64%
64%
Percentage of Americans who believe the Bush administration “generally misleads the American public on current issues to achieve its own ends.”
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Protesters arrested near Bush ranch
Reuters
Protesters arrested near Bush ranch
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A dozen Iraq war protesters were arrested on Wednesday as they tested a new ban on camping and parking on roads near President George W. Bush's Texas ranch where he is spending the Thanksgiving holiday.
The demonstration was timed to coincide with Bush's break at his 1,600-acre (650-hectare) spread and the arrival of the accompanying White House media entourage.
The group included Dede Miller, the sister of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan whose son was killed in Iraq and who became an icon for the peace movement after her 26-day vigil outside Bush's ranch in the summer. Sheehan was scheduled to arrive in Crawford on Friday.
McLennan County sheriff's deputies warned the protesters -- who had pitched tents by the roadside -- and then arrested them for trespassing.
After hundreds of demonstrators erected a tent city during Sheehan's August protest, the county banned camping, parking and sewage receptacles along roads surrounding Bush's ranch, citing health and safety concerns.
Bush arrived on Tuesday night for a six-day visit. He will spend Thanksgiving on Thursday with family, including his parents, former President George Bush and wife Barbara, as well as his twin daughters Jenna and Barbara.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Big Oil 'Participation' at Issue
washingtonpost.com
Big Oil 'Participation' at Issue
Definitions Cited in Dispute Over Roles in Energy Task Force
By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
It all depends how you define the word "participate."
While that may seem as silly as bickering over the definition of the word "is," the implications for some oil company executives who testified at a Senate hearing could be significant. Based on how the word is parsed, some executives either told the truth or did not when they were asked about their "participation" in the 2001 energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney.
The dispute stems from a question raised by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). At a hearing two weeks ago, he asked five oil executives whether they or representatives of their companies participated in meetings with Cheney's energy task force.
The chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co. and Chevron Corp. answered no. The president of Shell Oil Co. said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.
The Bush administration has refused to identify who participated in the task force meetings. But The Washington Post reported last week that a White House document shows that in 2001, officials from Exxon Mobil, Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil and BP America met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
Yesterday, Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for the GOP staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, one of the two panels that convened the hearing, said its lawyers had reached a preliminary conclusion: Based on a court decision in which two groups unsuccessfully challenged the secrecy of the Cheney task force, Funk said the executives appeared to be telling the truth.
"What we simply determined was that the definition of 'participation' was something litigated, and what the court concluded was that attending meetings, and even making presentations, did not rise to the level of fully participating," Funk said.
Lautenberg sees it differently, and disputes the GOP interpretation of the court decision. He also said Republicans are incorrectly interpreting his question.
"I think we're getting down to almost a silly discussion," Lautenberg said.
Lautenberg said that when he asked the question, he was thinking of the word "participation" in broad terms. Here's his definition: "If you're doing anything more than breathing in the room when you're there. Even if you're a silent observer."
The senator has asked the Justice Department to look into the matter.
Funk said that the GOP staff's findings have given "considerable comfort" to Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), the chairman of the energy panel. Funk said Domenici is reserving final judgment until after he has reviewed the written clarification that he and the panel's ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), have asked the oil companies to submit.
Yesterday, Exxon released a response to the senators, reiterating its position that its chief executive, Lee R. Raymond, testified accurately. The statement said the company had not "been a participant on the Task Force and no representative of ExxonMobil attended any meeting of the Task Force."
The statement went on to say that on Feb. 14, 2001, a 45-minute meeting took place with "an administration official" at Exxon Mobil's request. The company "provided information on the global energy supply and demand situation and steps ExxonMobil was taking to meet the world's growing energy needs."
Chevron recently submitted a statement saying that its employees had not participated in meetings with the task force. But the company said it sent a letter to President Bush outlining its position on energy policies.
ConocoPhillips has said its chief executive was appointed when Conoco and Phillips merged in 2002 and was unaware that Conoco officials had met with task force staff.
Bitter debate on Iraq 'disturbing': Army general
Reuters
Bitter debate on Iraq 'disturbing': Army general
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The bitter battle in Washington over whether to withdraw U.S. troops quickly from Iraq is disturbing but has not damaged U.S. military morale, a senior American Army general in Baghdad said on Tuesday.
"A precipitous pullout, I believe, would be destabilizing," Lt. Gen. John Vines, the second-ranking U.S. commander there, told Pentagon reporters in a teleconference from Iraq. He refused to set any timetable.
"Of course the debate and the bitterness is disturbing. But, after all, we are a democracy, and that is what democracy is about ... people will have differences of opinion," Vines said.
"Certainly, soldiers are concerned about whether or not they enjoy the support of not only their elected representatives but the people. And they know that they have their support," Vines replied when pressed about morale among the 155,000 American troops in Iraq.
Vines, who commands the multinational corps of U.S.-led foreign troops in Iraq, declined to be drawn into the debate over a proposal by Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania that all of the troops be withdrawn within six months.
That call, issued last week by the decorated retired Marine and longtime supporter of the military, sparked a vitriolic war of words in the U.S. Congress, with some Republicans questioning Murtha's patriotism, at a time when President George W. Bush has suffered declining popularity over the war in Iraq.
Vines said any recommendation from U.S. commanders in Iraq to begin withdrawing forces would be made based on the security situation and not on political considerations.
"I'm not going to get into a timetable. It will be driven by conditions on the ground," he said.
CIVILIAN DEATHS
Vines expressed regret over an incident on Monday in which U.S. troops opened fire on a crowded minivan north of Baghdad, killing at least three civilians, including a child. But he said the military would not make any changes in its "rules of engagement" that might endanger troops.
"The loss of any innocent life, indeed any life, is tragic," Vines said. "What we must never do is deprive a soldier in harm's way the ability to protect himself and his fellow soldiers."
How will Americans know, Vines was asked by reporters, that any recommendation by commanders to leave Iraq is based on military judgment rather than political questions over Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and his subsequent handling of the war?
"I know that our recommendations will be based on conditions here in-country. They will not be based on the things that you allude to," Vines said.
Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said U.S. military commanders in Iraq are mindful that the very presence of American forces may fuel insurgent violence in parts of that country, adding that this concern factored into decisions about future U.S. force levels.
The intensifying debate at home about the future of U.S. troops in Iraq will not play a role in the decisions being made about future force levels, Di Rita added.
Senator says Bush needs to depoliticize Iraq debate
Reuters
Senator says Bush needs to depoliticize Iraq debate
CHICAGO (Reuters) - President George W. Bush should take politics out of the Iraq war by admitting he made mistakes and pledging to work with both parties to find a responsible way to end it, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said on Tuesday.
By turning the discussion of the war into a for-us or against-us proposition, the White House last week "showed exactly what kind of debate it wants on the future of Iraq -- none," Obama said in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
Obama, the only black in the Senate, said Bush "could take the politics out of Iraq once and for all" if he would tell the American people: "'Yes, we made mistakes. Yes. there are things I would have done differently. But ... I am willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.'"
The administration's response last week to Democratic Rep. John Murtha's call for an immediate troop withdrawal was "shameful," Obama said, and pushed the debate farther from finding a pragmatic solution to the conflict.
"No American wants a war without end -- a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent and where we end up with arbitrary poll-driven troop reductions ...," he said.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
White House Flip-Flops on Murtha
thinkprogress.org
White House Flip-Flops on Murtha
First, Murtha was taking a “baffling” position only accepted by “the extreme liberal wing.” White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 11/18/05:
[I]t is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled — nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.
Now, he’s taking a “clear stand” in a “legitimate discussion.” Vice President Cheney, 11/21/05:
Recently my friend Jack Murtha called for a complete withdraw of our troops in Iraq. I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best interest of this nation. He’s a good man, a marine, a patriot and he’s taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion.
Cheney Rewrites The Headlines
Cheney Rewrites The Headlines
Vice President Dick Cheney began his speech at the American Enterprise Institute today with the following statement:
My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline quote, Cheney Says War Critics Dishonest, Reprehensible, endquote. The one thing I’ve learned in the last five years is that when you’re vice president you’re lucky if your speeches get any attention at all but I do have a quarrel with that headline.
Here’s exactly what Cheney said just a few days ago, on November 16:
And the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.
To quote President Bush, it is “deeply irresponsible to rewrite history.”
UPDATE:
Cheney clarified later in the speech that he differentiates between war critics who believe the President misled the public into war and war critics who believe an exit strategy is needed. While he believes the latter is a patriotic group, the former is still “dishonest and reprehensible“:
What is not legitimate — and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible — is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.
A Strip Search of Novak’s Column Yields No Facts
thinkprogress.org
A Strip Search of Novak’s Column Yields No Facts
In his column this morning, Novak took issue with the assertion that Alito voted to approve the strip search of a 10-year-old girl:
The ad claimed Alito, as a federal appellate judge, “even voted to approve the strip search of a 10-year-old girl.” This distorts a case where a suspected drug dealer’s daughter was searched, visibly not manually, by a female police officer in the presence of the child’s mother.
Here’s what actually happened, as described by the court:
Once inside, however, the officers found no visitors, but only John Doe’s wife, Jane, and their ten year old daughter, Mary…They were instructed to empty their pockets and lift their shirts. The female officer patted their pockets. She then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found.
That sounds like a strip search. And as the court makes clear, the 10-year-old girl was patted down, so Novak’s claim that the girl was only searched only “visibly not manually” isn’t true. Later in the decision, the court specifically points out that the girl was “touched by a female officer who was searching for contraband.”
Also, Novak fails to point out that the girl was not covered by the warrant obtained by the officers. That’s why the majority found “Searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.”
Woodward Reveals Important Clues About White House Smear Campaign
thinkprogress.org
Woodward Reveals Important Clues About White House Smear Campaign
From Woodward’s appearance on Larry King “Live” tonight:
Question: Your source, did the source indicate whether Ms. Plame was an undercover agent or a desk analyst?
Woodward: Good question. And specifically said that — the source did — that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst. Now, I’ve been covering the CIA for over three decades, and analysts, except — in fact, I don’t even know of a case. Maybe there are cases. But they’re not undercover. They are people who take other information and analyze it. And so — and if you were there at this moment in mid-June when this was said, there was no suggestion that it was sensitive, that it was secret.
This exchange is extremely important. From the indictment, we learned that Vice President Cheney told Scooter Libby that Plame worked in the “Counterproliferation Division,” an agency in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (DO) – see fact #9. The DO is well-known as the clandestine arm of the CIA.
The “agency on weapons of mass destruction,” however, is part of the Directorate of Intelligence (DI), which is “on the overt side of the CIA.” Recall, Novak’s source also told him Plame worked at the “agency on weapons of mass destruction.” Matt Cooper was also told that Plame worked at the “agency on wmd.” And Judith Miller? Same deal — she was told Plame worked at “WINPAC” (the more formal acronym for the agency on weapons of mass destruction).
So, at some point along this chain, someone in the Bush administration changed Valerie Plame’s job affiliation with the CIA,
possibly to convince reporters that it was OK to report on her. Were Woodward, Miller, Novak, and Cooper all intentionally deceived about Plame’s status? If so, it strongly suggests the outing of Valerie Plame was not unintentional.
Lawmaker Returns Home, a Hawk Turned War Foe
The New York Times
Lawmaker Returns Home, a Hawk Turned War Foe
By DAVID S. CLOUD
JOHNSTOWN, Pa., Nov. 21 - Representative John P. Murtha, the hawkish Democrat who spent his political career as a staunch Pentagon supporter, came home Monday as something entirely different: an antiwar symbol.
His call last week for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq within the next six months took aback many of his own constituents and made the plainspoken former Marine colonel's homecoming on Monday a moment for re-evaluation - of the congressman, as well as of the Bush administration's strategy for Iraq.
"It's really surprising that you would see Mr. Murtha speaking out and saying that it's time to get out, and if he's saying it then it's probably so," said Becky Wicks, a Johnstown resident who said she and her family had supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
As recently as last year, Mr. Murtha was warning that "premature withdrawal" of American troops could lead to a civil war in Iraq and leave American foreign policy in "disarray," the exact critique Republicans lodge against him now.
The evolution of his views, he said, has been driven both by the pain of frequent visits to see injured soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center outside Washington and by his steady disillusionment with the Bush administration's handling of the war. But in some ways he is unsuited temperamentally to the role he has assumed.
"I just came to the conclusion finally that I had to speak out," he told reporters on Monday. "I had to focus this administration on an exit strategy."
"I'm hopeful I don't go too far," he said, adding that he "felt bad" last week after bringing up Vice President Dick Cheney's "five deferments" in the Vietnam era.
Mr. Cheney, in a speech on Monday in Washington in which he defended the administration's handling of the war, called Mr. Murtha "a good man, a marine, a patriot," and said Mr. Murtha was "taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion."
An insider most comfortable in the backrooms of Congress, Mr. Murtha said his goal was only to force a dialogue with President Bush on the need to draw down American forces - not lead his party's antiwar wing. Many fellow Democrats are uneasy about his call for an immediate withdrawal, fearing it will give Republicans a chance to brand them as weak on national security.
Not everyone in Johnstown is comfortable with Mr. Murtha's new role.
At a speech Monday morning to local executives and elected officials, Mr. Murtha received three standing ovations. The talk focused almost entirely on all the federal aid Mr. Murtha has been able to deliver to his district from his seat on the House Appropriations Committee.
But when he spoke briefly about Iraq, the audience seemed unsure about how to react to their congressman's public break with the Bush administration. When Mr. Murtha invited questions after his remarks, no one in the audience of several hundred came forward.
"We're all kind of perplexed," said Robert A. Gleason Jr., an insurance executive and chairman of the local Republican Committee, who said he had put aside party loyalties and voted for Mr. Murtha in the past.
The first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress, in 1974, Mr. Murtha rose to become the top Democrat on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, a post he has used to look after average soldiers' needs. He keeps a running count of the number of his constituents killed in Iraq: now 13.
Since shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, he has frequently visited wounded troops at Walter Reed, an experience that he said had gradually convinced him that the American troop presence was exacerbating the violence by giving insurgents more targets to attack.
In speeches over the last week, he has repeatedly referred to a constituent, Pfc. Salvatore Ross Jr., a combat engineer from Dunbar, Pa., who was badly wounded while landmines he was clearing near Baghdad went off. The explosion blinded him in both eyes and tore off his leg below the knee, Private Ross said in an interview. He spent more than a month in a coma at Walter Reed and later underwent more than a dozen surgeries.
Mr. Murtha visited him twice in the hospital and later arranged a ceremony in Private Ross's hometown, where he received a Purple Heart. He also arranged for Walter Reed to pick up many of his medical bills for special treatment at a private hospital, Johns Hopkins Medical Center.
Only a year ago, though, Mr. Murtha wrote in the epilogue to the paperback edition of a biography he wrote with a former aide that "an untimely exit could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America's foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America's judgment but also its perseverance."
But in several trips to Iraq in the last year, he said that he became convinced that the military was not making progress at defeating the insurgency. Yet, he said, the Bush administration ignored his efforts to open private discussions on devising a bipartisan course change.
A letter on Iraq that Mr. Murtha said he sent to Mr. Bush last year did not get a reply until five months later, and then from a underling at the Pentagon, he complained.
"I deserve more respect than that," he said.
Mr. Murtha said he began discussing his growing unease with the military presence in Iraq with longtime advisers, including two retired generals and a former secretary of the Army, whom he would not identify. They urged him not to call publicly for a withdrawal, he said, but as his doubts about the war grew, "they finally came around."
Even Mr. Gleason, the local Republican chairman, predicted that Mr. Murtha's stance would cause him no significant political problems in next November's elections.
Though most voters lean Democratic in this blue-collar region, they are generally conservative. President Bush only lost the district by 8,000 votes in 2004.
Even so, no Republican has yet announced a run against Mr. Murtha, although that may speak as much to Republican concerns over the political climate and the 2006 election as it does about Mr. Murtha's popularity in his district.
His break with the Bush administration could still entice a candidate into the race. But years of delivering federal money from his Appropriations Committee seat has made him all but invulnerable, Mr. Gleason conceded.
Colonel Denies Disparaging Murtha
By The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 - A colonel in the Marine reserves has taken issue with how his views were represented in a Republican attack last week on Representative Murtha.
Speaking on the House floor on Friday, Representative Jean Schmidt, Republican of Ohio, asserted that the colonel had "asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, marines never do."
But a spokeswoman for the colonel, Danny R. Bubp, said Ms. Schmidt had misconstrued their conversation.
While Mr. Bubp, a Republican member of the Ohio House of Representatives, opposes a quick withdrawal for forces, "he did not mention Congressman Murtha by name nor did he mean to disparage Congressman Murtha," said Karen Tabor, his spokeswoman. "He feels as though the words that Congresswoman Schmidt chose did not represent their conversation."
Asked to respond on Monday, the congresswoman's office said only, "Mrs. Schmidt's statement was never meant to disparage Congressman Murtha."
Murtha Says Americans Back Iraq Pullout
Murtha Says Americans Back Iraq Pullout
By DAN LOVERING
Associated Press Writer
JOHNSTOWN, Pa. (AP) -- U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a key Democrat on military issues, on Monday defended his call to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, saying he was reflecting Americans' sentiment.
"The public turned against this war before I said it," Murtha said. "The public is emotionally tied into finding a solution to this thing, and that's what I hope this administration is going to find out."
Murtha, 73, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he has received support from the public since calling for the troop pullout on Thursday. He said he has gotten e-mails from World War II veterans and parents of American soldiers in Iraq.
Murtha noted that his great-grandfather served in the Civil War, his father and three uncles in World War II, and that he and his brothers were Marines. Murtha said western Pennsylvania, where his district is located, is a "hotbed of patriotism and they've lost confidence in this effort."
He said Iraqis must take control of their own destiny.
"We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning," Murtha said at a scheduled news conference after a speech to a civic group in his hometown of Johnstown, about 60 miles east of Pittsburgh.
House Republicans on Friday pushed for a vote on a nonbinding resolution to pull out the troops after Murtha's comments. It was rejected 403-3, but Democrats said the quick call for the vote was a political stunt designed to undermine Murtha's comments.
"The guys in Congress are scared to death to say anything because they might be vilified," Murtha said. "The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."
Murtha said he was unmoved by criticism he's received from President Bush, others in Congress and the public.
U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, spoke on the House floor Friday about a phone call she got from a Marine colonel who said, "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Asked about it, Murtha called the comment ridiculous.
"You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution," Murtha said. "This is not a war of words, this is a war."
Aware that his comments last week would draw fire from conservatives, Murtha said he specifically asked more liberal members of his party not to step forward to support him.
"I didn't want (the public) to think this was a Democrat position plotted from the left wing," Murtha said.
Murtha expressed confidence that terrorist bombings in Iraq would cease once U.S. troops were gone and Iraqis became solely responsible for their destiny.
"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy," Murtha said. "(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."
Murtha said he believes President Bush needs to realize how citizens feel about the war.
"All of us want to support the president when he's at war," Murtha said "But you can't support him when he won't change directions, won't listen."
GM slashing production and jobs
Reuters
GM slashing production and jobs
By Tom Brown
DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp. said on Monday it would cut 30,000 North American manufacturing jobs and close a dozen plants as it struggles to compete with fast-growing rivals led by Toyota Motor Corp.
The cuts affect about a quarter of the North American factory work force at GM and are the deepest since it eliminated 21 plants and 74,000 jobs over four years beginning in December 1991.
The latest plan, which affects factories in the United States and Canada, allows GM to reduce costs by $7 billion by the end of 2006 -- $1 billion above its previous target -- and increases by 5,000 the jobs the company had said it would cut.
The world's largest automaker warned that it would take a "significant restructuring charge" with the plan, but did not say how much it would be or when it would be taken.
Merrill Lynch analyst John Casesa said in a note late on Monday that he expects the charge to range from $1 billion and $2 billion, "which is a tough number to justify without tangible results."
This is the largest single U.S. layoff announcement since Kmart said it would cut 37,000 jobs in January 2003, according to employment consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
GM Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, who took the unusual step of denying in a letter to staff last week that GM was preparing to file for bankruptcy protection, said he was not prepared to discuss GM's 2006 profit outlook.
Shares of GM closed down 47 cents, or 1.95 percent, at $23.58 on the New York Stock Exchange on Monday. The company has lost nearly $4 billion this year, while its shares have lost more than 40 percent of their value and hit a 14-year low last week.
"The plan was in-line with our expectations and is only the beginning of a long restructuring process," Casesa said in the note.
Plants marked for closure include those in Doraville, Georgia, Ontario, Canada, Portland, Oregon and Pittsburgh, an Oklahoma City plant that makes mid-size sport utility vehicles and GM's Lansing, Michigan Craft Center, which makes a poor-selling sport pickup truck.
Separately, GM has closed or stopped production this year at three assembly plants in Lansing, Michigan, Linden, New Jersey and Baltimore, Maryland.
Wagoner first announced plans to cut North American manufacturing capacity, in line with its shrinking market share and to match demand by 2008, at the company's annual shareholders meeting in June.
"It's a big move ... We're confident that this is what it's going to take to get us going," Wagoner told a news conference in Detroit on Monday.
GM, which was founded in 1908, said it hoped it could achieve many of the job cuts through attrition and buyouts.
"TOUGH MEDICINE"
Wagoner said the leadership of the United Auto Workers union had been told of the plans, calling it "tough medicine for everyone involved."
The UAW responded to Wagoner's announcement with an angry statement to the media indicating it would push to keep furloughed workers on GM's payrolls for the duration of its current labor contract, which expires in 2007.
That could mean that laid off workers would continue to receive most of their pay and benefits, with the plant closings providing little immediate savings to GM.
"The UAW-represented workers impacted by today's action are protected by our job security program as well as other provisions and protections of the UAW-GM National Agreement," the union said in its statement.
"The full cost savings won't be realized until 2008," said analyst David Healy of Burnham Securities, citing the impact of the restrictive UAW labor agreement.
Basil "Buzz" Hargrove, head of the Canadian Auto Workers union, said the closing of one of GM's assembly plants in Oshawa, Ontario, came as a "complete shock" to him because it was the company's most productive facility in North America.
"It's a jewel so to speak, and we couldn't imagine them kind of killing the lead horse," Hargrove told local radio. He blamed the decision on bad trade policies and what he described as unfair competition from Japan and South Korea.
"They ship into our market but they don't allow us to ship back to their market," Hargrove said. "As long as we have this
unfair trade situation ... you're going to see a continuing decline in the fortune of General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler."
Pressures on Wagoner have mounted amid concerns that nothing short of a change at the top would improve the automaker's fortunes. He took the company's helm in 2000, but assumed control of daily operations at its North American unit in April 2005. On Monday, he dismissed any notion stepping aside.
"I haven't given any consideration whatsoever to that. I wasn't brought up to run and hide when things get tough," he said. "We're on the battlefield, we're taking the actions we need to, and I'm convinced that's the way the company is going to get righted."
Wagoner said his planned cuts in GM's North American production capacity did not mean that it would be ceding ground to Toyota as the world's No. 1 automaker when ranked by production.
Some analysts see that as inevitable, however, and Wall Street remained uncertain about his strategy.
In a warning issued not long after GM's restructuring announcement, Standard & Poor's said GM's credit rating could be cut further into junk territory.
Wagoner has also been under pressure from investor Kirk Kerkorian, who owns 9.9 percent of GM's stock and may demand a seat on the board next year.
GM and its crosstown rival Ford Motor Co. have both been grappling with high health-care and materials costs, loss of U.S. market share to foreign rivals, and slumping sales of large SUVs that used to be their profit centers but have lost popularity as gasoline prices rose.
Ford is expected to announce its own cuts in North American manufacturing jobs and a series of plant closings by no later than January. The No. 2 U.S. automaker announced on Friday that it was cutting 4,000 white-collar jobs, or about 10 percent of its salaried North American work force.
Ex-DeLay aide pleads guilty in corruption case
Reuters
Ex-DeLay aide pleads guilty in corruption case
By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An ex-aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and partner to a powerful Republican lobbyist pleaded guilty to conspiracy on Monday under a deal in which he is cooperating with prosecutors probing alleged influence-buying involving the lobbyist and lawmakers.
Michael Scanlon, 35, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in defrauding Indian tribes of millions of dollars and lavishing gifts upon a member of the U.S. Congress.
He was ordered to pay $19.7 million in restitution to the tribes, could serve up to five years in prison and be fined $250,000 and must cooperate with prosecutors.
Scanlon left Delay's office and became a partner to wealthy lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has been indicted for fraud in a separate case in Florida. The plea agreement has been seen as a major advance in prosecutors' efforts to investigate alleged influence-buying involving Abramoff, members of Congress and government agencies.
Scanlon's lawyer Plato Cacheris said Scanlon has more information to provide to the government, but in an exchange with reporters after the hearing refused to comment on whether more members of Congress might be implicated.
"Guilty, your honor," Scanlon, 35, told federal Judge Ellen Huvelle in formalizing the plea deal.
Abramoff has pleaded not guilty to federal charges in Florida that he defrauded lenders in a casino cruise line deal.
'LOBBYIST A'
According to prosecutors, from January 2000 through at least April 2004, Scanlon conspired with a lobbyist, only identified as "Lobbyist A," to "corruptly" give gifts to government officials. In return, the officials were to perform acts benefiting Scanlon and "Lobbyist A."
In court papers filed last week, Scanlon was alleged to have given a member of Congress and his staff a golf trip to Scotland, sports tickets and other entertainment, as well as meals and campaign contributions.
DeLay has faced questions about whether his expenses for the Scotland trip were paid by Abramoff, which would violate House rules.
The congressman was not named, but Rep. Bob Ney, a six-term Ohio Republican, recently said he had been subpoenaed as part of the U.S. Justice Department's investigation of Abramoff. Ney chairs the House Administration Committee, which oversees operations in the Capitol.
A spokesman for Ney said the congressman was cooperating with the federal investigation and has not been told he is the target of any probe.
Following the plea, Ney's office said the congressman was a victim of Scanlon's illegal activities.
"All that this plea agreement shows is that Mr. Scanlon had a deliberate, secret, and well-concealed scheme to defraud many people, and it appears, unfortunately, that Representative Ney was one of the many people defrauded," spokesman Brian Walsh said in a written statement.
Prosecutors say clients of Scanlon and the lobbyist were defrauded of millions of dollars as part of a conspiracy "to enrich themselves."
The charges say an Indian tribe in Mississippi paid Scanlon's company, Capital Campaign Strategies, about $14.8 million. According to the charges, Scanlon concealed the fact that "Lobbyist A" would get half of the profits from the tribe's payments to Scanlon.
There were similar arrangements for tribes in Louisiana, Michigan and Texas, according to the court documents.
The plea deal does not preclude other state and federal jurisdictions from pursuing Scanlon in other cases.
He is to return to the federal court in March to discuss the case's progress and possible timing for sentencing.
DeLay, a Texas Republican, resigned as majority leader in September after being indicted on conspiracy and money laundering charges in Texas related to a campaign finance investigation. DeLay has maintained his innocence and hopes to ultimately regain his powerful leadership post.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Storm Hit Little, but Aid Flowed to Inland City
The New York Times
Storm Hit Little, but Aid Flowed to Inland City
By ERIC LIPTON
JACKSON, Miss., Nov. 19 - When the federal government and the nation's largest disaster relief group reached out a helping hand after Hurricane Katrina blew through here, tens of thousands of people grabbed it.
But in giving out $62 million in aid, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Red Cross overlooked a critical fact: the storm was hardly catastrophic here, 160 miles from the coast. The only damage sustained by most of the nearly 30,000 households receiving aid was spoiled food in the freezer.
The fact that at least some relief money has gone to those perceived as greedy, not needy, has set off recriminations in this poor, historic capital where the payments of up to $2,358 set off spending sprees on jewelry, guns and electronics.
Though a majority of the money appears to have been given out legally, the United States attorney's office is investigating at least 1,000 reports of fraud, including accusations that people lied about claims of damage or where they lived. State and local officials are criticizing FEMA and the Red Cross as doling out money without safeguards, but they also blame their fellow citizens.
"The donors all across this nation thought they were giving money to put food in the mouths of people who had nothing and clothes on the backs of people who had lost everything," said State Representative John R. Reeves, who represents Jackson. "But that is not what happened here. There was a feeding frenzy. Free money was being handed out."
And friends have turned against friends. When word of the Red Cross and federal money got out in Jackson's neighborhoods, many rushed to apply. Huge lines formed at Western Union outlets, discount stores and other places that issued or cashed the relief checks. Erica Thompson, 32, tried unsuccessfully to persuade her friends not to join in.
"People can take a good thing and abuse it," Ms. Thompson said while doing her wash at a coin laundry in Jackson this week. "It's not right."
Some of those who accepted the aid, though, feel no embarrassment. "I needed that money," said Lynn Alexander, 30, whose apartment lost power in the storm, but was not damaged. She collected $900, she said, from the Red Cross. "It helped me put gas in my car, wash my clothes and buy food."
What happened in Jackson and its suburbs - in Hinds, Madison and Rankin Counties - might not be unique. Emergency officials elsewhere in Mississippi and in parts of Louisiana have also questioned how so much federal aid could have been authorized, given the limited damage they documented.
"Someone is going to have to look at that," said Bo Boudreaux, deputy director of homeland security in Iberia Parish, west of New Orleans, where perhaps three mobile homes were damaged, he said, but 404 families, according to FEMA, received $2,000 checks in emergency aid.
FEMA, which is leading the $62 billion Hurricane Katrina relief effort, has been criticized as responding slowly to the disaster and then wasting recovery money. In defending the payments in the Jackson area, the agency and the Red Cross cited the tensions between moving quickly to help the desperate, and moving carefully to avoid aiding the undeserving.
"This is the challenge we perpetually face," said Nicol Andrews, a FEMA spokeswoman. "Do you get assistance into the hands of those who desperately need it as quickly as possible? Or do you slow it down to dot every single I and cross every single T? We chose to err on the side of the victim."
Charles D. Connor, a senior vice president at the Red Cross in Washington, said his group had a similar imperative. People who brought in a form of identification were eligible for aid. Mr. Connor acknowledges that apparently resulted in aid being offered to some who did not need it.
"We did the best we could to help people as quickly as we could knowing that mistakes would be made along the way," he said Friday.
Donald Paxton, executive director of the Central Mississippi Chapter of the Red Cross added: "Unless you drove down every street in Hinds County, there was no way of immediately determining actually what the damage was."
FEMA and the Red Cross have made disaster assistance payments in the past that have drawn criticism. After Hurricane Frances in Florida last year, FEMA distributed $31 million to residents in the Miami-Dade area despite minimal damage.
Senator Susan M. Collins, a Maine Republican whose committee oversees FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, said in an interview Thursday that the agency had apparently failed to correct problems auditors found in Florida.
"It is frustrating to me that FEMA seems incapable of paying legitimate claims quickly and effectively and yet reimburses fraudulent claims without asking any questions," Ms. Collins said. "It is the worst of all worlds."
Open for Aid
After Hurricane Katrina devastated coastal communities on Aug. 29, it moved steadily inland toward Jackson. Smack in the middle of Mississippi, the capital city has been in slow decline for more than a decade, struggling with high crime, long-simmering racial tensions and poverty.
By the time the hurricane reached this far, its power had diminished. The sustained winds, recorded at 47 m.p.h. at the airport, were far below hurricane speed. But gusts of up to 74 m.p.h. took down trees, knocking out power lines and damaging roofs. Almost all of Jackson lost power. Electricity returned for most customers in a few days. But in some cases, it took up to two weeks.
Still, the region was largely spared. In Jackson and two nearby counties, only 50 to 60 homes were declared uninhabitable, local emergency departments said. About 4,000 sustained damage, they said.
Immediately after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, the Bush administration declared a disaster area along 15 Mississippi coastal counties, as well as 31 parishes in Louisiana. Residents there were eligible for federal emergency grants, housing assistance and money for repairs, medical bills and other costs.
But by Sept. 7, at Mississippi's request, the disaster zone was expanded as far as 220 miles inland, reaching 32 counties, including several that never experienced sustained hurricane-force winds. The zone eventually reached 47 counties. The disaster area in Mississippi - which is led by a Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican ally of President Bush's - extends 200 miles farther north than that in Louisiana, which is led by Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a Democrat who at times criticized the federal storm response.
Lea Stokes, a spokeswoman for the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency, said it was the course of the storm, not politics, that dictated the map. The state urged the Bush administration to include so many counties in the disaster zone after documenting widespread damage. The state encouraged all residents to apply for aid, even if the only cost they incurred was the purchase of a chainsaw or generator.
"Let them tell you whether or not you qualify before you rule yourself out," she said, echoing the advice offered by Mississippi officials.
Ms. Andrews, the FEMA spokeswoman, said the federal government typically deferred to states on disaster declarations. But when that happens, she acknowledged, the door is opened for federal aid.
"Once we effectively turn on a county, anyone in that county can apply," Ms. Andrews said.
A Rush for Checks
Even before Hurricane Katrina landed, the Central Mississippi Chapter of the American Red Cross began preparing. The charity opened a shelter at the Coliseum and Trade Mart in Jackson for evacuees from the coast. Soon after, the Red Cross also began offering cash grants ranging from $360 for a single adult to $1,565 for a family of five.
Ms. Alexander, who is unemployed, remembers phone calls from her cousin, then from her therapist. The Red Cross, she was told, was giving out money to Jackson residents.
Ms. Alexander drove to the Trade Mart, but chose not to wait for her turn because the crowd was so large. Back home, she called the charity's toll-free telephone number dozens of times before finally getting approval for $900 in aid. She had to give her name and address, she said. The only storm damage at her apartment was spoiled food in the fridge. "I was blessed," she said.
Michael Hendrick had also gone to the Trade Mart, broke, homeless and hungry after fleeing the Louisiana coast. He listened as Jackson-area residents plotted the best way to get the biggest grants. "It was really kind of turning my stomach," Mr. Hendrick said.
Before the rush subsided, the Red Cross gave $32 million to area residents, including about 25,400 of the 92,000 households in Hinds County, home to Jackson, according to statistics first published in The Clarion Ledger and confirmed by Mr. Paxton of the local Red Cross chapter.
FEMA received 42,313 applications from Hinds County and 17,352 claims from Madison or Rankin Counties. To date, 16,407 of those applications have been approved, resulting in a payout of $20.3 million in disaster grants, as well as $9 million in rental assistance and other aid, agency records show. Most of the federal money was intended for people whose homes were uninhabitable, but it was distributed before any home inspections were conducted.
The relief checks soon created a crush of customers at local businesses. A clerk at Quik Cash, a check-cashing store, said a line of more than 100 customers stretched down the hallway, out the door and around the corner. So many people showed up that the business ran out of cash.
Lee Montgomery, the manager of Terry Road Pawn Shop in Jackson, said many of those cashing relief checks at his business immediately bought jewelry, firearms, DVD movies and electronics.
Bob Parks, owner of a Hinds County pharmacy and Western Union agency, said he watched in disbelief as hundreds of Jackson-area residents arrived at his store to get relief checks. "Surely the Red Cross has to have a better use of funds," Mr. Parks said. "Unless they just have money that they are trying to get rid of for some reason."
Unexpected Numbers
Local government officials were baffled by the payouts. Weeks after the storm, Larry J. Fisher, director of the Hinds County emergency department, got a call from a regional FEMA representative saying that staff members wanted to know why county officials had reported that so few homes were uninhabitable.
FEMA has sent aid to thousands of county residents who claimed their homes were ruined, including 7,622 checks for $2,000 in emergency financial assistance. But Mr. Fisher counted only about 50 uninhabitable homes and perhaps 4,000 with any damage at all.
To resolve the discrepancy, Mr. Fisher recalled, he was told: "You are going to increase your number." A Baptist deacon and a former city police detective, Mr. Fisher, 67, was going to have none of that. Backed up by digital photographs he had taken of damaged properties, he refused to revise his reports. "I am not going to change my figures up to yours," Mr. Fisher said he told the FEMA official. "You want to start investigating, by all means, do so." When asked about the conversation, FEMA officials said they were not aware of it.
Officials in Mississippi fault both the Red Cross and FEMA for not having clearer - and tougher - standards about what kind of damage merited a claim. In the end, it appeared that simply being a resident when the storm passed through was enough to collect a check.
"The Red Cross is thought of as the premier charity," said Representative Reeves of Jackson. "In my judgment, they dropped the ball."
Mr. Parks, a longtime Red Cross donor, said he would never donate to the charity again.
Mr. Paxton said he realized that there was some abuse, but he could not say for sure just how much took place. If the charity failed to act responsibly, he said, it will move to correct the problems.
Marshand K. Crisler, president of the Jackson City Council, said many aid applicants perhaps honestly believed they deserved help, even if it was simply to replace spoiled food. But clearly there was abuse as well.
"People are taking advantage of a crisis," Mr. Crisler said. "We are saddened that people would stoop to such a level."
Woodward rebuked over leak case
Reuters
Woodward rebuked over leak case
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Washington Post's ombudsman rebuked journalist Bob Woodward on Sunday for withholding what he knew about the CIA leak probe from his editor and for making public statements that were dismissive of the investigation without disclosing his own involvement.
One of the best-known investigative reporters in the United States, Woodward revealed last week that he testified under oath to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official told him in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame's position at the agency.
Fitzgerald announced a few days later in court papers that his two-year criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's identity would be going back before a federal grand jury, a sign he may seek new or revised charges.
The name of Woodward's source has yet to be made public and so far more than a dozen senior administration officials have denied any involvement in the leak.
Asked on "Fox News Sunday" if he ever spoke to Woodward about Plame, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "No, of course not." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a similar denial through a spokesman on Saturday.
In a column highly critical of Woodward's conduct, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell said the newspaper took a "hit to its credibility" and called for more oversight of Woodward's work.
"He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff -- even if he's rich and famous," Howell wrote of Woodward, one of the two Washington Post reporters famed for coverage of the 1970s Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon.
Howell said Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by keeping Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie in the dark about his source for more than two years.
"He also committed another journalistic sin -- commenting on National Public Radio and (CNN's) "Larry King Live" about the Plame investigation without disclosing his early knowledge of Plame's identity," Howell wrote.
In a series of television and radio interviews before publicly disclosing his involvement in the leak case, Woodward described the leak case as laughable and Fitzgerald's behavior as "disgraceful."
One day before Fitzgerald brought charges against Vice President Dick Cheney's long-time chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Woodward said he saw no evidence of criminal intent.
Woodward has apologized to Downie, who said "Bob made a mistake" by not informing him sooner of his source on Plame.
"He made a mistake going on television, giving his opinions about the investigation. ... He shouldn't have been expressing those opinions," Downie added on CNN's "Reliable Sources."
Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, has called for an inquiry by The Washington Post into Woodward's conduct, citing a similar investigation by The New York Times into the conduct of reporter Judith Miller, who resigned from The Times earlier this month.
Miller, who spent 85 days in jail for initially refusing to testify to Fitzgerald about her conversations with Libby, resigned after Times Executive Editor Bill Keller suggested she had misled the paper, a charge Miller denied.
Biden: Chance of filibuster on Alito stronger
Yahoo! News
Biden: Chance of filibuster on Alito stronger
The chance of a filibuster to halt the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito rose on news he once opposed 1960s Supreme Court rulings on reapportionment based on the principle of equal voting rights, a top Democrat on the Senate judiciary panel said on Sunday.
Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat from Delaware, told Fox News Sunday that a decision by Democrats to filibuster would depend largely on Alito's answers during judiciary committee questioning scheduled for January.
In a 1985 application to be a deputy assistant attorney general disclosed last week, Alito wrote that he disagreed with reapportionment decisions by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the early 1960s.
Prior to the Warren court's decisions, some state legislators were elected on a geographical basis, giving thinly populated rural areas more political heft than urban centers.
"If he really believes that reapportionment is a questionable decision -- that is, the idea of Baker vs. Carr, one man, one vote -- then clearly, clearly, you'll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court. We don't know that. We have to hear it," Biden said. "That would include a filibuster if need be."
Asked if this increased the chances of a filibuster, Biden said: "Well, I think based upon that job application where he said he strongly held these views, yes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
