thompson, for packing a record number of meaningless cliches (and a record quotient of expensive clothes) into a brief visit to Iowa.

It all ads up to a toxic, fascinating mix of attitudes, egos, and messages going into Sunday morning's Democratic debate in Des Moines.

To find out when the debate is airing in your town, click here. And for full online coverage of the debate check out our special debate page at www.abcnews.com/politics.

As always, it will be the frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who is in the spotlight (and who just might use words like "lead" and "strong"). Also, per usual, the second tier -- Biden, D-Del., joined by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M. -- are looking for breakthroughs.

But this is just as big a moment for Obama, D-Ill., and Edwards, D-N.C., who are desperate to break the three-way tie they have with Clinton in Iowa.

Clinton has gone a long way to erasing her problems in the Hawkeye State, while Edwards has slipped in the one state he absolutely, positively must win, and Obama needs to answer growing concerns about his experience and common touch (as if the Pakistan and arugula storylines have morphed into one).

"It could well be the most confrontational (debate) to date," writes Washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza. "The question for Obama and Edwards is whether they can knock Clinton off her stride. Clinton's extraordinary discipline as a candidate has shown through in the first group of televised debates."

You can bet everyone else on that stage would like to change her undefeated record.

For fireworks, keep an eye on Edwards, who has sharpened his verbal barbs in recent days (and not just when he's talking about "she-devil" Ann Coulter). (He will also be the only candidate to come to the debate site at Drake University through the front door -- an intriguing play by the 'everyman' candidate.)

In the midst of his six-day Iowa bus tour, Edwards told ABC News that Obama is engaging in a "fantasy" by suggesting he can work with Washington lobbyists, and said suggested that Clinton would "replace one group of Washington insiders with another group of Washington insiders."

Edwards added, "I mean, Sen. Clinton has been part of Washington for a very long time."

Certainly Bill Clinton has been part of Washington long enough to know how this kind of comment plays (and if he doesn't, he can always ask Kerry).

"Every single political leader I talk to says, 'I hope your wife wins. We want the world to like America again,'" the former president said in Reno, Nev., on Friday, per the AP's Scott Sonner.

Care to elaborate, Mr. President, on why these world leaders don't want Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, or Dodd to win?

What does it say about Obama's confidence coming into Sunday's debate that he doesn't want too many more of these forums? Only eight (!) more, Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said in a message posted to the campaign Website Saturday.

"We simply cannot run the kind of campaign we want and need to, engaging with voters in the early states and February 5 states, if our schedule is dictated by dozens of forums and debates," Plouffe said.

He's probably right, but it isn't being lost on many observers that the first major candidate to make non-participation in debates a policy is also the one whose debate performances have been shakiest.

"Critics and opponents can be expected to charge that Obama is dodging debates, because he has made several statements that Clinton and others have painted as reflecting ill-preparedness," writes Politico's Mike Allen.

Biden maximizes the oomph of his first ad buy by launching it on the eve of the debate. It's him with an Iowa cornfield as backdrop, straight to camera, talking about a trip back from Iraq where he was accompanied by the coffin of a deceased U.S. soldier.

"They turned that cargo plane into a cathedral," Biden says, "And all I could think of was the parents waiting at the other end."

Per the Des Moines Register's Abby Simons, the ad "differs from other candidates' spots that feature their positions on a gamut of issues, as well as a plethora of schmoozing with Iowans."

As something of a viewer's guide to today's debate, The New York Times' Patrick Healy and Michael Cooper have a nugget-filled peek at candidates' debate preparation.

Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani, R-N.Y., is fingered as the candidate who prepares the least; at ABC's Iowa debate two weeks ago, he had one hour's sleep, found out about where his water glass would be and the price of corn -- and that's it.

Healy and Cooper also report that Obama's answer to the question about talking to rogue leaders was prepared -- though not scripted -- and that Clinton was loaded for bear when asked to respond.

"Mrs. Clinton had been set to underscore what her campaign aides consider to be her commander-in-chief toughness and her experience in Washington -- even encouraged by some advisers to use action verbs and adjectives like 'lead,' 'strong' and 'experienced,' they write. "So she chose to disagree, forcefully but carefully."

This from Obama strategist David Axelrod: "There's this theory that Obama needs to somehow prove his machismo by rhetorically headhunting in the debates," he said. "But that's not who he is. He's going to make the points he thinks are important, but he doesn't think the country needs someone who just scores points in debates by attacking."

Will Axelrod stand by those words by this time tomorrow?

Shifting to the Republicans, Friday was the Iowa debut for Thompson, R-Tenn.

He didn't leave Des Moines' city limits, but he hit the state fair and told supporters to "keep their powder dry." (He also told a TV interviewer that "proof's in the pudding," and told a radio interviewer that Congress "tried to sell the same horse twice" on immigration. Don't ask.)

He ate nothing on a stick, but he did sample meat on a toothpick, and his Gucci loafers ascended the candidates' soapbox to declare, "I am unabashedly pro-life," ABC's Christine Byun reports.

"If it was a debut, it was an unusual one," writes Susan Saulny of The New York Times. "Mr. Thompson was shaking hands but, having not yet declared his candidacy, was barred by federal regulations from asking for votes."

Saulny reports on a classic moment: "'Look, it's Rudy Giuliani,' a woman told her small son. Someone else interrupted: 'No, it's not. It's the guy from "The Hunt for Red October."'"

Thompson himself acknowledged that "there are questions about whether anyone could build the needed infrastructure in such a short span of time," The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut and Michael Shear write.

"Thompson's TV-star bravado could not disguise the fact that with nearly four months left until voting begins in the Iowa caucuses, he is facing major organizational hurdles in his plan," they write. "Even on this trip, Thompson was only in town overnight, barely long enough to introduce himself to key party players."

The new USA Today/Gallup Poll has some good news for former governor Mitt Romney, R-Mass. He places third in the national poll -- with 14 percent -- behind Giuliani and Thompson, and ahead of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

But don't get too comfortable, Mitt: Washington Post columnist David Broder details the strategy that former governor Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., hopes to use to engineer a "coup" to upend Romney in New Hampshire.

If Huckabee can surpass expectations in the Granite State -- like that other politician from Hope, Ark. -- he could position himself to be a player in the race for the nomination.

"Huckabee comes off as the friendly, down-home country preacher, a retired Baptist minister who can soothe and entertain the congregation, not just warn them of the fires of Hell," he writes. "But the message is designed to play to public discontent, especially when an overpriced housing market is once again being shaken in New Hampshire, as elsewhere, by a credit crunch."

Giuliani may talk about his family after all -- but it's going to be on his terms.

"I will talk about it appropriately and in a way to preserve, as much as I can, the privacy of my family and my children, which I think any decent person would," Giuliani said Friday in New Hampshire, per The Boston Globe's Brian Mooney.

And Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I-N.Y., made a scintilla of news regarding his presidential plans, telling Dan Rather in an HDNet interview that the answer is no (and no, and -- essentially -- no).

Here's the relevant part of the exchange:

Rather: "Are you running for president?"
# Bloomberg: "No."
# Rather: "Are you going to run for president?"
# Bloomberg: "No."
# Rather: "Any circumstances in which you would?"
# Bloomberg: "Oh, I don't know. Any -- the answer -- if I don't say 'no' categorically you'll then read something into it. The answer is no."

Meanwhile, back in the real world: "The White House plans to use a report next month assessing progress in Iraq to outline a plan for gradual troop reductions beginning next year that would fall far short of the drawdown demanded by Congressional opponents of the war, according to administration and military officials," report Steven Lee Myers and Thom Shanker of The New York Times.

The kicker:

"They attacked Elizabeth personally, because she stood up to that she-devil Ann Coulter...I should not have name-called. But the truth is -- forget the names -- people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language." -- Edwards, on Friday, in the latest volley in his family's feud with Coulter.

"If I were you, I'd be asking, 'Who is this guy, and why is he here?' " -- Fred Thompson, on the Des Moines Register's soapbox at the Iowa State Fair.

LIVE BLOGGING DURING DEMOCRATIC DEBATE

I'll be blogging live from inside the debate hall at Drake University in Des Moines, starting at 8 am CT (9 am ET) Sunday. Be part of the conversation by clicking here.

Find out when you can see the debate in your town by clicking here.

You can also go to www.abcnews.com/politics for full coverage of the debate online -- there are votes, background articles, and video clips will be posted as the debate airs nationally.

And ABC's political unit will be fact-checking the candidates as the debate goes on.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama to turn down additional fall debates

The Politico
Obama to turn down additional fall debates
By: Mike Allen

Inundated by dozens of invitations, Sen. Barack Obama will turn down requests to join future debates and forums this fall, his Democratic presidential campaign announced Saturday.

Obama will honor his commitment to eight more debates (five sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, one by the Spanish-language broadcaster Univision and two in Iowa), but he does not plan to accept many invitations for forums, where the candidates appear sequentially.

Campaign sources confirmed that the announcement could affect such key Democratic constituencies as the Congressional Black Caucus, Iowa AARP and League of Conservation Voters, which are planning to sponsor forums in the fall.

(UPDATE: The League of Conservation Voters, citing Obama's own words on energy being "an urgent moral challenge," says it would be disappointed if Obama did not come to their forum.)

“Unfortunately, we simply cannot run the kind of campaign we want and need to, engaging with voters in the early states and February 5, if our schedule is dictated by dozens of forums and debates,” campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement.

“Ultimately, the one group left out of the current schedule is the voters, and they are the ones who ask the toughest questions and most deserve to have those questions answered face to face.

“We simply cannot continue to hopscotch from forum to forum and run a campaign true to the bottom-up movement for change that propelled Barack into this race.”

Although the Illinois senator has lagged behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in national polls for the Democratic presidential nomination, his record-breaking crowds and fundraising underscore his status as the most exciting candidate in the race. His participation or absence can make or break an event.

The Clinton campaign declined to comment, as did the campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.).

Critics and opponents can be expected to charge that Obama is dodging debates, because he has made several statements that Clinton and others have painted as reflecting ill-preparedness.

His assertion at the YouTube/CNN debate that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of hostile nations sparked a weeklong round of accusations, spin and counterspin.

On the other side of the equation, the campaigns of some of Obama's opponents have complained that too many candidates are participating in debates and forums to make the appearances satisfying or worthwhile. In July, a microphone picked up Clinton and Edwards conferring about whether their campaigns should discuss smaller debates. "Our guys should talk," Clinton was heard saying.

Obama campaign sources said no decision has been made about an invitation by Caroline Kennedy for a nationally televised presidential debate at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston on Dec. 17, with CNN as the television partner and Politico.com as the Internet partner. That is beyond the Dec. 10 period covered by the first round of DNC-sanctioned events, so it is not covered by Obama’s statement, the sources said.

Here is Plouffe’s whole statement, posted on Obama’s campaign website.

"As we head into the fall, the campaign is entering a new more engaged phase that will give voters an even greater sense of Barack's message of change and require the campaign to make decisions that balance the important role of debates and maximize time to run the kind of campaign we need to.

We have just been thru a period of three debates/forums in six days and the outlook for the future holds more of the same. And, because of likely calendar movement, once we get past Labor Day the Iowa caucuses are less than 120 days away.

"So far, Barack has attended seven Democratic debates and nineteen candidate forums. There are five remaining sanctioned DNC debates, which we are committed to attend and two Iowa debates normally held in January, which are being held in December, which we are also committed to attend. We will also be attending the Univision debate in Florida on September 9. This means that by the end of this year, Obama will have participated in a total of 15 Democratic debates.

"The debates have been important moments for our campaign, demonstrating clearly that Barack Obama is the candidate who will bring about the greatest change to our broken politics. Looking at the first sanctioned DNC debate in South Carolina, Obama was scored the clear winner by undecided voters in South Carolina and New Hampshire.

"Unfortunately, we simply cannot run the kind of campaign we want and need to, engaging with voters in the early states and February 5 states, if our schedule is dictated by dozens of forums and debates. Ultimately, the one group left out of the current schedule is the voters and they are the ones who ask the toughest questions and most deserve to have those questions answered face to face.

"Therefore, after this week, we will only be attending the five DNC debates through the sanctioning period of December 10, Univision, and the two Iowa debates previously mentioned. Candidate forums - where candidates appear sequentially will be considered, but we are unlikely to accept many of these. Instead, Barack will spend his time answering questions directly from voters in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and elsewhere. We simply cannot continue to hopscotch from forum to forum and run a campaign true to the bottom up movement for change that propelled Barack into this race.

"After the sanctioning period, there will undoubtedly be a large number of debates scheduled in the early states and in February 5 states. We will make decisions on those as we get closer, but will clearly be doing a healthy number of debates after the sanctioning period.

"Many friends and terrific organizations are sponsoring or planning to sponsor debates and forums. So this is not an easy decision for us to execute. But it simply won't work to navigate this one by one. We felt we needed to make our approach clear and consistent.

"I think this approach will be better for the voters and the campaign."

Read More...

Summary only...

Did Bush Cabinet members aid candidates?

Did Bush Cabinet members aid candidates?

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 (UPI) -- Bush administration political appointees appeared to help Republican candidates at U.S. taxpayer expense, a newspaper investigation found.

McClatchy Newspapers reviewed public appearances and grant announcements by top officials between 2001 and 2006. McClatchy was also told that the White House arranged 10 political briefings for Commerce Department officials and four at the Treasury Department that provided details on congressional battleground districts.

The House Oversight Committee is looking into potential violations of the Hatch Act. Under the law, cabinet members can appear with congressional candidates and attend political briefings, but may not use public funds for partisan purposes.

The committee has found "a number of remarkable coincidences," one congressional aide told McClatchy.

The newspaper found that White House Drug Czar John Walters made 20 trips paid for by taxpayers to appear with Republican congressional candidates in 2006. Commerce Secretary Don Evans made eight appearances with candidates in swing districts or in key states to announce grants -- appearing on two occasions with Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., who was in a tough contest for re-election.

Read More...

Summary only...