Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Census counts 100,000 contractors in Iraq; Number is 10 times that in first Gulf War, far more than previous estimate

Washington Post
Census counts 100,000 contractors in Iraq
Number is 10 times that in first Gulf War, far more than previous estimate
By Renae Merle

There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield.

The survey finding, which includes Americans, Iraqis and third-party nationals hired by companies operating under U.S. government contracts, is significantly higher and wider in scope than the Pentagon's only previous estimate, which said there were 25,000 security contractors in the country.

It is also 10 times the estimated number of contractors that deployed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reflecting the Pentagon's growing post-Cold War reliance on contractors for such jobs as providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, fixing equipment and constructing bases that were once reserved for soldiers.

Official numbers are difficult to find, said Deborah D. Avant, author of the 2005 book "The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security," but an estimated 9,200 contractors deployed during the Gulf War, a far shorter conflict without reconstruction projects. "This is the largest deployment of U.S. contractors in a military operation," said Avant, an associate professor at George Washington University.

In addition to about 140,000 U.S. troops, Iraq is now filled with a hodgepodge of contractors. DynCorp International has about 1,500 employees in Iraq, including about 700 helping train the police force. Blackwater USA has more than 1,000 employees in the country, most of them providing private security. Kellogg, Brown and Root, one of the largest contractors in Iraq, said it does not delineate its workforce by country but that it has more than 50,000 employees and subcontractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. MPRI, a unit of L-3 Communications, has about 500 employees working on 12 contracts, including providing mentors to the Iraqi Defense Ministry for strategic planning, budgeting and establishing its public affairs office. Titan, another L-3 division, has 6,500 linguists in the country.

The Pentagon's latest estimate "further demonstrates the need for Congress to finally engage in responsible, serious and aggressive oversight over the questionable and growing U.S. practice of private military contracting," said Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who has been critical of the military's reliance on contractors.

Labor Department: About 650 have died
About 650 contractors have died in Iraq since 2003, according to Labor Department statistics.

Central Command, which conducted the census, said a breakdown by nationality or job description was not immediately available because the project is still in its early stages. "This is the first time we have initiated a census of this robustness," Lt. Col. Julie Wittkoff, chief of the contracting branch at Central Command, said in an interview. Those figures do not include subcontractors, which could substantially grow the figure.

In June, government agencies were asked to provide data about contractors working for them in Iraq, including their nationality, a description of their work and locations where they were working. The information was provided by more than a dozen entities within the Pentagon and a dozen outside agencies, including the departments of State and Interior, Wittkoff said. The count increased about 15 percent from about 87,000 since Central Command began keeping a tally this summer, she said, though the increase may reflect ongoing data collection efforts. The census will be updated quarterly, Wittkoff said.

Need for coordination
Three years into the war, the headcount represents one of the Pentagon's most concrete efforts so far toward addressing the complexities and questions raised by the large numbers of civilians who have flooded into Iraq to work. With few industry standards, the military and contractors have sometimes lacked coordination, resulting in friendly fire incidents, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year.

"It takes a great deal of vigilance on the part of the military commander to ensure contractor compliance," said William L. Nash, a retired Army general and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you're trying to win hearts and minds and the contractor is driving 90 miles per hour through the streets and running over kids, that's not helping the image of the American army. The Iraqis aren't going to distinguish between a contractor and a soldier."

The census gives military commanders insight into the contractors operating in their region and the type of work they are doing, Wittkoff said. "It helps the combatant commanders have a better idea of . . . food and medical requirements they may need to provide to support the contractors," she said.

Staff writer Griff Witte contributed to this report.




Read More...

Cell phone users, beware. The FBI can listen to everything you say, even when the cell phone is turned off.

ABC News
Can You Hear Me Now?
By Vic Walter and Krista Kjellman

Cell phone users, beware. The FBI can listen to everything you say, even when the cell phone is turned off.

A recent court ruling in a case against the Genovese crime family revealed that the FBI has the ability from a remote location to activate a cell phone and turn its microphone into a listening device that transmits to an FBI listening post, a method known as a "roving bug." Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery.

"The FBI can access cell phones and modify them remotely without ever having to physically handle them," James Atkinson, a counterintelligence security consultant, told ABC News. "Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet," he added.

According to the recent court ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, "The device functioned whether the phone was powered on or off, intercepting conversations within its range wherever it happened to be."

The court ruling denied motions by 10 defendants to suppress the conversations obtained by "roving bugs" on the phones of John Ardito, a high-ranking member of the family, and Peter Peluso, an attorney and close associate of Ardito, who later cooperated with the government. The "roving bugs" were approved by a judge after the more conventional bugs planted at specified locations were discovered by members of the crime family, who then started to conduct their business dealings in several additional locations, including more restaurants, cars, a doctor's office and public streets.

"The courts have given law enforcement a blank check for surveillance," Richard Rehbock, attorney for defendant John Ardito, told ABC News.

Judge Kaplan's ruling said otherwise. "While a mobile device makes interception easier and less costly to accomplish than a stationary one, this does not mean that it implicated new or different privacy concerns." He continued, "It simply dispenses with the need for repeated installations and surreptitious entries into buildings. It does not invade zones of privacy that the government could not reach by more conventional means."

But Rehbock disagrees. "Big Brother is upon us...1984 happened a long time ago," he said, referring to the George Orwell futuristic novel "1984," which described a society whose members were closely watched by those in power and was published in 1949.

The FBI maintains the methods used in its investigation of the Genovese family are within the law. "The FBI does not discuss sensitive surveillance techniques other than to emphasize that any electronic surveillance is done pursuant to a court order and ongoing judicial scrutiny," Agent Jim Margolin told ABC News.




Read More...

The richest 2 per cent of adults own more than half the world’s wealth; Richest tenth own 85% of world's assets

The Times
Richest tenth own 85% of world's assets
David Brown

Where the wealth is

The richest 2 per cent of adults own more than half the world’s wealth, according to the most comprehensive study of personal assets.

Among the largest economies, Britain boasted the third-highest average wealth of $126,832 (£64,172) per adult, after the United States and Japan, a United Nations development research institute found.

Those with assets of $500,000 could consider themselves to be among the richest 1 per cent in the world. Those with net assets of $2,200 per adult were in the top half of the wealth distribution.

Although global income was distributed unequally, the spread of wealth was more skewed, according to the study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the UN University.

“Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe and high-income AsiaPacific countries. People in these countries collectively hold almost 90 per cent of total world wealth,” the report said.

Researchers defined wealth as the value of physical and financial assets minus debts.

The richest 10 per cent of adults accounted for 85 per cent of assets. The bottom 50 per cent of the world’s adults owned barely 1 per cent of global wealth.

Among high-income nations, the amounts varied from $37,000 per person in New Zealand to $86,369 in Germany and $109,418 in the Netherlands.

In terms of wealth distribution the US was among the most unequal, whereas Japan had one of the lowest levels of inequality. Britain ranked with Russia, Indonesia and Pakistan in wealth inequality.

James Davies, Professor of Economics at the University of Western Ontario, and one of the authors of the report, said: “Income inequality has been rising for the past 20 to 25 years and we think that is true for inequality in the distribution of wealth.

“There is a group of problems in developing countries that make it difficult for people to build assets, which are important, since life is so precarious.”

The gulf between rich and poor nations has long concerned politicians and economists, who say that it is one of the biggest bars to development.

Household wealth in 2000 was valued at $125 trillion, equivalent to about three times total global production, or $20,500 a person, according to The World Distribution of Household Wealth report.

Average wealth in the US was $143,727 a person in 2000, and in Japan, $180,837, it said.

In India the figure was $1,100, in Indonesia per capita wealth was $1,400, and in Zimbabwe, $1,465. The Democratic Republic of Congo came last with $180.

Professor Davies said that there were some hopeful signs: China and India, developing rapidly, were gaining wealth.

In countries such as Bangladesh, the spread of microcredit institutions was helping to increase personal wealth. In others, registration programmes were allowing the poor to own land for the first time, he said.

Anthony Shorrocks, the institute’s director, said: “Despite its rapid growth, China does not yet feature among the super-rich, because average wealth is modest and evenly spread by international standards.

“However, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than our data reveals, and membership of the super-rich seems set to rise fast in the next decade.”

13,568,229: number of dollar millionaires in 2000

499: number of dollar billionaires in 2000

Source: The World Distribution of Household Wealth




Read More...

Crying Time

Huffington Post
Justin Frank
Crying Time

One of George W. Bush's deepest unconscious wishes has finally come true - he publicly brought down his own family, particularly his father. He had been building up to this point throughout his public and private life - most famously when he told Bob Woodward that he never consulted his father about invading Iraq, and that he preferred a "higher Father." To make matters worse he wouldn't let his father speak at the 2004 Republican Convention and soon thereafter consigned him to tour the world with the man who had defeated him in 1992 - Bill Clinton.

This time, W didn't have to do anything. He has already destroyed his father's legacy of international cooperation. He continues practice what Bush 41 once derisively labeled "voodoo economics", driving America into irrevocable debt. As usual, W was nowhere to be found when his father broke down while attempting to celebrate brother Jeb's career - Jeb, who may be the real man of the family.

When Bush 41 started talking about Jeb's 1994 gubernatorial loss in Florida he wept openly, sputtering that Jeb didn't whine or complain about losing; that how a person handles victory and defeat is the true measure of a man. He choked up on the word "defeat," a word he must feel applies to his entire dynasty.

For it is not simply that W is a failure, which he is. He is also a success - he breaks things more thoroughly than any president in history. And now W has branded his entire family as failures, Jeb's defeat becoming the prototype for future family humiliations. While Bush 41 defends his firstborn, he reveres his third-born. And in his heart of hearts he knows that the firstborn has murdered not only our sons and daughters, but his family's hope for a lasting legacy of honor, courage, and real public service.

Read More...

Afghan suicide bomb attack kills eight in south

Reuters
Afghan suicide bomb attack kills eight in south

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A suicide bomber attacked the office of a U.S.-owned security company in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday killing eight people, including two Americans, a government and company official said.

The blast took place at the office of the USPI security company in Kandahar, they said. The company provides guards to protect foreign companies working on construction and infrastructure projects.

The Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) said the bomber set off his explosives among a crowd of people standing outside the office waiting to go in to work.

Akhtar Mohammad, a USPI employee, said among those killed was the head of the company's Kandahar office, who he identified as Mr Jack, AIP reported.

Afghanistan this year has plunged into the bloodiest period of violence since U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban's radical Islamic government in 2001.

About 105 suicide bomb attacks this year have killed nearly 250 people, according to Afghanistan's NATO security force.



Read More...

Democrat says Bush wants to run out clock on Iraq

Reuters
Democrat says Bush wants to run out clock on Iraq
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic White House hopeful Tom Vilsack said on Tuesday President George W. Bush wanted to "run out the clock" on Iraq and defer the tough decisions on its future to the winner of the 2008 race.

Vilsack, governor of Iowa and the first Democrat to officially jump in the White House race, also criticized likely Republican presidential contender John McCain's call for more troops in Iraq and said the U.S. military was suffering from the strain of repeated deployments.

"Currently the president has a strategy to run out the clock and shift responsibility to make the tough decisions to the next administration, which is an unfortunate thing for America and unfortunate thing for Iraq," he said in a Reuters interview.

Vilsack said he hoped the Iraq Study Group, which is to make recommendations to Bush on Wednesday, would mirror his proposal to "get our troops out of harm's way" by withdrawing U.S. forces from central and southern Iraq and redeploying for a limited time a smaller force for security in the north.

Bush has said he is not satisfied with progress in Iraq and will consider the proposals offered by the study group.

"I sincerely hope that we don't go down the path that Senator McCain has espoused, which is to make a big mistake bigger by adding more troops," Vilsack said.

McCain, an Arizona senator and early Republican favorite in the 2008 race who has formed an exploratory presidential committee, has been an ardent supporter of the war and says more troops are needed to complete the job.

"We've deployed some of these troops two and three or four times over there. Our military is under a lot of stress," Vilsack said. "I don't know where these troops are going to come from."

Vilsack, who came to Washington after a five-state tour launching his presidential candidacy, said he was not daunted by his underdog status in a Democratic field that could include political heavyweights like Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

He said his experience as Iowa governor dealing with issues like renewable energy and his familiarity and appeal to rural and small-town voters would be a prime asset in the 2008 race.

"Democrats have not been talking to people in small towns and rural America, and we have been losing states west of the Mississippi that we shouldn't be losing," he said. "I think I can broaden the map, and at the end of the day broadening the map is what is going to win for us."

Vilsack, who held a weekend fund-raiser in Iowa, said he could raise enough money to be viable in a race with more high-profile candidates. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a former governor, formed a presidential exploratory committee on Tuesday.

"It's not about having more money, it's about having enough money to compete," he said. "Will I outraise Hillary Clinton? Heck no, but I'll stack my ideas up against anybody's."




Read More...

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions; New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder

Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions
New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer

Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.

With the Democrats taking over control of the House next January, the views that some voiced during two days of debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of those lawmakers will move into positions of power. They include not only members of the new House leadership but also the incoming chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget and Judiciary committees and the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats who predicted during the House floor debate that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar, both of whom had led the U.S. Army's Central Command -- a part of which is in Spratt's district.

"They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.

Spratt recently looked back at his resolution, which would have required Bush to come back to Congress before launching an attack. It was defeated 270 to 158. He recalled that extended hearings were held before the Persian Gulf War but that nothing similar preceded the vote on the 2002 resolution. "I remember we talked this time about how we got to get answers before this train leaves the station," Spratt said.

The incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), spoke in support of Spratt's amendment, stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary."

Skelton had written Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to say that "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."

Skelton went on to note the "extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions and its isolated economic system." He also warned that Bush's postwar strategy must "take seriously" the possibility that a replacement regime "might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy."

Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), who will chair the Appropriations Committee, was among the group that organized the Democrats. He spoke then about poor preparation for postwar Iraq, a concern he developed after listening to State Department officials.

He recalled recently that an amendment by Rep. Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.) that would have delayed taking action until inspectors from the United Nations completed their work "made sense, but there was no prayer it would pass." It got 72 votes.

Obey said Spratt's amendment was the only approach "that could gather critical mass, and that's what most of us in the caucus settled on."

The number of House Democrats who supported Spratt "was a remarkable achievement," Obey said, "given it meant opposing the president in the wake of 9/11." Obey's district was 70 percent in favor of going into Iraq, he said.

On the House floor more than four years ago, Lee told colleagues: "Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked." That information, she said, came from material that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet had provided to the Senate.

Lee also raised questions in the floor debate that remain unanswered. "What is our objective here," she asked four years ago, "regime change or elimination of weapons of mass destruction?"

Looking forward now to next year and a Democratic majority in the House, Lee said, "Those of us who early on understood have many ideas of what to do now and how to get out of Iraq."

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), who did not belong to a committee with national security jurisdiction, was among the lawmakers who talked on the House floor about what turned out to be the real issues in Iraq. She spoke of the "postwar challenges," saying that "there is no history of democratic government in Iraq," that its "economy and infrastructure is in ruins after years of war and sanctions" and that rebuilding would take "a great deal of money."

Baldwin four years ago asked questions that are being widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq?"

Baldwin said recently that she put together her statement after reading public commentary and talking with like-minded colleagues and her staff about what would come next. "A vote like this, I didn't undertake lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an exit strategy; it was such a blank."

The day after the House vote, The Washington Post recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S. soldiers did not have adequate protection against biological weapons.

"As a veteran, that's what hit me the hardest," he said.

Lee was described as giving a "fiery denunciation" of the administration's "rush to war," with only 14 colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in the two Post stories about passage of the resolution that day.

Read More...

Phone data privacy bill gets a final push

Reuters
Phone data privacy bill gets a final push
By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers on Monday mounted a final effort to pass legislation this year to ban the use of deceptive methods to obtain consumers telephone records.

Democrats and Republicans sought a deal that would clear the way for the Senate to approve the measure before the Republican-led 109th Congress draws to a close, likely at the end of this week, Senate leadership aides said.

The legislation was approved earlier this year by the House of Representatives. Both chambers need to pass it so it can be sent to President George W. Bush to sign into law.

If the 109th Congress expires before a final agreement is reach on the legislation, lawmakers would have to begin anew on the effort after the 110th Congress convenes on January 4 under the control of Democrats.

"This is just one of those (bills) that we can see pass," one GOP aide said.

The legislation is aimed at stopping the practice of impersonating people to obtain their telephone records, also known as pretexting.

There currently is no law against the practice which was spotlighted when Hewlett-Packard Co. admitted that its investigators obtained telephone records of board members, employees and journalists without their permission as the company tried to find who was leaking sensitive information.

The latest efforts to pass the legislation came as the Republican-led Congress began a final, week-long session.

The phone records measure is one of several that would be passed under unanimous consent, a process by which leaders from both parties agree to bring a bill to a vote on the Senate floor, aides said.

It was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously in March but subsequently stalled in the full Senate.

Some Senate lawmakers had been pushing for a broader bill, which also would have given consumers and telephone companies the right to sue for damages.

But aides said they did not anticipate any objections to passing the House version of the bill.

"I think people have gotten to the point where it's basically this limited one or nothing," one Republican aide said. "People have realized that we're almost at the end."

The measure also prohibits buying records from a data broker and sets criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and fines. The bill would not interfere with investigations by federal, state or local law enforcement agencies.



Read More...

John McCain: Too Dangerous To Be President

Huffington Post
RJ Eskow
Exactly How Dangerous IS John McCain?

The generals and commanders in the field have unanimously rejected his call to send in more troops, according to Gen. Abizaid, but John McCain hasn't stopped talking. He seems intent on outdoing both Cheney and Rumsfeld in promoting poorly-thought-out and extreme plans. Here are two radical and dangerous ideas John McCain has recently put forth about Iraq:

Kill Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iraq's Shiite leadership brought al-Sadr into their coalition. Now, frustrated by his influence on the government, McCain said "I think he needs to be taken out."

Reject any form of compromise in resolving the war.

Speaking of the Iraq Study Group's search for a compromise solution to ending the war, McCain was contemptuous: "Well in war, my dear friends, there is no such thing as compromise; you either win or you lose." (courtesy TPM)

These ideas are so extreme that they should force those who have bought the "moderate" or "independent" spin about McCain to acknowledge the increasingly obvious: Either McCain has lost his mind, or he has sacrificed all principle in order to position himself for a Presidential run.

Come to think of it, these two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive.

His behavior also raises this question: Is John McCain now the most dangerous man in America? These statements certainly make it clear that he lacks the judgement and skill necessary to be President.

Let's look at each of his wacky comments in turn.

"Take him out."

This sort of language and behavior has undermined longstanding alliances, diminished American influence worldwide, and left us without the allies we need to effectively combat international terrorism. Until Bush, American Presidents knew better than to talk like this, even - or especially - if they intended to act.

Killing al-Sadr would immediately create a renewed worldwide backlash against the U.S. It would also be an enormous gift to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists, giving them a new martyr and reinforcing the stereotype of Americans as bloodthirsty and lawless.

Al-Sadr's death would deprive future Iraqi leaders of a critical bargaining partner. It would be the equivalent of a newly-elected Ronald Reagan assassinating Brezhnev, instead of negotiating with him.

Most importantly, it would turn many more Shiites into active participants in the insurgency. Al-Sadr is the son of a beloved Grand Ayatollah, in a culture that believes holiness runs in families. For many Iraqi Shiites, it would be the equivalent of murdering someone who is the combination of Pope John Paul and Abraham Lincoln.

We may not like Moqtada al-Sadr's ideas, but his influence is undeniable. McCain was talking loony talk here. Whether he was serious, or just throwing red meat to conservatives, it was foolish, irresponsible, and un-Presidential.

"In war there is no compromise."

The truth is that wars almost always end with compromises of one sort or another, especially among countries. (Yalta, anyone?) But McCain's objection to compromise isn't international. He objects to compromise among various parties in the U.S. about how to handle the war - particularly any compromise with those who disagree with him over how the war should be handled.

Unfortunately, those parties with whom he refuses to compromise include the many military leaders who have dismissed his ideas for escalation. McCain's intransigence on the war, and his contempt for compromise, may be forcing the Bush Administration and other Republicans into a position where they have no room to de-escalate.

"You either win or lose."

This one's is almost certainly cynical and self-serving, rather than simply reckless or irrational. He's positioning himself to blame others for the "loss" of Iraq. Here's a question McCain can't answer: "If tehe only choices are 'winning' or 'losing,' what does 'winning' in Iraq look like?"

No hypotheticals or generalizations allowed, like "a free and stable country." What cities do we conquer, what neighborhoods do we take, what territory do we seize - and to whom do we hand it over, under what conditions? If you can't describe that - and McCain can't - you can't describe victory.

As I wrote last month, "Here's a simple truth about war. If you don't know how to win one and you don't intend to negotiate, there's only one other option left: defeat." McCain's "strategy" can only end in failure. Does he know that? Does he care? Does anything matter except promoting his presidential chances?

Tragically, McCain is helping foster a political climate that makes GOP leaders less able to heed the advice of our military. It's hard to know the exact mix of motives - how much is blundering and how much is pandering to the right. Either way, he's a reckless and unstable force in American politics.

"I don't want to be president of the United States so much that I will take a position that I don't believe in when American lives are at risk," said McCain. Sadly, it's no longer possible to believe him - not after he squandered the moral authority he acquired as a hero and torture victim by acceding to a deal with Bush and Rove that permitted Americans to keep torturing the innocent and the guilty alike.

That's the sort of "compromise" America doesn't need.

The mainstream media is working overtime to elect John McCain. They're telling you he's a "straight talker," despite his self-serving and politically motivated about-faces - on torture, on the religious right, even regarding racist attacks on his own family during the 2000 primaries. And there's always more - like his embarrassing (and clearly politically-motivated) flip-flop on ethanol. Yet the political pundits still claim McCain's a straight shooter.

Here's what they won't tell you: President John McCain would be every bit as unstable, dangerous, and cynical as the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld axis he hopes to replace.

The press played a big part in electing the people who got us into today's mess. Now they're working hard to elect someone who may, in fact, be just as dangerous - or more so.

Read More...

Monday, December 04, 2006

9/11 Is Why Bush Is The Worst President Ever

Huffington Post
Bob Cesca
9/11 Is Why He's The Worst President Ever

In Sunday's Washington Post, Douglas Brinkley opened the official public portion of the debate amongst historians as to whether President Bush has been the worst president in American history. Meanwhile, the debate on this topic has been on-going in the blogosphere for as long as I can remember. Brinkley writes that it's the Iraq War which will place George W. Bush amongst our worst presidents and most of us from the blogs can agree that it's one of the president's leading trespasses on a long, long list.

Iraq, in fact, is a terrible symptom of the president's horrifyingly awful reaction to September 11. It is his mishandling of 9/11, ultimately, that makes him not amongst our worst, but the worst American president.

I've always held that anyone -- even a child -- would've reacted similarly to President Bush during and after 9/11 in all aspects. His stunned inaction during My Pet Goat in Florida; his initial statements; his address before the joint session of Congress; the invasion of Afghanistan; everything. All predictable, all textbook, all ordinary. It was all too typical of President Bush's mediocre nature: do what is basically expected, but not much else. And then, rather than using 9/11 as a means to unify us all through humanitarian legislation and positive, uplifting acts to truly change the world for the better, the president instead exploited 9/11 with the goal of consolidating executive power and selfishly indulging the foreign policy whimsy of his associates.

Almost as tragic as the attacks themselves, President Bush turned the nation and the world down a path of darkness, tragedy and more death. America is more divided than it has been since the Civil War. Many former allies disdain and merely tolerate us. It's difficult to image now that the people of Iran -- an "axis of evil" nation -- held massive candlelight vigils honoring our fallen citizens. As a result of the president's 9/11 reactions, Republicans, in their defense of the president, have tossed aside intellectual honesty, rationality and thoughtfulness, while Democrats, with their patriotism constantly and wrongfully at issue, have either acquiesced or have allowed formerly important issues to sag under the weight of dealing with cleaning up the president's mistakes.

Looking back at the last five years, I can't help but to compare our recent history to a time travel movie in which the time-space continuum has skewed into an alternate reality and the events that should've happened after 9/11... simply never existed. In other words, September 11 should have initiated an era of peace and collective world unity. But through the president's incompetence, stubbornness, ambition and greed, the polar opposite has occurred. For five years, we've existed along a false timeline in which Biff Tannen is a wealthy gambling kingpin -- his pearl-handled revolver aimed at Michael J Fox's head.

I firmly believe that President Bush's incompetent actions from 9/11 through today will be viewed as one of the great historical "what ifs." Imagine if Nixon had been president during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Imagine if Stephen Douglas had defeated Lincoln and allowed secession and continued slavery. Imagine if the French hadn't joined us in our fight for independence. Since 9/11, it feels as if we've lived through one of those dark what ifs.

Imagine if President Bush had been a better man and used 9/11 to appeal to the better angels of our nature.

What if he hadn't withdrawn much of his financial pledge to help the heroes of 9/11 with medical costs, and, now that they're no longer useful in photo ops, has allowed them to die slow, choking deaths mired in bankruptcy? What if the president had pledged as much money and support for the surviving first responders as he has for Halliburton and the Iraq War?

What if the president had kept his eye on Bin Laden rather than pulling out, leaving Afghanistan to flounder and Bin Laden to escape unharmed?

What if, like Lincoln (the president's unlikely roll model), the president had used 9/11 as a catalyst to inaugurate an era of renewed equality?

What if the president had preserved our liberties and worked in a bipartisan way in Washington, rather than chiseling away our rights and destroying the national unity that we felt on those days in September?

What if the president hadn't exploited 9/11 so flagrantly for politics and profit as to strip it of its deserved reverence?

What if, instead of a man who actually grins and smirks when discussing Iraq casualties, we had a president with the intellectual and oratory chops to make any of these "what ifs" a reality, because President Bush surely does not.

A better man usually aspires to positivity in the face of tragedy and brutality, but in the final analysis history will show that President Bush barely even tried.

It's a hell of a lot easier and feels so much better to appeal to the reactionary aspects of human nature: the lizard brain fight or flight instincts we all have. It's easy, then, for American leaders to pursue and exact revenge, especially when our nation is the sole military superpower. "The people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon," isn't the modern equivalent of "four score and seven years ago" or "a date which will live in infamy." It was a ham-fisted applause line. It was an easy statement of vengeance. And it was his finest moment. Later, in an address at ground zero, the president recycled the Gettysburg Address which not only served to devalue the impact of Lincoln's words, but also exposed the president as unoriginal and, in context of others like Lincoln, made the president seem small and inadequate.

Can you remember a single complete line from the president's 9/20/01 joint session address? I can't. Thinking back to those weeks, I remember a litany of bumper sticker slogans better suited for tourist traps than the Oval Office. Slogans like "smoke the evildoers out of their holes" and "we will not be cowed" and "watch this putt" are amongst the first to come to mind. Not quite the caliber of sentiments expected of a world leader whose every word, as the elected representative of his people, should have rightfully reflected the posterity of those who died on that day.

Thousands of men and women were killed in an attack which stemmed from American foreign policy blowback, and the most comforting lines President Bush could deliver amounted to a syllabus of roadside billboards and dialogue from bad video games. I recall waiting for his next line to be, "All your base are belong to us." He came close to that Zero Wing line with, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." There it is. There's the line. I remember now. His most memorable line from the 9/20 address was an ultimatum to people like Saddam Hussein and, I believe, most of the Democrats and the news media. Subsequently, both the traditional media and the Democrats alike caved on the Patriot Act and every lie perpetrated in the lead-up and early execution of the Iraq War.

Iraq itself certainly carries more than enough weight to make President Bush one of the worst presidents ever. But despite its nonexistent connection to 9/11, Iraq was, in the mind of the president, an opportunistic reaction to 9/11. Iraq was the "Pearl Harbor type event" heralding an Iraq invasion the PNAC neocons fantasized about in the 1990s. So you can't cite Iraq without forever coupling it with 9/11 as the latest and most deadly result of "hearing from all of us."

The myth of President Bush as somehow a "hero" of 9/11 needs to end. If we can, for just a moment, look through the smoke, rubble and death and evaluate our chief executive's reactions to 9/11, it's easy to see a man who wasn't meant to be president during this era -- a man who most definitely was not designed for his time.

If we set aside the benefit of the doubt the president received after 9/11, it's easy to recall a series of decisions that guided us deeper into darkness and death, rather than into the enlightenment of a new era in world history. Instead of compassion, inspiration and humility, we can easily recall indulgence, dangerous pride and indignity; sloganeering and exploitation in lieu of positive words and deeds -- words and deeds which so many of his predecessors have managed to summon under similar duress.

The feeble, laughable President Bush who has emerged in recent years is the President Bush that would've existed throughout his first term had 9/11 never happened. Were it not for the undeserved support he received after 9/11 -- support which didn't reflect upon him, but rather on the patriotic instincts of America to rally around the president (any president) -- he would've surely lost his re-election bid and been relegated to the ranks of our most ineffectual presidents.

When you couple this basic incompetence with the awful track record of his post-9/11 history, it's not hard to rank him amongst our worst presidents. Far better presidents have been doomed to single terms, simply because they didn't have a major national crisis to falsely inflate their importance. But you'd be hard pressed to find any president who handled a national crisis in a similarly haphazard, destructive way. And there-in, lay the Iraq War.


Read More...

U.S. Report Finds Fault in Training of Afghan Police

The New York Times
U.S. Report Finds Fault in Training of Afghan Police
By JAMES GLANZ and DAVID ROHDE

Five years after the fall of the Taliban, a joint report by the Pentagon and the State Department has found that the American-trained police force in Afghanistan is largely incapable of carrying out routine law enforcement work, and that managers of the $1.1 billion training program cannot say how many officers are actually on duty or where thousands of trucks and other equipment issued to police units have gone.

In fact, most police units had less than 50 percent of their authorized equipment on hand as of June, says the report, which was issued two weeks ago but is only now circulating among members of relevant Congressional committees.

In its most significant finding, the report said that no effective field training program had been established in Afghanistan, at least in part because of a slow, ineffectual start and understaffing.

Police training experts who have studied or had first-hand experience with the American effort in Afghanistan said they agreed with the report’s findings, and some said they had warned for years that field training was the backbone of a strong program. But they said additional problems needed to be investigated, including the quality of private contractors and the cost and effectiveness of relying on them to train the police officers. In particular, the experts questioned why the report focused on United States government managers and only glancingly analyzed the performance of the principal contractor in Afghanistan, DynCorp International of Virginia.

Considering the state of the police force, an estimated $600 million per year will be needed indefinitely to sustain it, says the report, undertaken by the offices of the inspectors general at the Pentagon and the State Department. Howard J. Krongard is the inspector general at State, which led the work on the 97-page report, and Thomas F. Gimble holds the office at the Pentagon.

American advisers will also have to combat endemic corruption in the force, the report says.

Efforts to respond to some of the issues that the report identifies are already under way. Afghan and American officials recently announced that they had instituted an “auxiliary police” program at the end of the summer, which aims to hire 11,200 officers in parts of the country beset by Taliban attacks, primarily in the south.

But these officers receive only two of the standard eights weeks of training, and the police training experts say the program could worsen the situation. They say the new hastily created program could place ill-trained and poorly vetted officers in the field and allow militias and criminals to infiltrate the force.

An American official involved in the new effort said the program became necessary after southern governors besieged by Taliban attacks began hiring police officers on their own. American officials feared they were seeing the beginnings of de facto private militias.

“This was designed to avoid the creation of the militias,” said the official, who was not authorized to comment publicly.

The training experts say the United States made some of the same mistakes in training police forces in Afghanistan that it made in Iraq, including offering far too little field training, tracking equipment poorly and relying on private contractors for the actual training. At the same time, these experts say, the failure to create viable police forces to keep order and enforce the law on a local level has played a pivotal role in undermining the American efforts to stabilize both countries.

In Afghanistan, the failure has contributed to the explosion in opium production, government corruption and the resurgence of the Taliban.

In Iraq, the challenge is even larger: Sectarian death squads have infiltrated the police force and helped push the country to what many are now calling a civil war.

“In both places we were extraordinarily late getting started,” said Robert M. Perito, a policing expert at the United States Institute of Peace and a former National Security Council, State and Justice Department official. “In both places you have a dysfunctional Interior Ministry in control, and in both places the United States has tried to stand up a ministry advisory group to bring order out of chaos.”

In an interview this fall, the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, said the violence in the country’s south was partly a result of the lack of a viable force. He called for “much more support” from the United States and for an expansion of the country’s force of roughly 70,000 officers.

“It is not that they are strong,” he said, referring to the Taliban. “It is that we are not strong enough to defend ourselves.”

Most of the $1.1 billion the United States has spent on the training program in Afghanistan has gone to DynCorp, a technical services company based in Falls Church, Va., with 14,000 employees in about 33 countries. DynCorp also won the largest part of the training work in Iraq; it received $1.6 billion for its training and security work in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2004, 2005 and 2006 fiscal years, according to Gregory Lagana, a company spokesman. The work accounted for roughly 30 percent of the company’s revenues during those years. In May, the company raised $375 million in an initial public offering of its stock.

Under orders from the Defense Department, the company has deployed 377 police advisers to Afghanistan, roughly half the number the United States has deployed in Iraq. Police training experts say far more police advisers are needed in Afghanistan, which is roughly the same size as Iraq. The report says that management of the DynCorp contract by United States government officials in Afghanistan has fallen into a state of disarray; conflicting military and civilian bureaucracies could not even find a copy of the contract to clarify for auditors exactly what it called for.

The report does not suggest that DynCorp held any responsibility for the program’s failures, but former Afghan officials and several American policing experts who have examined DynCorp’s training on the ground say that the company is partly to blame for long delays and that the use of private contractors for training should be reviewed. Afghan officials have complained about the high cost of the advisers and have said that some have too little experience.

Ali Jalali, an Afghan-American military historian who served as interior minister from 2002 to 2005, said the expertise level of some DynCorp advisers sent to his ministry was mixed. He said he rejected the first group he was offered because their résumés were unimpressive. When a second group arrived, some were retired officers not up to the demands of working in Afghanistan, he said. Others knew virtually nothing about the country.

“They were good on patrols in Oklahoma City, Houston or Miami,” said Mr. Jalali, now a professor at the National Defense University in Washington. “But not in a country where you faced rebuilding the police force.”

Mr. Lagana defended the company’s work and said State Department officials closely monitored their activities. He said the Interior Ministry advisers who drew complaints regarding their experience level were removed.

“We filled positions based on the requirements and salary levels authorized by the State Department,” Mr. Lagana said. “As we went along, everyone realized we needed people with experience at higher levels in law enforcement.”

Seth Jones, an Afghanistan expert at the RAND Corporation who has made eight trips to Afghanistan since 2003 to study army and police training, called for a review of the company’s performance. He said he had repeatedly heard complaints from both Western and Afghan officials in Afghanistan about the quality and experience of DynCorp’s advisers.

“I was surprised, based on what I have seen on the ground, that DynCorp was let off the hook so easily,” he said of the report. “I think a very frank assessment of DynCorp needs to be done.”

Mr. Krongard, the State Department inspector general, acknowledged the seriousness of the report’s criticisms. But he said in a statement in answer to questions about the report that in the face of obstacles like largely illiterate recruits, low pay and corruption, the program was “generally well conceived and well executed,” but that for the police force to be self-sustaining, “long-term U.S. and international assistance and funding will be required at least beyond 2010.”

The report concluded that the official figure of 70,000 trained police officers was inflated and that only where American advisers were present was the counting reliable to some degree.

As a best estimate, the report said that 30,395 Afghan officers — fewer than half the official total — were “trained and equipped to carry out their police functions.”

The report also says that the vetting process for recruits, intended to keep the Taliban and people with powerful sectarian or tribal loyalties out of police ranks, has not been effective. After recruits are trained, they are often assigned by local police commanders to menial tasks like guard duty.

The international effort lost critical time when it initially mounted a token effort to train officers in Afghanistan, according to Afghan officials and policing experts. For the first two and a half years after the fall of the Taliban, no systematic police training program existed outside of Afghanistan’s capital, according to American and Afghan officials. The United States focused on training a new multiethnic army and paid little attention to the need for policemen. Germany pledged to train a new force but sent only 40 police advisers to Kabul.

Then, in 2004, the State Department issued a contract to DynCorp to deploy 30 police advisers across Afghanistan and construct seven regional training centers.

The United States spent $164 million building and running the training centers; recruits received two to four weeks of training. The effort was poorly monitored and achieved mixed results, according to a June 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office.

In April 2005, the Defense Department took over police training in Afghanistan and drastically expanded the number of American police advisers; the number is 377 today. Still, police training experts said the Afghanistan effort remained far too small, with small teams of advisers each expected to field train thousands of Afghan policemen.

The small corps of advisers also makes it more difficult to track equipment, and the report said that just 3,000 of 5,000 vehicles issued to the police nationwide could be accounted for. Although the report does not explicitly connect its warnings on corruption to the loss of equipment, the two appear to be closely related.

The weakness of the police has contributed to Afghanistan become world’s largest producer of opium, accounting for 92 percent of the world’s supply, experts said. A report issued by the United Nations Office of Drug Control and the World Bank last Tuesday found that corruption had stymied efforts to counter opium production and that a handful of politically connected traffickers increasingly dominated the drug trade.

“The drug industry in Afghanistan is becoming increasingly consolidated,” the report says. “At the top level, around 25-30 key traffickers, the majority of them in southern Afghanistan, control major transactions and transfers, working closely with sponsors in top government and political positions.”

The report on police training strongly recommends expanding the advising program to take care of some of those problems but points out that an expansion would cost the United States much more money “as well as increasing the risk to U.S. personnel.”

Carlotta Gall contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.



Read More...

Stalag 9/11

Huffington Post
Chris Kelly
Stalag 9/11

George Bush has done some iffy things since seizing power, but the one that really hit me where I live was ruining Billy Wilder's Stalag 17.

If you're not into old movies, you should know that Stalag 17 is a cynical, fast-talking dark comedy set in a prisoner of war camp, kind of a cross between Grand Illusion and His Girl Friday.

Of course, if you're not into old movies, knowing it's a cross between Grand Illusion and His Girl Friday probably didn't help much. Let me start again...

Stalag 17 was a play written by two guys, Donald Bevan and Edmund Trzcinski, who had been actual prisoners at an actual place called Stalag 17 in actual Austria during World War Two. (Think of Austria as kind of a cross between Switzerland and Triumph of the Will.) Billy Wilder made it into a movie in 1953 with William Holden and it's a really terrific piece of entertainment, full of interesting characters and snappy wised-up dialogue and cool plot twists and bravery and Nazis. And you don't have to take my word for it. Ask anyone else who's old.

Here's where President Bush comes in. While Stalag 17's prisoners are planning their escapes, and the Germans are trying to stop them, both sides keep referring to this dopey sort of rulebook called "the Geneva Conventions."

These appear to be rules about the fair treatment of prisoners - I dunno, not torturing them, for instance - and even the Nazis obey them. Weird, huh?

A lot hinges on them, as a plot gimmick, but the characters seem to take them for granted. Even though it's a war, there are still things you don't do. Which, if only for story purposes, explains why the movie isn't two hours of Otto Preminger holding William Holden's head under water.

(Otto Preminger? Nothing? Okay, think of a cross between Erich von Stroheim and... no, this is getting us nowhere.)

This isn't supposed to take anything away from the Nazis as the villains of the piece --you can see it in the kommandant's beady little burgher eyes that he wishes he could get around the Conventions - but the rules are the rules.

Even if the rules are - how did the Attorney General put it? - "quaint."

But here's the thing. If you accept that the Geneva Conventions are just an annoying formality, like recycling - and I guess we do now - it ruins the whole movie. There's no drama in it. Because the Third Reich isn't even trying.

The prisoners get mail from home. They get visits from the Red Cross. They aren't even kept in cages. No one hoods them, or electrocutes them, or pretends to execute them, or places them in a "stress position" or walks them around on a leash. At one of the darkest points in the story, one of them is forced to stand for a few days without sleep. Like that even hurts.

Don't the guards want their country to win? These guys -- the prisoners -- are all members of an organization (The United States Army Air Force) that not only is thinking of using weapons of mass destruction, they actually are. Night after night. From planes.

They have information that could save German lives. But no one seems to have given their interrogators the tools they need to get it.

And now my stomach hurts. Because sometimes even sarcasm can only get you so far.

In real life, the Nazis did commit atrocities against American prisoners of war. At Malmedy. At Mauthausen. That's why we hate Nazis. Because they were bad.

In real life, bombing Germany killed a half million civilians, but interned American and British airmen were generally treated according to the Geneva Conventions. They weren't systematically tortured. They weren't deliberately humiliated. They weren't held in solitary cells. International organizations were given their names and their families were informed of their capture. Their mortality rate was less than 1%.

And they were being held by the worst government on earth.

It's almost like the hippies at MoveOn have it backwards. When it comes to protecting his country, Hitler isn't George Bush.


Read More...

Chavez wins re-election by wide margin

Yahoo! News
Chavez wins re-election by wide margin
By IAN JAMES, Associated Press Writer

President Hugo Chavez won re-election by a wide margin Sunday, giving the firebrand leftist six more years to redistribute Venezuela's vast oil wealth to the poor and press his campaign to counter U.S. influence in Latin America and beyond.

Challenger Manuel Rosales conceded defeat but vowed to remain in opposition. During the campaign, Rosales accused Chavez of edging Venezuela toward authoritarian rule and warned the president could undertake even more radical policies if re-elected.

Minutes after the results were announced, Chavez appeared on the balcony of the presidential palace singing the national anthem. He pledged to deepen his effort to transform Venezuela into a socialist society.

"Long live the socialist revolution! Destiny has been written," Chavez shouted to thousands of flag-waving supporters wearing red shirts and braving a pouring rain.

"That new era has begun," he said, raising a hand in the air. "We have shown that Venezuela is red!... No one should fear socialism... Socialism is human. Socialism is love," Chavez said. "Down with imperialism! We need a new world!"

Since he first won office in 1998, Chavez has increasingly dominated all branches of government and his allies now control congress, state offices and the judiciary. He has called President Bush the devil, allied himself with Iran and influenced elections across the region.

Chavez also has used Venezuela's oil wealth to his political advantage. He has channeled oil profits toward multibillion-dollar programs for the poor including subsidized food, free university education and cash benefits for single mothers. He has also helped allies from Cuba to Bolivia with oil and petrodollars.

He now promises to solidify his social program.

With 78 percent of voting stations reporting, Chavez had 61 percent to 38 percent for challenger Rosales, said Tibisay Lucena, head of the country's elections council. Chavez had nearly 6 million votes versus 3.7 million for Rosales, according to the partial tally.

Turnout among the 15.9 million eligible voters was 62 percent, according to an official bulletin of results, making Chavez's lead insurmountable.

"We will continue in this struggle," Rosales told cheering supporters as he conceded defeat.

Some supporters at his campaign headquarters wept, while others were clearly angry.

"We have to do something," said Dona Bavaro, a 36-year-old Rosales supporter. "My country is being stolen. This is the last chance we have. Communism is coming here."

Rosales, a cattle rancher and governor of western Zulia state who stepped down temporarily to run against Chavez, focused his campaign on issues such as rampant crime and corruption, widely seen as Chavez's main vulnerabilities.

A top Rosales adviser, Teodoro Petkoff, said the voting was carried out in a "satisfactory manner." He said some irregularities had occurred but most were resolved. Another member of the Rosales camp had accused pro-Chavez soldiers of reopening closed polling stations and busing voters to them.

Even before polls closed, Chavez supporters celebrated in the streets, setting off fireworks and cruising Caracas honking horns and shouting "Chavez isn't going anywhere!"

Earlier, Chavez loyalists jarred voters awake hours before dawn in Caracas with recordings of reveille blaring from truck-mounted loudspeakers.

"We're here to support our president, who has helped us so much," said Jose Domingo Izaguirre, a factory worker who waited hours to vote. His family recently moved into new government housing.

Rosales supporters accused Chavez of deepening class divisions with searing rhetoric demonizing his opponents.

Alicia Primera, a 54-year-old housewife, was among voters so passionate about the choice that they camped out overnight in voting queues.

"I voted for Chavez previously. I cried for him," Primera said. "Now I'm crying for him to leave. He's sown a lot of hate with his verbiage."

The campaign has been hostile, with Chavez calling Rosales a pawn of Washington and Rosales saying he was on the alert for fraud. Rosales' campaign had endorsed the electronic voting system as trustworthy — as long as no attempts were made to thwart it.

More than 125,000 soldiers and reservists were deployed to safeguard the balloting.

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Janelle Hironimus stressed "the importance of a free, fair and transparent process."

Conflict and ambition have marked the rise of Chavez, 52, from a boy selling homemade sweets in a dusty backwater to a failed coup commander in 1992 and now a leader who could set the tone of Latin American politics for years to come.

Constitutional reforms he oversaw in 1999 triggered new elections the following year that he easily won. Loyalists helped him survive a 2002 coup, a subsequent general strike and a 2004 recall referendum.

Chavez says he would convene a commission upon re-election to propose constitutional reforms, likely including an end to presidential term limits. Current law prevents him from running again in 2012.

The president insists he is a democrat and will continue to respect private property — though he has boosted state control over the oil industry and has said he might nationalize utilities. Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil exporter and soaring oil prices have made it the continent's fastest growing economy.

Chavez has pledged at least $1.1 billion in loans and financial aid to Latin American countries in the past two years, and billions more in bond bailouts for friendly governments as well as generously financed oil deals. But the largesse has proved a weakness at home, with polls suggesting many Venezuelans believe the aid impedes efforts to address the country's own problems.

Chavez, who says Fidel Castro is like a father to him, has built increasingly close ties with Cuba, sending the island oil while thousands of Cuban doctors treat Venezuela's poor for free.



Read More...

Sunday, December 03, 2006

The Metrics of Victory

Read More...

Go To Your Room!

Read More...

The Padded Oval

Read More...

Not Civil War

Read More...

Heck of a Job!

Read More...

Very Low Food Security

Read More...

GOP pays $135K in N.H. call jamming suit

Yahoo! News
GOP pays $135K in N.H. call jamming suit
By DAVID TIRRELL-WYSOCKI, Associated Press Writer

State and national Republicans will pay $135,000 to settle a suit involving a scheme to jam Democratic get-out-the-vote calls on Election Day 2002, officials said Saturday.

"Although we believed our case was very strong, the cost of the trial as well as expected appeals by the New Hampshire Democratic Party would have easily matched or exceeded the present value of the settlement," state Republican Chairman Wayne Semprini said.

Republicans had hired a telemarketing firm to place hundreds of hang-up calls to phone banks for the Democratic Party and the Manchester firefighters union, a nonpartisan group offering rides to the polls. Service was disrupted for nearly two hours.

Democrats had wanted more than $4 million in damages — the cost of seven months' work for the get-out-the-vote effort. Republicans maintained they should only have had to pay about $4,000 — the cost of rental and use of the phones.

Semprini said the Republican State Committee deplored the phone-jamming incident and does not endorse illegal or improper election tactics.

"My only regret in settling this matter is that the public at large will never know the whole, real story and that is that the phone jamming scheme was the act of a few unauthorized individuals and not that of the Republican Party," he said.

The state party will pay $125,000 over five years. The Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee will pay $5,000 each. Half of that money will go to a charitable organization benefiting Manchester firefighters, and half to a group that supports police officers, who investigated the case.

State Democratic Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan said the settlement will dent GOP contributions.

"Over the next five years, every time a Republican donor makes a donation to the Republican State Committee, they will know a portion of that is going to the Democratic Party," she said.

Democrats said the jamming disrupted efforts to get people to the polls to vote in races including the Senate contest between then-Rep. John Sununu and Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen. Sununu won by nearly 20,000 votes, 51-46 percent.

The settlement announced Friday ended the civil lawsuit, three days before it was to go to trial. But criminal proceedings continue.

Former Republican State Committee Executive Director Charles McGee and consultant Allen Raymond served federal prison terms after pleading guilty to telephone harassment charges. McGee admitted masterminding the plot and paying Raymond $15,000 from the state Republican fund to find someone to carry out the scheme.

Former Republican National Committee operative James Tobin is appealing his telephone harassment conviction.




Read More...