Dems pursue Ohio election system overhaul

Dems pursue Ohio election system overhaul

By JOHN McCARTHY
Associated Press Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Democrats pushing an overhaul of the election system in Ohio - the state that swung the White House race to President Bush last year - are hoping timing truly is everything.

To the Democrats' delight, the four overhaul measures will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot at a time when the long-ruling Republican Party is engulfed in both an ethics scandal and a furor over an ill-fated state investment in rare coins.

"I think the biggest argument for these amendments happens to be the fact that the Republicans are out there saying, `Well, we don't have a problem,'" said Paul Tipps, a former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party.

Across the nation on Election Day, 39 issues will be decided in nine states, including a redistricting proposal in California backed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In Ohio, unions and citizens groups calling themselves Reform Ohio Now are promoting the election overhaul measures as necessary to restore people's faith in state government.

Ohio voters will be asked if bipartisan boards - instead of elected officials - should draw lawmakers' districts and oversee elections and whether campaign contribution limits should be lowered. The state where some voters waited up to seven hours to cast ballots last November also will decide if everyone should be allowed to vote early by mail.

Authority over elections would shift from the secretary of state to a nine-member board. Last year, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was criticized for being an honorary chairman of Bush's Ohio campaign and accused of trying to suppress the vote with rulings on registration forms and provisional ballots, a charge he denied.

Ohio, a swing state, re-elected Bush by 118,000 votes. Republicans control the Legislature, all statewide offices and a majority of congressional seats. The Democrats have been out of power for 15 years and are routinely outspent.

Democrats are hoping the overhaul would take some of the politics out of redistricting and make their party more competitive.

Tipps said that redistricting currently is designed to protect incumbents. Out of 133 legislative and congressional elections last year, only four seats changed parties, and two of them were open races.

Currently, five elected statewide officials draw state legislative districts, and the Legislature creates the congressional map. The ballot measure would give mapmaking authority to a board headed by an appeals judge from each party, who would then appoint the three other members.

David Hopcraft, spokesman for the opponents' group, Ohio First, said districts should be drawn by the people voters elected to do so.

The ballot measures would also lower individual contribution limits from $10,000 to $1,000 in legislative races. But the amounts some political action committees and parties could contribute would increase.

The state GOP has been hounded this year by scandals that have reached all the way to the governor's office.

Lame-duck Republican Gov. Bob Taft, the great-grandson of President William Howard Taft, became the first Ohio governor convicted of a crime for failing to report that he was treated to golf outings. He was fined the maximum $4,000.

Also, Tom Noe, a prominent Republican fundraiser and donor hired to manage a controversial investment in rare coins for the state, is suspected of stealing millions of dollars, and investigators want to know whether he steered any of the money to Bush.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate debates treatment for detainees

Senate debates treatment for detainees

By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. troops interrogating terrorism suspects don't know which techniques are permitted and Congress owes it to them to establish clear standards, Senate Republicans said Wednesday, opening a politically volatile debate over the treatment of detainees.

The White House opposes legislation that would impose restrictions on the Pentagon's detention, interrogation and prosecution of prisoners, arguing that it would tie the president's hands in wartime.

Despite a veto threat, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are trying to tack that legislation onto the $440 billion military spending bill. Votes could come as early as Wednesday night.

McCain's amendment would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in U.S. custody and require all U.S. troops to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate suspects. Graham's amendment would define "enemy combatant" and put into law procedures for prosecuting detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

"Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field. We need a clear consistent standard," McCain, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, said on the Senate floor.

Graham, an Air Force judge for 20 years, added: "We have let the troops down when it comes to trying to give them guidance in very stressful situations."

Opposing the effort, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said that requiring all U.S. troops to follow procedures in the Army manual is not practical in the current war environment. "The techniques vary upon the circumstances and the physical location of people involved," he said.

Backed by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., McCain and Graham offered the same proposals in the summer as the Senate worked on a bill setting Pentagon policy. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., scuttled that bill in part because of White House opposition to the detainee proposals.

The Senate's going to look at legislation setting standards for the way terrorism suspects are treated behind bars.

In July, the White House sent Vice President Dick Cheney to Capitol Hill to personally lobby McCain, Graham and Warner to drop the effort. This time, the White House approached Senate Republicans sympathetic to their position and asked them to work against the amendments.

As they did before, Democrats also plan to continue to push their own proposal that would establish an independent commission to investigate allegations of prisoner abuse. The Pentagon already has done several of its own investigations and argues that another would be redundant.

But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said those reviews weren't thorough enough. "This is a rich target for a true investigation," he said Wednesday. He accused the White House of issuing a "false threat" to veto the bill over detainee amendments.

McCain, Graham and Warner decided that standards for handling detainees were needed in light of allegations of mistreatment at the Navy's Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The high-profile Senate debate comes as fresh allegations of prisoner abuse surface and support builds for Republican-sponsored amendments.

Since July, a list of retired generals and admirals backing the effort has doubled from 14 to 28.

"It is now apparent that the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because our men and women in uniform were given ambiguous instructions," the retired officers said in a letter dated last month. "Our service members were denied clear guidance, and left to take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better than that."

Last month, Human Rights Watch, a U.S. rights organization, reported that soldiers in the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division systematically tortured Iraqi detainees in 2003 and 2004. The Pentagon says it's investigating.

Army Capt. Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne was one of the soldiers who claimed that he had heard about widespread prisoner abuse while serving in Iraq. He was on Capitol Hill this week to meet with senators, including McCain and Levin.

Last week, a federal judge in New York ordered the release of dozens more pictures of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib, rejecting government arguments that the images would provoke terrorists and incite violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Read More...

Summary only...

Top court seems closely divided on suicide law

Reuters

Top court seems closely divided on suicide law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court seemed closely split on Wednesday on whether the Bush administration can stop doctors from helping terminally ill patients take their own lives under the nation's only physician-assisted suicide law.

During arguments, the justices sharply questioned both sides on whether then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had the power under federal law in 2001 to bar distribution of controlled drugs to assist suicides, regardless of state law.

The Oregon law, called the Death with Dignity Act, was twice approved by the state's voters. The only state law in the country allowing physician-assisted suicide, it has been used by 208 people since it took effect in 1997.

It was the first major case that new Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative jurist named by President George W. Bush, has heard since his confirmation late last week.

Several justices appeared sympathetic to Oregon's arguments that regulation of doctors and medicine has traditionally been left to the states rather than the federal government.

But other justices questioned how far a state could go and whether it could decide if doctors can prescribe morphine for depression or steroids for body building.

Roberts asked whether such state decisions would undermine the effectiveness and uniformity of the federal law.

Under Oregon law, terminally ill patients must get a certification from two doctors stating they are of sound mind and have less than six months to live. A prescription for lethal drugs is then written by the doctor, and the patients administer the drugs themselves.

Ashcroft's directive declared that assisting suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose under the Controlled Substances Act and that prescribing federally controlled drugs for that purpose was against the federal law.

He reversed the policy adopted by his predecessor, Attorney General Janet Reno, during the Clinton administration. Conservative lawmakers and groups opposed Reno's decision.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who often casts the decisive vote on the divided court and often supports the states, questioned the federal government's argument.

She asked the hypothetical question of whether an attorney general who opposed the death penalty could take a similar position and decide physicians could not prescribe drugs for lethal injections of death row inmates.

MEDICINE REGULATED BY STATES

"The practice of medicine by physicians is an area traditionally regulated by the states, it is not?" O'Connor asked Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's top courtroom lawyer.

It is not known whether O'Connor will still be on the court when it rules. She has said she will retire when her successor is confirmed by the Senate. Bush has chosen White House counsel Harriet Miers for O'Connor's seat.

Justice David Souter said that 90 years of federal regulation have been aimed at stopping drug dealing and drug abuse. He described it as a "bizarre result" to suddenly give the attorney general effectively sole authority over whether a state may authorize physician-assisted suicide.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked whether the federal government had abandoned the position it took in a 1997 case that assisted suicide was a matter for the states to decide.

Besides Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia also seemed skeptical of the state's position. "I think that assisted suicide would have been just as unthinkable at the time this (the federal law) was enacted as prescribing cocaine for recreational use," Scalia said.

Justice Stephen Breyer asked whether states could make marijuana or morphine legal. "Suppose I think the attorney general has the power to stop states from gutting the act," he said. Other justices asked whether states could allow doctors to prescribe steroids for body building.

A ruling is expected by the middle of next year.

Read More...

Summary only...

Faux News Is Bad News

The New York Times

Faux News Is Bad News

Federal auditors have blistered the Bush administration for secretly concocting favorable news reports about itself by hiring actors to pose as journalists and slipping $240,000 in taxpayer funds to a sell-out conservative polemicist. The government till was also tapped to have political spin doctors track whether the message of President Bush and the Republican Party was being well treated in legitimate news reporting.

In its purchase of self-aggrandizing agitprop, the administration plainly violated the law against spreading "covert propaganda" at public expense, according to the report of the Government Accountability Office. More than that, Bush officials forged a cheesy new low in Washington politicians' endless bazaar of peddling public relations initiatives at taxpayers' expense.

The White House order to close down the ersatz news coverage should have been unequivocal once the real news media uncovered the hired fakers. But administration apologists continued to insist only "legitimate dissemination" of public information was at work in the under-the-table employment of Armstrong Williams, a political talk-show host, to wax breathless over the No Child Left Behind Act.

The scheme was so seamy that auditors were unable to document whether Mr. Williams actually delivered all the articles and talk-show hype that his company claimed in quietly billing the government for $186,000 worth of yessiree-Bob "news." On Friday, a spokeswoman for the current education secretary, Margaret Spellings, reacted to the report by calling these efforts "stupid, wrong and ill advised." We hope she noticed that they were also illegal.

Read More...

Summary only...

The President's Stealth Nominee

The New York Times

The President's Stealth Nominee

It is a sign of the times that President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was greeted with so many sighs of relief. Ms. Miers's record is so thin that no one seems to have any idea of what she believes, and she was clearly chosen because of her close ties to the president, not her legal qualifications. Still, there is no evidence as yet that she is an ideological warrior who would attempt to return American jurisprudence to the 18th century, and these days, the nation seems to be setting the bar for almost everything pretty low.

Ms. Miers's résumé gives at least some reason to hope that she could be a moderate, pragmatic judge in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat she will fill if she is confirmed. She has spent much of her career in corporate law firms and bar associations, environments that encourage pragmatism over ideology.

The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Senator Charles Schumer of New York and other Senate Democrats made it clear that an extremist nominee would face a tough confirmation battle, and they may have helped convince Mr. Bush not to nominate a judge or law professor with a long record of opposing privacy rights, civil rights and other freedoms. But choosing Ms. Miers, a member of his team who was also his own personal lawyer, is still very much in character with the president's tendency to reward familiarity and loyalty over independence and a reputation for excellence.

The American people are certainly entitled to know a lot more about Ms. Miers. As a non-judge who has largely operated behind the scenes, she does not have a lengthy record of judicial opinions, law review articles and public comments. While this page complained about the lack of information available about John Roberts, the new chief justice was a veritable font of background records compared with this new nominee.

This administration likes to argue that Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to say much about her views when she was nominated. But she had been a federal appeals court judge for more than a decade, and her approach to judging was well known. The Senate needs to ask Ms. Miers directly where she stands on important legal issues, and it should not confirm her unless she makes clear her commitment to well-settled rights that Americans take for granted.

Ms. Miers's nomination is a sign of just how politicized judicial selection has become. The normal model for a Supreme Court nominee is a judge, usually from a federal appeals court, who has served long enough to develop and demonstrate judicial excellence. But today, anyone who meets that standard runs into a political Catch-22. The far right of the Republican Party will oppose anyone who has shown signs of moderation, and Senate Democrats will try to block anyone who has not. Rather than select a strongly qualified candidate from the legal mainstream, President Bush has taken the easy way out by choosing a less accomplished nominee who will raise fewer political problems.

Many of the best justices have taken odd routes to the court. Ms. Miers could prove to be a pragmatic, common-sense justice who ends up making this court the Miers Court, the way Justice O'Connor effectively made the last one the O'Connor Court. Before taking that risk, however, the Senate needs to get to work to learn a lot more about her.

Read More...

Summary only...

Katrina Relief efforts: near catastrophic failure due to endemic corruption, divisions, troop shortages

independent.co.uk
Iraq war delayed Katrina relief effort, inquiry finds
By Kim Sengupta

Relief efforts to combat Hurricane Katrina suffered near catastrophic failures due to endemic corruption, divisions within the military and troop shortages caused by the Iraq war, an official American inquiry into the disaster has revealed.

The confidential report, which has been seen by The Independent, details how funds for flood control were diverted to other projects, desperately needed National Guards were stuck in Iraq and how military personnel had to "sneak off post" to help with relief efforts because their commander had refused permission.

The shortcomings in dealing with Katrina have rocked George Bush's administration. Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has resigned from his post and polls show that a majority of Americans feel the President showed inadequate leadership.

The report was commissioned by the Office of Secretary of Defence as an "independent and critical review" of what went so wrong. In a hard-hitting analysis, it says: "The US military has long planned for war on two fronts. This is as close as we have come to [that] reality since the Second World War; the results have been disastrous."

The document was compiled by Stephen Henthorne, a former professor of the US Army's War College and an adviser to the Pentagon who was a deputy-director in the Louisiana relief efforts.

It charts how "corruption and mismanagement within the New Orleans city government" had "diverted money earmarked for improving flood protection to other, more vote-getting, projects. Past mayors and governors gambled that the long-expected Big Killer hurricane would never happen. That bet was lost with Hurricane Katrina."

The report concludes that although the US military did a good job in carrying out emergency missions, there were some serious shortcomings.

The report states that Brigadier General Michael D Barbero, commander of the Joint Readiness Training Centre at Fort Polk, Louisiana, refused permission for special forces units who volunteered to join relief efforts, to do so. General Barbero also refused to release other troops.

"The same general did take in some families from Hurricane Katrina, but only military families living off the base," the report says. "He has done a similar thing for military families displaced by Hurricane Rita. However, he declined to share water with the citizens of Leesville, who are out of water, and his civil affairs staff have to sneak off post in civilian clothes to help coordinate relief efforts." The report says deployment in the Iraq war led to serious problems. "Another major factor in the delayed response to the hurricane aftermath was that the bulk of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard was deployed in Iraq.

"Even though all the states have 'compacts' with each other, pledging to come to the aid of other states, it takes time, money and effort to activate and deploy National Guard troops from other states to fill in".

Mr Henthorne's report states: "The President has indicated several times that he wants the US military to take a more active role in disaster management and humanitarian assistance.

"There are several reasons why that will not happen easily. (1) Existing laws will not allow the police powers the military will need to be effective. (2) The military is not trained for such a mission and (3) the 'warfighter insurgency' within the US military does not want such a mission and will strongly resist it. Not one civil affairs unit was deployed for either hurricane."

The report concludes: "The one thing this disaster has demonstrated [is] the lack of coordinated, in-depth planning and training on all levels of Government, for any/all types of emergency contingencies. 9/11 was an exception because the geographical area was small and contained, but these two hurricanes have clearly demonstrated a national response weakness ... Failure to plan, and train properly has plagued US efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now that failure has come home to roost in the United States."

Relief efforts to combat Hurricane Katrina suffered near catastrophic failures due to endemic corruption, divisions within the military and troop shortages caused by the Iraq war, an official American inquiry into the disaster has revealed.

The confidential report, which has been seen by The Independent, details how funds for flood control were diverted to other projects, desperately needed National Guards were stuck in Iraq and how military personnel had to "sneak off post" to help with relief efforts because their commander had refused permission.

The shortcomings in dealing with Katrina have rocked George Bush's administration. Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has resigned from his post and polls show that a majority of Americans feel the President showed inadequate leadership.

The report was commissioned by the Office of Secretary of Defence as an "independent and critical review" of what went so wrong. In a hard-hitting analysis, it says: "The US military has long planned for war on two fronts. This is as close as we have come to [that] reality since the Second World War; the results have been disastrous."

The document was compiled by Stephen Henthorne, a former professor of the US Army's War College and an adviser to the Pentagon who was a deputy-director in the Louisiana relief efforts.

It charts how "corruption and mismanagement within the New Orleans city government" had "diverted money earmarked for improving flood protection to other, more vote-getting, projects. Past mayors and governors gambled that the long-expected Big Killer hurricane would never happen. That bet was lost with Hurricane Katrina."

The report concludes that although the US military did a good job in carrying out emergency missions, there were some serious shortcomings.

The report states that Brigadier General Michael D Barbero, commander of the Joint Readiness Training Centre at Fort Polk, Louisiana, refused permission for special forces units who volunteered to join relief efforts, to do so. General Barbero also refused to release other troops.

"The same general did take in some families from Hurricane Katrina, but only military families living off the base," the report says. "He has done a similar thing for military families displaced by Hurricane Rita. However, he declined to share water with the citizens of Leesville, who are out of water, and his civil affairs staff have to sneak off post in civilian clothes to help coordinate relief efforts." The report says deployment in the Iraq war led to serious problems. "Another major factor in the delayed response to the hurricane aftermath was that the bulk of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard was deployed in Iraq.

"Even though all the states have 'compacts' with each other, pledging to come to the aid of other states, it takes time, money and effort to activate and deploy National Guard troops from other states to fill in".

Mr Henthorne's report states: "The President has indicated several times that he wants the US military to take a more active role in disaster management and humanitarian assistance.

"There are several reasons why that will not happen easily. (1) Existing laws will not allow the police powers the military will need to be effective. (2) The military is not trained for such a mission and (3) the 'warfighter insurgency' within the US military does not want such a mission and will strongly resist it. Not one civil affairs unit was deployed for either hurricane."

The report concludes: "The one thing this disaster has demonstrated [is] the lack of coordinated, in-depth planning and training on all levels of Government, for any/all types of emergency contingencies. 9/11 was an exception because the geographical area was small and contained, but these two hurricanes have clearly demonstrated a national response weakness ... Failure to plan, and train properly has plagued US efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now that failure has come home to roost in the United States."

Read More...

Summary only...

Indicting the President's Policies

HuffingtonPost.com
John Nichols

Indicting the President's Policies

In Washington, where it is exceeding difficult to get the political players or the press corps to pay attention to more than one story at once, no0 one would suggest that it was "smart politics" to deliver a major address on the day that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay being forced to step aside after being indicted on criminal conspiracy charges.

But sometimes the work of Washington involves more than political games.

Sometimes it involves life and death questions of national policy. And it is particularly frustrating in such moments to see vital statements about the nation's future get lost in the rush to discuss the scandal du jour. To be sure, the well-deserved indictment of DeLay merited the attention it received. But the indictment of President Bush's "stay-the-course" approach with regard to the Iraq War, which was delivered on the same day by U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, should have gotten a lot more attention than it did.

At a time when too many members of Congress, in both parties, are afraid to address the crisis Bush's missteps, misdeeds, arrogance and intransigence have created, Feingold broke the silence in the Senate.

"I cannot support an Iraq policy that makes our enemies stronger and our own country weaker, and that is why I will not support staying the course the President has set," Feingold told the Senate on the same day official Washington was focusing all its attention on the trials of Tom DeLay

Feingold's declaration came as part of scathing assessment of the Bush administration's determination to continue pursuing failed strategies not just in the Middle East but internationally.

"If Iraq were truly the solution to our national security challenges, this gamble with the future of the military and with our own economy might make sense," explained the senator, who last month called for a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country. "If Iraq, rather than such strategically more significant countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were really at the heart of the global fight against violent Islamist terrorism, this might make some sense. If it were true that fighting insurgents in Baghdad meant that we would not have to fight them elsewhere, all of the costs of this policy might make some sense. But these things are not true. Iraq is not the silver bullet in the fight against global terrorist networks. As I have argued in some detail, it is quite possible that the Administration's policies in Iraq are actually strengthening the terrorists by helping them to recruit new fighters from around the world, giving those jihadists on-the-ground training in terrorism, and building new, transnational networks among our enemies. Meanwhile the costs of staying this course indefinitely, the consequences of weakening America's military and America's economy, loom more ominously before us with each passing week. There is no leadership in simply hoping for the best. We must insist on an Iraq policy that works."

Feingold detailed concerns about the damage done to the U.S. military by pursuit of the misguided mission in Iraq. "The Administration's policies in Iraq are breaking the United States Army," explained the Wisconsin Democrat, who reviewed concerns about the stress placed on soldiers and their families and about shortfalls in recruitment for the armed services.

"Make no mistake, our military readiness is already suffering," Feingold explained. "According to a recent RAND study, the Army has been stretched so thin that active-duty soldiers are now spending one of every two years abroad, leaving little of the Army left in any appropriate condition to respond to crises that may emerge elsewhere in the world. In an era in which we confront a globally networked enemy, and at a time when nuclear weapons proliferation is an urgent threat, continuing on our present course is irresponsible at best."

While the military is taking a hit, Feingold noted, so too is the economy. Noting that all of the cost of the war -- "every penny" -- "has been added to the already massive debt that will be paid by future generations of Americans," Feingold asked, "How much longer can the elected representatives of the American people in this Congress allow the President to rack up over a billion dollars a week in new debts? This war is draining, by one estimate, $5.6 billion every month from our economy, funds that might be used to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina recover, or to help address the skyrocketing health care costs facing businesses and families, or to help pay down the enormous debt this government has already piled up."

Feingold remarks were more than a critique of the administration. They were a call to action for the Congress.

"Bush Administration's policies in Iraq are making America weaker," he told the Senate. "And none of us should stand by and allow this to continue."

Truer words have rarely been spoken in the Capitol -- especially in recent years. Feingold's call deserves the attention, and the encouragement, not just of responsible members of the Congress but of the great mass of Americans who know that something has gone very wrong in Iraq -- and Washington.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Sky "Seems" Blue

HuffingtonPost.com
Eric Boehlert: The Sky "Seems" Blue

Even with the administration's troubles mounting, the press cannot shed its five-year-old habit of extending exaggerated deference to the White House—a habit the same Beltway press corps discarded about five weeks into Clinton's first term.

Just look at Sunday's Washington Post article about the ongoing Valarie Plame investigation for evidence of the telltale timidity. The Post article noted that both Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, as well as Bush's deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, played key roles in the Plame controversy, with each speaking to reporters about Plame before columnist Robert Novak outed her in his column. That, according to attorneys who are familiar with Rove and Libby's grand jury testimony. The Post also reported that news of Rove and Libby's central roles does not mesh with what administration officials told reporters when the scandal first broke.

But note the Post's payoff passage: "Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public." [Emphasis added.]

According to the Post, if you look at White House comments about Libby and Rove re: Plame from 2003 and study them side-by-side with the current testimony from Libby and Rove re: Plame, they seem to contradict each other. That's like saying coach Charlie Weis seems to be a popular man in South Bend, Ind. these days.

A more accurate Post description for its Sunday article would have been, "Their testimony completely contradicts what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public." Or "flatly," or "fully," or just plain "contradicts." But "seems"? That makes no sense.


Even more peculiar is the fact he Post itself points out how clear the contradictions are, citing White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who told reporters in 2003 that he personally asked Libby and Rove whether they were involved, "so I could come back to you and say they were not involved." Asked if that was a categorical denial, McClellan answered, "That is correct." And if the paper wanted more proof, the Post could have also referenced this White House briefing back-and-forth from the same time period regarding the Plame investigation:

Question: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you --

McClellan: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

The White House has been caught spreading glaring lies regarding a criminal investigation, but the Post only musters enough courage to report contradictions seem to be in play.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lifestyles of the Liberal and Powerless

Read More...

Summary only...

Snow Job and his Countless Cronies

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush Republicans Heed The President's Call To Conserve Fuel

Read More...

Summary only...

Dog Paddling

Read More...

Summary only...

Number 2

Read More...

Summary only...

At Large

Read More...

Summary only...

This Time We're Ready

Read More...

Summary only...

New Chief Justice

Read More...

Summary only...

Indictment

Read More...

Summary only...

Thin It Out

Read More...

Summary only...

And that's the way Cronkite still is

calendarlive.com
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-cronkite30sep30,0,3846828.story

And that's the way Cronkite still is
At USC, the retired anchor says journalists need to pressure owners to focus on quality.
By Scott Martelle
Times Staff Writer

He's in his late 80s, a little unsteady on the legs and, as he describes it, "as deaf as a damn post." Former "CBS Evening News" anchor Walter Cronkite might be a lion in winter, but during a brief visit to Los Angeles earlier this week he showed that he's still a lion.

Cronkite, who retired from the anchor chair in 1980, has had a quarter-century to watch broadcast news from the sidelines, and he doesn't think the current generation of TV journalists is doing a bad job. Corporate broadcast owners, though, are another story, says Cronkite. He believes they are paying more attention to Wall Street than to the health of the democracy at a time when the nation's dedication to education has wavered.

"We [as a nation] are not educated well enough to perform the necessary act of intelligently selecting our leaders," Cronkite, 88, said during a day of speeches and interviews Tuesday at USC's Annenberg School for Communication, where he helped present the biannual Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Television Political Journalism.

Cronkite issued a call-to-arms for fellow journalists — primarily broadcast — to pressure "our employers, those who are more concerned with profits than they are with performance," to replace the current roundups of celebrity profiles and personal health and finance pieces with "the news of the day."

"If we fail at that," Cronkite said, "our democracy, our republic, I think, is in serious danger."

On campus, Cronkite met briefly with journalists, spoke at the awards luncheon, then sat for almost an hour of questions from an audience of 200 journalism students in the Annenberg Auditorium (a webcast of that session is available at ascweb.usc.edu/home.php).

Slowly over the past couple of decades, "Uncle Walter" has become "Grandpa Walter," and he shined in that role during his session with the students. Most of the audience hadn't been born when Cronkite retired — an event that happened so long ago that his replacement, Dan Rather, has since stepped down from the anchor chair too. Still, Cronkite was greeted with near-reverence: a standing ovation as he entered the room, warm laughs at wry witticisms, and patience when he meandered and had to ask emcee Judy Muller — a former colleague and now Annenberg instructor — to remind him what the question was.

Cronkite's résumé encapsulates the heart of the American 20th century, beginning his career during the Great Depression, covering World War II in North Africa and Europe — including the Normandy invasion and the postwar Nuremberg trials — and extending through the Vietnam War and Watergate.

"It was inspirational to be with someone who's been around for so many years and who is so prestigious in the field," said Tala Jahangiri, 18, a freshman broadcasting major from Newport Beach. "It's great to hear what he thinks about media and the news today.... it's like a legend sitting in front of you, and we were, like, front row looking at him."

Her friend Amy Strack, 18, a print major also from Newport Beach, was equally impressed. Cronkite's talk, she said, led her to question her belief that print journalism is for journalists and broadcast journalism is for pretty faces.

"I'd always perceived broadcast as putting on the makeup," Strack said. "Hearing all the stories about where he's been and what he's seen, it was inspiring."

For much of the day, Cronkite sounded more like a political candidate pushing education issues than veteran newsman. He's genuinely troubled by a society and government that he believes undervalues — and underpays — teachers, a theme he returned to several times.

Given the criticism Cronkite has leveled over the years, he was surprisingly supportive of current broadcast journalism, though he separates the talking heads of many cable shows from network journalists reporting for the evening news shows. In a brief interview, Cronkite said he fears the blogosphere, still in its "infancy," could threaten the standing of mainstream media as a news source for consumers already confused by cable's "opinion journalism." It is the function of the educational system, he believes, to train people to understand the difference.

And he endorsed the traditional single-anchor format he helped pioneer over some of the alternatives, including multiple anchors in multiple cities, reportedly being considered by CBS news chief Leslie Moonves to make the evening news more palatable to younger viewers.

"I just hope they're careful with it," Cronkite said. "I hope they're not bent on changing the format because they want to be more entertaining. We've got to be on guard constantly to eschew entertainment in the news. That's not our function. If we undertake it ... we're going to be cheating the public."
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush threatens defense bill veto, warning on prisoners

Reuters

Bush threatens defense bill veto, warning on prisoners

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday threatened to veto a $440.2 billion defense spending bill in the Senate because it wasn't enough money for the Pentagon and also warned lawmakers not to add any amendments to regulate the treatment of detainees or set up a commission to probe abuse.

Last summer, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia and others sought legislation banning cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners.

The administration has been criticized for holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely. Critics have also questioned whether administration policies led to abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The Senate legislation, which includes a $50 billion emergency fund to keep combat operations running in Iraq into next year, could be voted on next month.

The measure provides $7 billion less than President George W. Bush requested early this year and is nearly $1 billion below current levels.

"These cuts will either result in deterioration of our force readiness" or will require additional spending requests from the administration later in the fiscal year, the White House budget office warned senators.

The House of Representatives last summer passed a fiscal 2006 defense spending bill supported by the Bush administration, although the White House complained about $3 billion in cuts that it said would hamper regular military operations.

Referring to the Senate bill, the White House statement on Friday noted that Bush's senior advisers would recommend vetoing a bill "that significantly underfunds the department (of defense)" and shifts the money to domestic programs not related to security.

In addition, the White House threatened to veto the defense spending bill if it changes the process for considering military base closures within the United States.

Besides cutting some operation and maintenance accounts at the Pentagon, the Senate bill would cut the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft by $270 million and would reduce the Transformational Satellite Communications program by $250 million. Spending on a missile defense program would be about $800 million below Bush's request.

Read More...

Summary only...