Friday, September 01, 2006

Katherine Harris Holds Lead in Poll Heading Into Final Week Before Fla. Republican Primary

ABC News
Poll: Harris Leads Fla. GOP Senate Race
Katherine Harris Holds Lead in Poll Heading Into Final Week Before Fla. Republican Primary
By BRENT KALLESTAD
The Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Congresswoman Katherine Harris holds a double-digit lead in the race for Florida's Republican U.S. Senate nomination less than a week before the primary, according to a poll released Thursday.



However, the poll also indicates that a large number of Republicans haven't settled on a candidate, and about a third of those supporting Harris said they still might change their minds.

"If Rep. Harris had only one opponent she might be in deep trouble," said Peter Brown, assistant polling director for the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, which conducted the poll last week. "But having three candidates splitting the anti-Harris vote is a major plus for her."

Harris was favored by 38 percent of 317 likely Republican voters.

William McBride, a 34-year-old attorney, was supported by 22 percent; retired Navy admiral LeRoy Collins Jr. of Tampa was backed by 11 percent; and Peter Monroe, a real estate developer from Safety Harbor, received 3 percent.

The winner of the Sept. 5 primary faces incumbent U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson in the November general election.

Harris, the former Florida secretary of state, gained notoriety for her role in certifying Florida's votes in the disputed 2000 presidential election.

"We believe that Katherine Harris is the only Republican candidate with a proven record of success and accomplishment to beat Bill Nelson," campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Marks said Thursday.

Some Republicans, including Gov. Jeb Bush, don't believe she can beat Nelson, though and have asked her to withdraw.

Recent polls have shown Nelson more than 30 points ahead of Harris in a general election matchup, and her campaign has been rocky. Fundraising has lagged, campaign workers have defected and she has been dogged by news of dealings with a corrupt defense contractor who gave her $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions.

The telephone poll, conducted between Aug. 23-28, had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

About 25 percent of the likely Republican voters questioned said they were still undecided and 45 percent said they might change their minds by election day including a third of those who said they presently favored Harris.

On the Net: http://www.quinnipiac.edu



Read More...

Education Dept. Shared Student Data With F.B.I.

The New York Times
Education Dept. Shared Student Data With F.B.I.
By JONATHAN D. GLATER

The Federal Education Department shared personal information on hundreds of student loan applicants with the Federal Bureau of Investigation across a five-year period that began after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the agencies said yesterday.

Under the program, called Project Strikeback, the Education Department received names from the F.B.I. and checked them against its student aid database, forwarding information. Each year, the Education Department collects information from 14 million applications for federal student aid.

Neither agency would say whether any investigations resulted. The agencies said the program had been closed. The effort was reported yesterday by a graduate student, Laura McGann, at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, as part of a reporting project that focused on national security and civil liberties.

In a statement, Mary Mitchelson, counsel to the inspector general of the Education Department, said, “Using names provided by the bureau, we examined the Department of Education’s student financial aid databases to determine if the individuals received or applied for federal student financial assistance.”

Information collected on federal financial aid applications includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, incomes and, for some students, information on parents’ incomes and educational backgrounds.

Generally, only United States citizens and permanent residents are eligible to apply for federal student financial aid.

An assistant director of the F.B.I., John Miller, said in a statement: “During the 9/11 investigation and continually since, much of the intelligence has indicated terrorists have exploited programs involving student visas and financial aid. In some student loan frauds, identity theft has been a factor.’’

Mr. Miller said the Education Department was asked to “run names of subjects already material to counterterrorism investigations” to look for evidence of student loan fraud or identity theft.

“No records of people other than those already under investigation were called for,” he said. “This was not a sweeping program, in that it involved only a few hundred names. This is part of our mission, which is to take the leads we have and investigate them.”

Mr. Miller said that the effort was not concealed and that it was referred to publicly in briefings to Congress and the Government Accountability Office.

A spokeswoman for the bureau, Cathy Milhoan, said the Education Department had provided financial aid information on fewer than 1,000 names in connection with terrorism investigations.

The information sharing was disclosed as the Education Department examines a proposal by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, established last year by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, to create a national student database that would follow individual students’ progress as a way of holding colleges accountable for students’ success.

“This operation Strikeback confirms our worst fears about the uses to which these databases can be put,” said David L. Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, which represents 900 institutions. “The concentration of all this data absolutely invites use by other agencies of data that had been gathered for very specific and narrow purposes, namely the granting of student aid to needy kids.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation would not discuss the specific criteria it used in seeking information on students but said the program was narrowly focused.

“People are trying to turn this into something that it wasn’t,” Ms. Milhoan said. “We are not out there arbitrarily running student records for the sake of running them.”

Ms. Mitchelson of the Education Department said a review of the files of the people named by the F.B.I. had not led to any cases that charged student loan fraud.

Ms. Mitchelson said the information sharing was possible under a law that permits a federal agency to release personal information to another agency “for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity.”

She said the department had spent fewer than 600 hours on the program, including 50 hours over the last four years.

Ms. McGann, the journalism student who reported on the program, said she saw data sharing mentioned, but not described, in a report by the Government Accountability Office that she reviewed in the spring as part of a research project after a seminar on investigative reporting.

“I thought that was pretty unexpected for the Department of Education,” said Ms. McGann, 24, who graduated this year from Medill. “So I decided I would try to look into that a little more.”

She said she found another mention of the program in a report from the inspector general’s office in the department.

In June, Ms. McGann went directly to the Education Department.

“Eventually, I did an on-camera interview with a deputy inspector general there who did comment on the program,” she said.

She said his name was Michael Deshields.

“After that,’’ Ms. McGann added, “I decided I should file a Freedom of Information Act request.”

Last month, she received documents in response to her request that were heavily redacted, she said. Among them were Education Department memorandums describing F.B.I. requests for information on specific people whose names were blocked out and an internal memorandum dated June 16, 10 days after her interview, stating that the data sharing program had terminated. The name of the author of that memorandum was also redacted, she added.

“I learned that getting information from a federal agency you need to be persistent,” Ms. McGann said. “And I learned that public documents are really a wealth of stories.”

She said she had accepted a position at Dow Jones Newswires in Washington.

Eric Lichtblau contributed reporting from Washington for this article.





Read More...

Japan conducts huge quake drill

BBC News
Japan conducts huge quake drill

Elementary school children crouch under their desks as part of a nationwide earthquake drill at a Tokyo elementary school, 01 September 2006.



Hundreds of thousands of people took part in the drill

More than 800,000 people across Japan have taken part in an annual drill to prepare for a major earthquake.

Police, firefighters and volunteers practiced their response to a magnitude 7.3 quake directly under Tokyo.

These drills are held every year on the anniversary of the Great Kanto earthquake, which killed more than 140,000 people in 1923.

This year's exercise included personnel from the US and South Korea for the first time.

In a mock news conference on Friday morning, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said that massive damage had been caused by an earthquake, and urged people not to panic.

Then emergency procedures got underway, with helicopters picking up "evacuees" and firefighters helping people from buildings.

Japan is in an area prone to regular and in some cases serious earthquakes.

Tokyo, which has a population of 12 million, sits on three major seismic fault-lines.

A large-scale earthquake is thought to be several years overdue, and despite all their efforts to prepare the public and reinforce buildings, officials still predict that a large tremor could kill more than 10,000 of the city's inhabitants.

Read More...

Court backs right of student to wear anti-Bush shirt

Court backs right to wear anti-Bush shirt
Oliver Burkeman in New York
The Guardian

Zachary Guiles knew he was being provocative when he showed up for school two years ago in a T-shirt that accused George Bush of being a war-mongering draft-dodger, a drunkard and a drug addict. What the 13-year-old may not have realised was that he would provoke a major free-speech battle that culminated this week in a court victory.

An appeals court in New York found that Zachary's constitutional rights were violated when officials at his Vermont school made him stick duct tape over parts of the T-shirt. The shirt also said the president was undertaking a "world domination tour" and showed a picture of his head superimposed on a chicken's body, along with cocaine, a razor blade and a martini glass. Zachary was suspended for a day, but continued to wear the T-shirt to school, complete with duct tape.

Lawyers for Williamstown middle high school argued the images contravened the school's ban on clothes promoting drink and drugs, but the court rejected the idea on the grounds that the T-shirt expressed "an anti-drug view". Mr Bush has spoken of his battles with alcohol earlier in his life.

The T-shirt "uses harsh rhetoric and imagery to express disagreement with the president's policies and to impugn his character", the court ruled, but the images "are not plainly offensive as a matter of law".

"The standard that the court set was that a kid has free-speech rights as long as the expression of those rights doesn't upset the normal workings of a school," said Allen Gilbert, of the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case.

Zachary said: "I think this is a very good sign that even with the current administration ... there can still be a justice that allows free speech."

Read More...

The "Fear" Tour - Just in time for midterm Elections

The New York Times
In Latest Push, Bush Cites Risk in Quitting Iraq
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

SALT LAKE CITY, Aug. 31 — President Bush said Thursday that withdrawing now from Iraq would leave Americans at risk of terrorist attacks “in the streets of our own cities,” and he cast the struggle against Islamic extremists as the costly but necessary successor to the battles of the last century against Nazism and Communism.

“The war we fight today is more than a military conflict,’’ Mr. Bush said in a speech to veterans at an American Legion convention here. “It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century.’’

The speech, the first of five addresses on national security Mr. Bush plans to deliver between now and Sept. 19, was part of an orchestrated White House offensive to buttress public support for the Iraq war and portray Democrats as less capable of protecting the country, a theme that has proved effective for Republicans in the past two elections.

Even as Mr. Bush spoke, a series of explosions ripped through Baghdad, providing more images of a sort that he acknowledged have been “sometimes unsettling” to the public.

The latest White House offensive — the third major public relations effort in the past year to offset a decline in public support for the Iraq war and place it in the context of a broader cause — began unfolding this week, with combative speeches to veterans groups by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Both invoked variations of the word “appease’’ to characterize critics of the president’s policies, with Mr. Rumsfeld saying they had not “learned history’s lessons.’’

That language drew an immediate backlash from Democrats on Wednesday, and Mr. Bush did not adopt it. But he did echo the allusions to the failed strategy of trying to appease Nazi Germany. He called today’s terrorists ‘’successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century,’’ and cautioned Americans against concluding that five years after the Sept. 11 attacks the threat had receded.

“That feeling,’’ he said, “is natural and comforting — and wrong.’’

It was an aggressive opening salvo to the midterm election season, timed to coincide with the days preceding the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. In forceful language, the president painted the war on terror as an epic struggle between good and evil.

While he predicted victory, resurrecting a word he had dropped months ago and using it 12 times in a 44-minute speech, Mr. Bush also cautioned that the road ahead would be fraught with obstacles.

But he put particular emphasis on what he said would be the consequences of a failure to ensure Iraq’s stability, saying, “If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities.”

Telling his audience that the path to a stable and peaceful Middle East would be “uphill and uneven,” he invoked Thomas Jefferson, who said nations cannot move “from despotism to liberty in a featherbed.”

Wiping a tear from his eye, Mr. Bush told the story of Cpl. Adam Galvez of Salt Lake City, a marine who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq and was buried Wednesday.

Corporal Galvez’s parents attended the speech, which coupled familiar phrases about fighting terrorists “overseas so we do not have to face them here at home” with a fresh effort to lump various strains of Islamic extremism into what the president called “a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology.’’

Democrats said Mr. Bush’s strategy of painting them as weak on national security would not work this year and accused him of trying to divert attention from his record.

“After six years,’’ said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, “they’ve got only fear to sell.’’

Another Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, called the Bush speech “a long repetition of old messages and rhetoric to scare the American people’’ and said she would push for a Senate vote calling on the president to replace Mr. Rumsfeld.

“This latest Rumsfeld rampage cannot stand,’’ Ms. Boxer said.With Congressional Republicans fighting to hold on to their majorities in the House and the Senate, the speech came at a delicate time. Many of those lawmakers view the war as a political liability and have spent the past month at home getting an earful from voters.

“Members of Congress are going to be returning next week, and they will be quite anxious because they will have been briefed by their pollsters, have spent the last three weeks with their constituents and most of them will be worried,’’ said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. “So the administration is trying to set the terms of the debate to really make this a clear choice between moving forward and the cut-and-run crowd.’’

Indeed, Mr. Bush’s speech made clear that he would make the issue central to his campaign on his fellow Republicans’ behalf. It reflected a belief at the White House that there is no option for the administration but to convince the nation that the struggle in Iraq is necessary and worth the cost in the service of a broader goal: eradicating the threat from Islamic extremists by bringing democracy to the Middle East.

It also reflected a belief inside the White House that Republicans can once again convince voters that they can do a better job of protecting them than can Democrats.

“Between ’04 and now, the Democrats have not only not provided a more united front, they are backsliding into a very irresponsible position of premature withdrawal from the fight in Iraq,’’ said Dan Bartlett, counselor to Mr. Bush. “Most Americans, I think, understand the consequences of that action, and I think that will prove to be difficult for the Democrats.’’

Yet even some Republicans, granted anonymity to speak freely about their criticism of the White House strategy, were skeptical, saying the public was tired not only of the war but also of politically divisive speeches on national security.

“The hard-core conservatives are already behind his Iraq policy,’’ said a senior Republican Senate aide. “For him to move the numbers in a way that benefits Congressional Republicans, he needs to reach out to moderates, and it’s difficult to do that when his surrogates are contradicting him and calling opponents of his policy appeasers.’’

But Mr. Bartlett said the White House did not expect public opinion to change quickly.

“The goal is not to see an immediate spike in poll numbers,’’ he said. “We’ve clearly understood that public sentiment doesn’t develop overnight. It’s been over a period of time, and it doesn’t change overnight.’’

In making the case that the war in Iraq is “the central front in our fight against terrorism,’’ the president linked Iraq, the summer battles between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon and the growing nuclear threat in Iran under the general rubric of his freedom agenda.

At the same time, he placed various factions of terrorists — Sunnis who swear allegiance to Al Qaeda, Shiite radicals who join groups like Hezbollah and so-called homegrown terrorists — under one umbrella.

Experts said that might be overstating the facts.

“ ‘Network of radicals’ suggests they are actually connected in some practical fashion, and that’s obviously not the case,’’ said Steven Simon, a State Department official in the administrations of President Bill Clinton and Mr. Bush’s father.

But the comparison is central to Mr. Bush’s message, said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the National Republican Committee, who has played an integral role in developing Republican strategy for the midterm elections.

“I thought linking together the different elements of this ideological movement was important to do, and was effective,’’ Mr. Mehlman said.

Anne E. Kornblut reported from Salt Lake City for this article, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Washington.




Read More...

California passes greenhouse gas bill

Reuters
California passes greenhouse gas bill
By Mary Milliken

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California made a bold move to curb global warming by passing on Thursday the first bill in the United States to cap man-made greenhouse gas emissions, an action state leaders hope will be copied across the country.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, frustrated by lack of action from fellow Republican President George W. Bush on reducing heat-trapping gases, teamed up with the state's Democratic majority on the landmark bill.

The bill cleared its last legislative hurdle in the State Assembly in a 46-31 vote, with opposition from Schwarzenegger's own Republican Party. The Senate voted to pass it 23-14 late on Wednesday. Schwarzenegger plans to sign it next month.

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 puts California at the forefront of the fight against climate change along with the European Union, and increases pressure on Washington to impose mandatory caps rather than the voluntary measures favored by Bush.

California aims to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a cut of around 25 percent. The biggest sources of heat-trapping gases, such as power plants and cement makers, will be required to report their emissions.

Bush pulled the United States out of the 160-nation Kyoto Protocol in 2001 on the grounds that the mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would hurt the economy and wrongly excluded developing nations.

Assembly Speaker and co-sponsor Fabian Nunez appealed to California's traditional leadership on the environment and asked the legislature to take "an opportunity to be bold."

'TIPPING POINT'

"Members, this is a bipartisan bill; it's a bipartisan bill that has good corporate citizens supporting it," said Nunez, a Los Angeles Democrat who engaged in tense talks with Schwarzenegger's administration for weeks.

Republicans argued the bill was "not fully cooked" and echoed concerns in the business community that it would drive away companies to less regulated places like China.

While Schwarzenegger will use his good record on the environment in his November re-election bid, Nunez has said the Democrats hope to roll it out to other states and make it a hot election issue for the 2008 presidential race.

"We've reached a tipping point in the fight against global warming," said Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"The whole world has been watching to see whether California passes this bill, and now the world will watch as California takes the lead in developing a clean energy market."

Although California is a pace-setter on the environment, it is also the world's 12th-largest producer of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and faces potentially serious concerns over its drinking water, coastline, agriculture and air quality because of the rise in temperatures.

(Additional reporting by Jenny O'Mara in Sacramento)


Read More...

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, says stem-cell research "Orwellian"

Reuters
Mass. governor says stem-cell research "Orwellian"

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, said on Thursday his administration's new restrictions on stem cell research are aimed at heading off an "Orwellian" future.

The state's Department of Public Health this week issued regulations banning the creation of embryos for research purposes.

Scientists say stem cell research could lead to breakthroughs in treatments for diseases including cancer. But the issue has become ethically and politically volatile because extracting the cells entails destruction of an embryo.

"I believe it crosses a very bright moral line to take sperm and eggs in the laboratory and start creating human life," Romney told reporters. "It is Orwellian in its scope. In laboratories you could have trays of new embryos being created."

Romney spoke a week after a Massachusetts company, Advanced Cell Technology, said it had developed a way to make human embryonic stem cells without harming the original embryo, a finding it said could dispel ethical objections.

Stem cells are the body's master cells, capable of turning into any other type of cell. They are available from many sources, but experts believe the most powerful and versatile cells may be those taken from days-old embryos.

President Bush last month vetoed a bill that would have raised federal funding for research using embryonic stem cells, which he views as the destruction of life.

Romney appears to be positioning himself for the 2008 Republican primaries, when he will need to win over conservative voters to get the party's nomination, said Julian Zelizer, a Boston University history professor who follows Romney closely.

"Stem cells are like the new abortion, in that it's become a litmus test for conservatives nationally," Zelizer said.

Massachusetts legislators opposed Romney's move, noting that in May 2005 they enacted a law over Romney's veto allowing stem cell research to take place in the state.

At that time Romney offered an amendment that would have banned the creation of embryos for research purpose.

"The legislature debated, and soundly defeated, the exact language the Department (of Public Health) has adopted as a regulation," wrote State Rep. Daniel Bosley, a Democrat, a memo to fellow legislators. "Consequently, we should oppose this language."




Read More...

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Must Watch Video: Keith Olbermann Delivers One Hell Of a Commentary on Rumsfeld

crooksandliars.com
Keith Olbermann Delivers One Hell Of a Commentary on Rumsfeld
By: Jamie Holly



Keith had some very choice words about Rumsfeld’s "fascism" comments tonight (08/30/2006). Watch it, save it and share it.

Click here, then scroll down just a bit and click on the appropriate link to watch the video

Olbermann delivered this commentary with fire and passion while highlighting how Rumsfeld’s comments echoes other times in our world’s history when anyone who questioned the administration was coined as a traitor, unpatriotic, communist or any other colorful term. Luckily we pulled out of those times and we will pull out of these times.

Remember - Rumsfeld did not just call the Democrats out yesterday, he called out a majority of this country. This wasn’t only a partisan attack, but more so an attack against the majority of Americans.

The transcript of Keith’s comments tonight is available below.

[Editor's Note: Much better to watch the video to fully grasp what has occurred.]

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and

shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald S. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable comments to the Veterans of Foreign Wars

yesterday demand the deep analysis - and the sober contemplation - of every

American.

For they do not merely serve to impugn the morality or

intelligence - indeed, the loyalty — of the majority of Americans who

oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land;

Worse, still, they credit those same transient occupants - our

employees — with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither

common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad,

suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of

human freedom; And not merely because it is the first roadblock against the

kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still

fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile… it

is right — and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was

adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis.

For, in their time, there was another government faced with true

peril - with a growing evil - powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the

facts. It, too, had the secret information. It alone had the true

picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in

terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s - questioning their intellect and their

morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone

England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all

treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which

contradicted policies, conclusions - and omniscience — needed to be

dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew

the truth.

Most relevant of all - it "knew" that its staunchest critics

needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost

of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile - at

best… morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name… was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this

evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way

Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History - and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England

- taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty - and his own

confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the

man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute - and exclusive - in its knowledge, is not the

modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis. It is the modern

version of the government… of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscients.

That about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused… is simply this:

This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And as such,

all voices count — not just his. Had he or his President perhaps

proven any of their prior claims of omniscience - about Osama Bin

Laden’s plans five years ago - about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago

- about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one* year ago - we all might be able to

swallow hard, and accept their omniscience as a bearable, even useful

recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own

arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or

intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to

Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to enveloppe this

nation - he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have - inadvertently

or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and

the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the

Emporer’s New Clothes.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised?

As a child, of whose heroism did he read?

On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day

to fight?

With what country has he confused… the United States of

America?

—–

The confusion we — as its citizens - must now address, is

stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when

men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and

obscured our flag. Note - with hope in your heart - that those earlier

Americans always found their way to the light… and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and

this Administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the

terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for

which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City,

so valiantly fought.

—-

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country

faces a "new type of fascism."

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew

everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he

said that — though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

—-

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble

tribute… I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist

Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I

come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of

us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew

everything, and branded those who disagreed, "confused" or "immoral."

Thus forgive me for reading Murrow in full:

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954.

"We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction

depends upon evidence and due process of law.

"We will not walk in fear - one, of another. We will not be

driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history

and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men;

"Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to

defend causes that were - for the moment - unpopular."


Read More...

Al Gore For President: The Man Meets The Moment

Huffington Post
Brent Budowsky
Al Gore For President: The Man Meets The Moment

Imagine this: a President of the United States with vast domestic and international experience who would aspire to unify the American people, uplift a reformed American politics, and inspire friends of freedom and democracy everywhere.

Imagine: a President who would assume office with commander in chief quality experience who would be trusted on matters of war and peace; and with a temperament that respects the breadth and diversity of the American Family and brings people together in common cause.

There will be other candidates for President who have much to offer and would deserve enthusiastic support. In my opinion, Al Gore is unique because of the extraordinary breadth of his experience, his ability to get ahead of the curve on cutting edge issues, and his vast knowledge that war and peace issues should be decided with integrity, clarity, and the full involvement of the American people, Congress, and allies.

Beyond all of the individual issues is this: the kind of America a Gore Presidency would bring, which would let loose the positive and creative energies of a good and great people, versus the kind of America George Bush has brought, which is what the overwhelming majority of the American people want to end.

Unlike virtually every major Democrat in Washington Al Gore was dead right about Iraq from day one. This commends him for the Presidency for two reasons, both equally important. The first reason is that with decades of national security experience he was wise enough and smart enough to know that the Iraq War was a tragic mistake. The second reason is profound: Al Gore had the courage and clarity to speak out clearly, forcefully, and unequivocally without the maneuvering and positioning that led virtually every leading Washington Democrat to be dead wrong.

Iraq alone should not be disqualifying. But this is the defining war of our times, and evaluating who should be leader of the free world and commander in chief, the fact that Al Gore was completely right and courageously straight is a monumental plus.

When George W. Bush took office, he was a man of enormous self-esteem but virtually zero knowledge of the world, zero understanding of foreign nations, zero understanding of military strategy or military life. When Al Gore was a young man he had vast curiosity about the world that continually expanded his knowledge throughout his life. He was not a war hero, but accepted the obligations of service, joined the military and had more world experience and war experience returning from Vietnam than George Bush did the day he took the oath of office as President.

Al Gore has been in a military family, respects military leaders, knows military issues, has experienced sacrifice in service, knows that American diplomatic leadership is essential to world security, would never send our troops to war without adequate support, and learned from long experience that mobilized support from democratic allies is vital for diplomatic and military initiatives.

If Al Gore becomes President and commander in chief on the day of his inaugural he would be one of the most qualitied leaders to ever assume the Presidency. Years in the House of Representatives, years in the United States Senate, eight years as one of the more active and respected Vice Presidents. Deep and serious involvement for decades in military strategy and global economics, an enormous body of first rate leadership in protecting the environment, advancing new technologies, and advocating a pro-America energy policy that aggressively promotes new energy sources to protect our security and our consumers.

These are not merely position papers, or bogus internet petitions that are little more than fund raising tools of the consultariat class. These are areas of leadership that comprise a lifetime body of work: serious, substantive and real.

These are initiatives of meat and potatoes, of impact and depth, that required substantial intellectual content, developed throughout thirty years of work, involving major collaboration with excerpts in the field, and often collaboration with interested Republicans and independents.

Since leaving the Vice Presidency, Gore could have made a small fortune through less noble pursuits, but has continued his life pattern of major leadership well beyond his opposition to the Iraq War.

Inconvenient Truth is a perfect example. He tapped decades of work with environmental leaders and scholarly knowledge; he worked with Hollywood in a higher pursuit of a major documentary that combined major intellectual quality with major public impact.

Gore combined his knowledge of environment and energy with his interest in financial markets and global economics, through Generation Investments which brings together enlightened money with socially conscious business.

Gore has spoken passionately and eloquently about the Bill of Rights, human rights, political freedom, checks and balances and American Constitutional democracy. Others have spoken out as well, but in considering which candidate best articulates the American idea I commend Gore's sweeping speech at Constitution Hall and other strong, detailed statements on these subjects.

Al Gore understands from many decades of real world experience and a lifetime body of work in the House, the Senate, and as Vice President that we have three branches of government, two major political parties, key allies around the world, and that ALL must be respected and involved on the great issues of security.

We are not a country with a French King who says "L'Etat C'est Moi" or a Nixonian President who says "I am the law". We are not a country where intelligence is distorted, where war is used for partisanship, where opponents are called traitors, where the Bill of Rights is bartered away, where Guantanamos are justified, where Congress is treated with contempt, where Courts are bypassed and ignored, where the American people are insulted with a politics of fear, where allies are demeaned, and Washington is turned into a capital of courtiers, sycophants and influence peddlers.

Al Gore does not blame the American people by suggesting we have psychological trauma because we know things have gone terribly wrong. Al Gore embodies the American people and the real America. Imagine the kind of country we will be, with a President who believes these things, based on decades of hard leadership, substantial experience, and achievement from a lifetime body of serious work.

There are other good candidates that will emerge. In my humble opinion, the man and the moment come together. The mission is clear, the moment is now, and the man is Gore.

Read More...

Ohio to Delay Destruction of Presidential Ballots; More irregularities found in 2004 election ballots supervised by Governor candidate Blackwell

The New York Times
Ohio to Delay Destruction of Presidential Ballots
By IAN URBINA

With paper ballots from the 2004 presidential election in Ohio scheduled to be destroyed next week, the secretary of state in Columbus, under pressure from critics, said yesterday that he would move to delay the destruction at least for several months.

Since the election, questions have been raised about how votes were tallied in Ohio, a battleground state that helped deliver the election to President Bush over Senator John Kerry.

The critics, including an independent candidate for governor and a team of statisticians and lawyers, say preliminary results from their ballot inspections show signs of more widespread irregularities than previously known.

The critics say the ballots should be saved pending an investigation. They also say the secretary of state’s proposal to delay the destruction does not go far enough, and they intend to sue to preserve the ballots.

In Florida in 2003, historians and lawyers persuaded state officials not to destroy the ballots in the 2000 presidential election, and those ballots are stored at the state archive.

Lawyers for J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Ohio secretary of state, said although he did not have the authority to preserve the ballots, Mr. Blackwell would issue an order in a day or two that delays the destruction and that reminds local elections officials that they have to consult the public records commissions in each county.

Federal law permits, but does not require, destroying paper ballots from federal elections 22 months after Election Day.

The critics say their sole interest in the question is to improve the voting system.

“This is not about Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush or who should be president,’’ said Bill Goodman, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York group that is part of the lawsuit. “This is about figuring out what is not working in our election system and ensuring that every cast vote counts.

“There is a gap between the numbers provided in the local level records, which until recently no one has been allowed to see, and the official final tallies that were publicly released after this election, and we want to figure out why that gap is there.”

The planned action of Mr. Blackwell, a Republican who is running for governor, and the threatened suit could draw attention to possible irregularities in the election that he supervised.

The suit would follow what researchers call the first time anyone other than county and state officials in Ohio have been given such extensive access to the main material from the previous presidential election.

After eight months inspecting 35,000 ballots from 75 rural and urban precincts, the critics say that they have found many with signs of tampering and that in some precincts the number of voters differs significantly from the certified results.

In Miami County, in southwestern Ohio, official tallies in one precinct recorded about 550 votes. Ballots and signature books indicated that 450 people voted.

The investigation has not inspected all 5.6 million ballots in the election because the critics were not given access to them until January. That followed an agreement by the League of Women Voters, a plaintiff in another election suit against the state, that it was not contesting the 2004 results, Mr. Goodman said.

The new suit, to be filed in Federal District Court in Columbus, would be argued on civil rights grounds, saying the state deprived voters of equal treatment.

Last week, lawyers sent a legal notice to Mr. Blackwell notifying him that suit was pending and asking him to issue an administrative order directing the 88 county election boards to retain the 2004 records.

“The decision of who decides whether the records will be preserved is quite simply not the secretary’s to make,” said Robert A. Destro, a lawyer for the secretary of state’s office.

Mr. Destro said preservation decisions belonged to the county public records commissions, the county boards of elections and the Ohio Historical Society.

“But by issuing this order,” Mr. Destro added, “the secretary of state will prevent any records from being destroyed for at least several months while this matter is studied more closely.”

Steven Rosenfeld, a freelance reporter formerly with National Public Radio, said the investigative team analyzed three types of sources. They are poll books used by officials to record the names of voters casting ballots, signature books signed by voters and used to verify that signatures match registration records, and optical scan and punch card ballots, used by 85 percent of the voters in the state. The rest used touch-screen machines.

“We’re not claiming that what we found reveals a huge conspiracy,” Mr. Rosenfeld said. “What we’re claiming is that what we found at least reveals extremely shoddy handling of ballots, and there are some initial indications of local-level ballot stuffing.”

In Miami County, Mr. Rosenfeld said, the team found discrepancies of 5 percent or more in some precincts between the people in the signature books and the certified results.

In 10 southwestern counties, he said, the team found thousands of punch card ballots that lacked codes identifying the precinct where the ballot was cast. The codes are typically necessary for the machines processing the ballots to “know’’ to record which candidate receives the votes.

Mr. Rosenfeld is a co-author of a book that The New Press is to publish next month, “What Happened in Ohio?: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election.” The other co-authors are Harvey Wasserman, an election rights advocate and an adjunct professor of history at Columbus State Community College, and Robert J. Fitrakis, a lawyer who is running for governor as an independent.

Robert F. Bauer, a lawyer from Washington who represented Mr. Kerry and the Democratic National Committee on voting issues before the 2004 election, was skeptical about the critics’ case.

“The major discrepancies that they are identifying are not materially different than what has already been highlighted,” Mr. Bauer said.

On Tuesday, Mr. Kerry sent a fund-raising e-mail message calling for support for Representative Ted Strickland, the Democrat who is running for governor. Mr. Kerry wrote that Mr. Blackwell “used his office to abuse our democracy and threaten basic voting rights” in 2004.

Multiple suits failed in challenging the 2004 election in Ohio, and most studies after the election concluded that irregularities existed, but that they would not have changed the outcome.

In January 2005, the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee issued a report finding “massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies” in the election.

In March 2005, the Democratic National Committee issued a report that said 2 percent of the Ohio electorate, or “approximately 129,543 voters,” had intended to vote but did not do so because of long lines and other problems at polling stations.

But the report said those and other frustrated voters “would not have erased Bush’s 118,000 vote margin in the state.”





Read More...

Democrats accuse Rumsfeld of political smear

Reuters
Democrats accuse Rumsfeld of political smear
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats accused Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday of a political smear after he assailed critics of U.S. policy in Iraq and the war on terrorism in a speech recalling those who favored appeasing the Nazis before World War Two.

"If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War Two, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, House of Representatives Democratic Leader.

"Desperate to divert attention from his many failures as Defense Secretary, Rumsfeld is resorting to tactics that would make Joe McCarthy proud," added Rep. Pete Stark of California, referring to the disgraced Republican senator who with scant evidence accused many Americans of being Communists or sympathizers in the 1950s.

"The sooner Rumsfeld resigns, the safer America will be," Stark added.

Their comments came a day after Rumsfeld, in a speech in Salt Lake City, took aim at war critics. Rumsfeld noted that some world leaders tried to appease Hitler's Germany in the 1930s, and some critics today "seem not to have learned history's lessons."

"With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?" Rumsfeld asked.

Rumsfeld said "any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere" in any long war.

Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff said, "He was not accusing critics of this administration of being soft on terrorism or anything of that sort."

"The point of the speech," added Ruff, "was to raise these questions, and at the same time to remind us that ... it's not in America's best interest to turn your back on history. And the lessons of the '30s are pretty clear."

But Pelosi responded on Wednesday: "Secretary Rumsfeld's efforts to smear critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy are a pathetic attempt to shift the public's attention from his repeated failure to manage the conduct of the war competently."

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a member of the Armed Services Committee and retired Army officer, said, "Secretary Rumsfeld continually substitutes sloganeering for strategy. And any strategy relies not only on a plan, but also adequate resources. And in the case of Iraq, there was no adequate planning and insufficient resources from the very beginning."

"If there is a moral and intellectual confusion about this war, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is the one that is confused. His overly optimistic mischaracterizations of this war continue to confuse and dishearten Americans," added Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and a leading critic of the Iraq war.




Read More...

Continuing the politicalization of the war, Bush launches push to counter Iraq war criticism

Reuters
Bush launches push to counter Iraq war criticism
By Caren Bohan

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - For the third time in less than a year and two months before crucial U.S. elections, President George W. Bush is launching a new campaign to counter opposition to the Iraq war with a series of speeches he insists are not political.

The first of the speeches is planned for Thursday at the American Legion annual convention in Salt Lake City and Bush will continue the theme of the Iraq war and national security through mid-September, coinciding with the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

After a surge in violence in the past few months, Bush will acknowledge "that these are unsettling times," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. But he will discuss the Iraq war in the broader context of the war on terror, she said.

Democrats have pressed for a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But Bush argues that a premature exit would embolden al Qaeda and leave Americans more vulnerable to another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Iraq has emerged as a top issue in the run-up to November's congressional elections. Democrats hope to win control of at least one chamber of Congress and many believe disillusionment with the Iraq war could boost their chances.

Democrats and Republicans accuse each other of politicizing the war debate.

Bush, visiting Little Rock, Arkansas, to raise money for Republican gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson, rejected any tie between politics and the blitz of speeches on Iraq.

SPEECHES 'NOT POLITICAL'

"My series of speeches, they are not political speeches, they are speeches about the future of this country and they are speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation will become in even more jeopardy," he said.

"These are important times and I would seriously hope people wouldn't politicize these issues that I am going to talk about," Bush added.

Bush later hit some of his themes about the war at a fundraiser for a Republican Senate candidate in Nashville, Tennessee.

"The stakes in Iraq are high," Bush said, warning that a premature withdrawal would lead militants to "follow us here."

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made a similar case on Tuesday but took it a step further by likening war critics to those who argued for appeasing the Nazis during World War Two. He spoke to the same American Legion veterans Bush is due to visit on Thursday.

The comparison stirred outrage among Democrats.

"We Democrats want to fight a very strong war on terror," said Charles Schumer, a New York senator. "No one has talked about not doing everything we can to make sure we win this war on terror."

Bush's popularity ratings are hovering in the high 30 percent range, only slightly better than record lows earlier this year, making him a liability for many in his party. Yet voters give him his highest marks for his handling of the war on terrorism.

Perino said Bush's American Legion speech will explain the "roots of the ideological struggle in the lack of freedom in the Middle East" and emphasize Bush's agenda of trying to spur democratic change there.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria)




Read More...

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Bush: "We delivered!" New Orleans: "No, you didn't!"

Huffington Post
Steven G. Brant
Bush: "We delivered!" New Orleans: "No, you didn't!"

"Ford to NYC: 'Drop Dead!'"

Every New Yorker old enough to remember the '76 election recalls that headline in The New York Daily News. It summed up then President Gerard Ford's opinion regarding New York City's huge fiscal problems as only the Daily News could. As legendary New York City columnist Jimmy Breslin recalled a couple of years ago, that headline "helped make Jimmy Carter the president."

"We delivered!" were President Bush's equally emphatic words, delivered in New Orleans on the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina to NBC News anchor Brian Williams (who, for reasons perhaps only known to Mr. Williams, did not challenge Bush on his claim). President Bush was, of course, referring to the response by the Federal government to the needs of the people of New Orleans.

I think "We delivered!" will turn out to be Bush's version of "Drop Dead!".

The exact words Mr. Bush used, as reported on MSNBC.com were:

"When it's all said and done, the people down here know that I stood in Jackson Square [a year ago] and said, 'We're going to help you,' and we delivered," he said. "What matters is that we help the good people here rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, and we're going to do that.

UPDATE: And here's the video, which I was just able to get a hold of.

Of course, Mr. Bush was being positive and supportive in his remarks. Nothing to get down on him about here. Right? After all, Ford was showing himself to be cold-hearted. Bush is demonstrating he's a warm-hearted., "compassionate conservative".

Ford certainly didn't "heart" NY. Bush definitely "hearts" New Orleans. In fact, President Bush was actually responding to Brian Williams' telling him that some people say the Federal government's poor response to the devestation in New Orleans reflects Bush's "partrician upbringing". That's what led Bush to say the words above.

So, why do I say that I think "We delivered!" will be President Bush's "Drop Dead!"?

Because he lied. Because he doesn't care.

Bush may care about poor people, personally; but he doesn't care if the Federal government actually gets the job done in New Orleans...if it actually "delivers".

And everyone knows it.

Well, I suppose President Bush himself might not know it. But that would require him to be delusional.

Yes, he could be delusional rather than a liar. In fact, he mixes the present and future tenses in his two sentences. First saying "We delivered." and then saying "we're going to do that." (not "we did that already and will do more.") So, maybe he really wishes he had delivered after one year what he really knows will take many years to deliver (at the rate he is going). Hmmm. Choices, choices.

Well, with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld having decided to label everyone who thinks things aren't going well in Iraq as "fascist sympathizers", I'm going to stick with my opinion that Bush lied. Sorry. I'm just not feeling charitable at the moment.

By the way, when I say "everyone knows the Federal government hasn't 'delivered'", it's because of discussions such as the one below, from the PBS Newshour. Of course, this is just one example. But I like it for how thoughtful it was. (This video is only the first 5 minutes of the discussion, because I'm focused on the "delivered or not?" question. If you want to see the rest, you'll be able to find it on YouTube.)

Here's my hope, which you've probably guessed by now.

If "Drop Dead!" cost Ford the presidency, I hope "We delivered!" helps cost the Bush administration their majorities in the House and Senate.

Are you listening, Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees?
---------------------------------------------
One footnote to the PBS video: At the end, you will hear Sean Reilly, chair of the state and local legislative task force of the Louisiana Recovery Authority, blame the Army Corps of Engineers for what happened to New Orleans.

He literally says this was a man-made disaster...an engineering failure. Well, since my undergraduate degree happens to be in civil engineering and since I spent 10 years working for the Army Corps of Engineers in NYC, I'd like to point out to Mr. Reilly that - especially when it comes to the "civil works" part of its mission - the Corps of Engineers responds to political needs and demands and funding restrictions imposed by politicians just like all other federal agencies. The colonels who run the various district offices risk harming their careers if they go against the will of their political masters.

I'm not saying the Corps of Engineers shouldn't share the blame. But what I am saying is that the Corps exists within a larger system called "the government". It is that larger system which failed the people of New Orleans. So, please Mr. Reilly - and anyone else who is getting in line to put ALL the blame on the Corps of Engineers - stop doing this now. Don't make further fools of yourselves than you already have.

It's the system that failed, not just one part.


Read More...

Far Right's Dilemma: Hate Jews or just blacks, Hispanics and Muslims?

Huffington Post
Art Levine
Far Right's Dilemma: Hate Jews or just blacks, Hispanics and Muslims?

The far right-wing, according to a recent issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, is split among those who want to continue to blame the Jews for all the ills of the world -- in the spirit of Mel Gibson -- to those who hope to broaden their appeal by focusing on blacks, Hispanics and Muslims.
In other words, those three are the same groups that are the much-preferred targets of the so-called "mainstream" nativist GOP that started building its majority in the 1960s by catering to disaffected white Southerners' hatred of integration and now still can't shake a fondness for pandering to anti-immigrant fears and racism, even if it might alienate moderate soccer moms and independents.

Meanwhile, while the GOP panders, the far right that fuels some of the nativism in "mainstream" right-wing circles is confronting its own divisions:

HERNDON, Va. -- For a gathering of people devoted to denouncing the inferiority of blacks and sounding the alarm about civilization-threatening Muslims, the biannual conferences thrown by the New Century Foundation, publisher of the racist newsletter American Renaissance, are decidedly genteel affairs. Men dress in suits and ties, women in formal business attire, and there are no uniformed skinheads or Klansmen to be seen. Large plasma television screens, Starbucks coffee spreads and fancy linens adorn the hotel meeting hall. Epithets have no place here.

Or at least they didn't. At the latest edition of the conferences that began in 1994, held this February at the Hyatt Dulles hotel, a nasty spat broke out that upset the gathering's decorum -- and may even shape the future of the radical right.

It began when David Duke, the former Klan leader and author of Jewish Supremacism, strode to a microphone after French author Guillaume Faye wrapped up a talk vilifying Muslims entitled "The Threat to the West." Duke thanked Faye for remarks that "touched my genes." But then he went one further.

"There is a power in the world that dominates our media, influences our government and that has led to the internal destruction of our will and spirit," Duke said, according to an undisputed account in The Forward newspaper.

"Tell us, tell us," someone in the back yelled.

"I'm not going to say it," Duke replied. Laughter began to fill the room, until a short, angry man leaped from his seat, walked up to Duke and began to curse.

"You fucking Nazi, you've disgraced this meeting!" he said.

And with that, Michael Hart, a Jewish astrophysicist and long-time attendee at American Renaissance conferences, headed for the door. As many as 50 people at the conference began to jeer and point at the rapidly disappearing Hart.

This extraordinary incident marked the beginning of an open rift between those on the radical right who see blacks, Hispanics and Muslims as the primary enemy, and those who say "the Jews" are ultimately behind every evil -- a split that has usually stayed just below the surface but now threatens a leading institution of American extremism. While in the past he has managed to bridge this divide mainly by ignoring it, American Renaissance founder Jared Taylor now must finally come to terms with the split. His dilemma boils down to this: Throw out the anti-Semites and try to build a larger movement with electoral possibilities like those increasingly seen in Britain and Germany; or openly join hands with the very energetic neo-Nazis even though that means the loss of any remaining shred of respectability.

"These are the makings of a major schism," wrote Shawn Mercer, co-founder and moderator of American Renaissance's AR List, an E-mail group. "If American Renaissance ultimately fails as a result of this donnybrook at the convention, it will be a sad, possibly fatal turn of events for the future of whites."

Similar worries might also be brewing among GOP strategists as well. Even if GOP activists rarely engage these days in the blunt racist name-calling of their brethren on the far right (not counting racist gaffes from the likes of Sen. George Allen), they too often appeal to similar if more muted impulses, and face their own strategic dilemma: On whom should they focus their appeals to hate?

Read More...

Richard L. Armitage, First Source of C.I.A. Leak, Admits Role

The New York Times
First Source of C.I.A. Leak Admits Role, Lawyer Says
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the C.I.A. leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday.

Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

The identification of Mr. Armitage as the original leaker to Mr. Novak ends what has been a tantalizing mystery. In recent months, however, Mr. Armitage’s role had become clear to many, and it was recently reported by Newsweek magazine and The Washington Post.

In the accounts by the lawyer and associates, Mr. Armitage disclosed casually to Mr. Novak that Ms. Wilson worked for the C.I.A. at the end of an interview in his State Department office. Mr. Armitage knew that, the accounts continue, because he had seen a written memorandum by Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman.

Mr. Grossman had taken up the task of finding out about Ms. Wilson after an inquiry from I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Libby’s inquiry was prompted by an Op-Ed article on May 6, 2003, in The New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof and an article on June 12, 2003, in The Washington Post by Walter Pincus.

The two articles reported on a trip by a former ambassador to Africa sponsored by the C.I.A. to check reports that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium to help with its nuclear arms program.

Neither article identified the ambassador, but it was known inside the government that he was Joseph C. Wilson IV, Ms. Wilson’s husband. White House officials wanted to know how much of a role she had in selecting him for the assignment.

Ms. Wilson was a covert employee, and after Mr. Novak printed her identity, the agency requested an investigation to see whether her name had been leaked illegally.

Some administration critics said her name had been made public in a campaign to punish Mr. Wilson, who had written in a commentary in The Times that his investigation in Africa him to believe that the Bush administration had twisted intelligence to justify an attack on Iraq.

The complaints after Mr. Novak’s column led to the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity.

The special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, did not bring charges in connection with laws that prohibit the willful disclosure of the identity of an C.I.A. officer. But Mr. Fitzgerald did indict Mr. Libby on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, saying Mr. Libby had testified untruthfully to a grand jury and federal agents when he said he learned about Ms. Wilson’s role at the agency from reporters rather than from several officials, including Mr. Cheney.

According to an account in a coming book, “Hubris, the Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War’’ by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, excerpts of which appeared in Newsweek this week, Mr. Armitage told a few State Department colleagues that he might have been the leaker whose identity was being sought.

The book says Mr. Armitage realized that when Mr. Novak published a second column in October 2003 that said his source had been an official who was “not a political gunslinger.’’

The Justice Department was quickly informed, and Mr. Armitage disclosed his talks with Mr. Novak in subsequent interviews with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, even before Mr. Fitzgerald’s appointment.

The book quotes Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the intelligence and research bureau at the State Department, as saying that Mr. Armitage had told him, “I may be the guy who caused this whole thing,’’ and that he regretted having told the columnist more than he should have.

Mr. Grossman’s memorandum did not mention that Ms. Wilson had undercover status.

Apart from Mr. Ford, as quoted in the book, the lawyer and colleagues of Mr. Armitage who discussed the case have spoken insisting on anonymity, apparently because Mr. Armitage was still not comfortable with the public acknowledgment of his role.

He was also the source for another journalist about Ms. Wilson, a reporter who did not write about her. The lawyers and associates said Mr. Armitage also told Bob Woodward, assistant managing editor of The Washington Post and a well-known author, of her identity in June 2003.

Mr. Woodward was a late player in the legal drama when he disclosed last November that he had the received the information and testified to a grand jury about it after learning that his source had disclosed the conversation to prosecutors.




Read More...

Govt. Investigation Proves Bush Appointee Used Position To Hire Friends, Run Horse Racing Operation

The New York Times
Inquiry Criticizes U.S. Broadcasting Official Over Hiring
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — State Department investigators have concluded that Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the head of the federal agency that oversees most government broadcasts to foreign countries, improperly hired a friend on the public payroll for nearly $250,000 over two and a half years, according to a summary of their report made public this afternoon by Democratic Congressional staff members.

They also said that Mr. Tomlinson, whose job puts him in charge of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, used his government office for personal business, including running a “horse racing operation” in which he supervised a stable of thoroughbreds he named after leaders from Afghanistan, including President Hamid Karzai and the late Ahmed Shah Massoud, that have raced at tracks across the United States. They also said that Mr. Tomlinson repeatedly used government employees to do his personal errands and that he billed the government for more days of work than the rules permit.

The State Department inspector general presented those findings in a report last week to the White House and on Monday to some members of Congress. Three Democratic lawmakers, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Representatives Howard Berman and Tom Lantos of California, requested the inquiry last year after they were approached by a whistleblower from the agency about the possible misuse of federal money by Mr. Tomlinson and the possible hiring of phantom or unqualified employees.

In providing the report to the members of Congress, the State Department warned that making it public could be a violation of federal law, people who have seen the report said. Today, Mr. Berman’s staff released a summary of the report.

Mr. Tomlinson was ousted from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting last year following a separate inquiry that found evidence that he had violated rules meant to insulate public television and radio from political influence. His renomination by President Bush to another term as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors is pending before the Senate.

The summary of the State Department inspector general’s report said the United States attorney’s office in Washington had been given the report and decided not to conduct a criminal inquiry into the matter. It said the Justice Department was pursuing a civil investigation that focused on a contract Mr. Tomlinson had awarded to his friend.

The three lawmakers who had requested the inquiry sent a letter to the president this afternoon urging him to remove Mr. Tomlinson from his position immediately “and take all necessary steps to restore the integrity of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.”

Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said President Bush continues to support Mr. Tomlinson’s renomination. She declined to comment about the State Department report.

Asked about the report and the call for his ouster, Mr. Tomlinson and his lawyer, James Hamilton, would not immediately comment.

Mr. Tomlinson is a 62-year-old Republican and former editor of Reader’s Digest who has close ties to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political strategist and senior adviser. Mr. Rove and Mr. Tomlinson served together on the board of predecessor agency to the Broadcasting Board in the 1990’s. Mr. Tomlinson has been chairman of the Broadcasting Board since 2002.

The board, whose members include the secretary of state, plays a central role in public diplomacy. It supervises the government’s foreign broadcasting operations, including Radio Marti, Radio Sawa and al-Hurra; transmits programs in 61 languages; and says it has more than 100 million listeners each week.

Mr. Tomlinson’s ouster last November from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was prompted by a separate investigation by that organization’s inspector general. That inquiry found evidence that Mr. Tomlinson had violated rules as he sought more conservative programs and that he improperly intervened to help the staff of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page win a $4.1 million contract — one of the largest programming contracts issued by the corporation — to finance a weekly program on public television.

The heavily edited State Department report on Mr. Tomlinson’s activities at the Broadcasting Board of Governors did not specify the identity of the friend who received the improper contract at the direction of Mr. Tomlinson. Agency officials said he was a retired worker already on a government pension who was rehired by Mr. Tomlinson, without the knowledge of the board or any competitive bidding process, to work on projects for him. The employee was known by other employees as “the phantom” because he was often not at work, other agency employees said.

Mr. Tomlinson was rebuked in the earlier inspector general report by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for improperly hiring an acquaintance from a journalism center founded by the American Conservative Union to monitor several public radio and television shows, including Bill Moyer’s “Now” program, for political bias.

The State Department report said that from 2003 through 2005 Mr. Tomlinson had requested compensation in excess of the 130 days permitted by law for the post he holds. It said that he had requested and received pay from both the broadcasting board and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for the same days worked on 14 occasions, but that investigators were unable to substantiate whether they were for the same hours worked on the same days.

Investigators who seized Mr. Tomlinson’s e-mail, telephone and office records found that he had improperly and extensively used his office at the Broadcasting Board to do nongovernmental work, including work for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and horse racing and breeding ventures. The material seized included racing forms and evidence that he used the office to buy and sell thoroughbreds.

Mr. Tomlinson’s longstanding interest in foreign affairs has carried over to his horse breeding operation. As the owner of Sandy Bayou Stables near Middleburg, Va., his most recent horses have been named after Afghanistan leaders who have opposed Russian and Taliban control of the country. The horses include Massoud, Karzai and Panjshair, the valley that was the base used by forces to overthrow the Taliban. Most of the horses have not been in the money, although Massoud appears to have been quite successful, earning purses of more than $140,000 over the last two years, according to track records.

People who have seen the report said it noted that in the middle of in interview with investigators, Mr. Tomlinson terminated the interview on the advice of his lawyer. One person familiar with the inquiry said Mr. Hamilton ended the interview as the investigators started to ask about the use of Mr. Tomlinson’s office for his horse-racing venture.

Mr. Hamilton declined to comment about the interview.




Read More...

AT&T says hackers accessed customers' cards

Reuters
AT&T says hackers accessed customers' cards

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Hackers broke into one of AT&T Inc.'s computer networks and stole credit card data and other personal information from several thousand customers who shopped at the telecommunication giant's online store.

AT&T said it was notifying "fewer than 19,000" customers whose data was accessed during the weekend break-in, which it said was detected within hours.

The company said it immediately shut down the online store, notified credit card companies, and was working with law enforcement agencies to track down the hackers.

"We recognize that there is an active market for illegally obtained personal information," Priscilla Hill-Ardoin, AT&T's chief privacy officer, said in a statement.

"We will work closely with law enforcement to bring these data thieves to account," Hill-Ardoin said.

AT&T said it would also pay for credit monitoring services to assist in protecting the customers involved. The data theft involved people who had bought DSL equipment for high-speed Internet access.



Read More...

Scientists say they have made a blocker that could stop the lethal anthrax toxin from attacking the body

BBC NEWS
Scientists find 'anthrax blocker'
Scientists say they have made a blocker that could stop the lethal anthrax toxin from attacking the body.

The inhibitor binds to the receptors in the body where anthrax attaches.

Using receptors as the treatment target rather than the toxin itself should get round the problem of antibiotic resistance, PNAS journal reports.

The same approach could also be used to stop other deadly invaders such as SARS, influenza and Aids, the US and Canadian researchers said.

Inhibition

The current treatment for anthrax exposure is antibiotics.

But pathogens can mutate and develop resistance to these treatments, rendering them ineffective.

With anthrax, there is also a concern that individuals could intentionally alter the toxin in the lab to make it resistant to current treatments, making it an even more deadly bioterrorism agent than it already is.

Inhalation anthrax still has a fatality rate of 75% even after antibiotics are given.

Antibiotics can slow the progression of the infection, but they do not counter the advanced destructive effects of the anthrax toxin in the body.

Dr Ravi Kane, from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, and his colleagues believe that combining their inhibitor with antibiotic therapy may increase the chance of survival for people who become infected with anthrax by neutralising the toxin.

Best fit

They tested the inhibitor in rats, until they found the best design.

This was a polyvalent inhibitor, which means that it displays multiple copies of receptor-binding peptides, allowing it to bind at multiple sites and become more potent than inhibitors that bind to a single site.

All of the six animals they injected with the polyvalent inhibitor appeared to be protected from anthrax, with no signs of adverse side effects.

Work is now needed to see whether the inhibitor will do the same in humans.

Dr Shiranee Sriskandan, a consultant in infectious diseases at Imperial College London, said: "There have been many other approaches to blocking the anthrax toxin; what is important about this work is that the investigators have come up with a new technique for screening chemicals for activity that might block other types of toxin as well.

"It will be important in future work to establish whether such an approach can work in 'real' infections.

"The inhibitor represents a step forwards in treatment but does not obviate the need for development of better and more effective vaccines to prevent anthrax, which remains an important disease in many poor, developing countries, notwithstanding the risks of misuse in bioterrorism."

Researchers at Oxford University are among others searching for an effective anthrax inhibitor.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/5284996.stm




Read More...

Jack Kemp, the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1976 to campaign for Lieberman

Reuters
Kemp to campaign for Lieberman

NEW LONDON, Connecticut (Reuters) - Jack Kemp, the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1976, will campaign in Connecticut on behalf of U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's independent bid for re-election.

Lieberman said on Tuesday he had accepted an offer of help from Kemp after the former congressman contacted him this month following Lieberman's loss of the Democratic Senate primary to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont.

"We've been good friends for a long time," said Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee, during a campaign stop in New London. "He called me after the primary, he's a good friend, and I'm grateful."

Many Democrats have turned their backs on Lieberman since his defeat by Lamont, a businessman who claimed the senator was too supportive of the Iraq war and too close to President George W. Bush and Republicans.

Lieberman, who is banking on Republican and independent support to carry him to victory over Lamont in November, said he was not worried that a campaign visit by a Republican like Kemp would anger Democrats.

"I think if anyone complains about Jack Kemp coming in on my behalf, it just shows that they're still blinded by the old partisan politics," he said. "Jack's a devoted Republican, I'm a devoted Democrat, but we agree on a lot of stuff."

Lieberman is running for a fourth Senate term as an independent but has promised to remain a Democrat if he wins.

Kemp, a former star pro football quarterback, served in Congress from New York and was Housing and Urban Development secretary under the current president's father.

Kemp also was Republican Bob Dole's running mate in the 1996 election, which they lost to President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.




Read More...

Reuters
Ahmadinejad challenges Bush to debate
By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged President Bush to a televised debate and voiced defiance as a deadline neared for Iran to halt work the West fears is a step toward building nuclear bombs.

"Peaceful nuclear energy is the right of the Iranian nation ... it wants to use it and no one can stop it," he told a news conference.

The White House said Ahmadinejad's call for a presidential debate on global concerns was a "diversion".

The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend uranium enrichment -- a process which can produce fuel for civilian reactors or explosive material for warheads -- and has threatened to consider sanctions if it does so.

Iran has shown no sign it will halt uranium enrichment. The world's fourth largest oil exporter has shrugged off the threat of sanctions and said such a move would simply push oil prices up to intolerable levels for industrialized economies.

Oil dipped below $70 a barrel on Tuesday, but worries about the nuclear standoff have curbed selling.

Britain's Ambassador to the U.N., Emyr Jones Parry, said the 15 council member states would first need to assess a report to be delivered on Thursday on Iranian compliance from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

"I would expect activities here to resume toward the middle of September," when governments would have "a clearer view of exactly how this should be carried forward," he told reporters.

Ahmadinejad said Iran had laid out a framework for talks in its reply to an offer by six world powers of incentives in exchange for a suspension of enrichment. That framework provided an "exceptional opportunity" to solve the nuclear dispute.

Asked specifically if Iran would halt enrichment, even for a short period, he replied: "In that (Iran's response to the six-nation offer) we announced that any kind of dialogue should be based upon the certain rights of the Iranian nation."

TIME FOR A DEBATE

Ahmadinejad condemned the U.S. and British roles in the world since World War Two.

"Isn't it time that international relations are founded on democracy and equal rights of the nations?" he asked. "I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues.

"The debate should be go uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "Talk of a debate is just a diversion from the legitimate concerns that the international community, not just the U.S., has about Iran's behavior -- from support for terrorism to pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability,"

Ahmadinejad brushed off calls by John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., for sanctions if Iran ignores the U.N. deadline.

"Bolton is free to say whatever he wants ... our nation is a strong nation. A nation that has been able to attain the nuclear fuel cycle with its bare hands can solve any other problems."

He also said Iran would consider renewing ties with the United States but that it was up to Washington to act after cutting relations shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Washington has called for a swift response if Iran does not meet the deadline. But analysts say divisions at the United Nations about how to handle Iran's file could delay such a move.

Russia and China, big trading partners of Iran who have veto powers in the U.N. Security Council, may oppose sanctions moves.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said talks with Iran were important, but only after it halted enrichment.

"The international community must not be divided. If it is cut in two, that would be a victory for the Iranians," he told EuroNews in an interview to be broadcast on Wednesday.




Read More...