U.S. soldiers' suicide rate in Iraq doubles in 2005

Reuters
U.S. soldiers' suicide rate in Iraq doubles in 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Suicides among U.S. soldiers in Iraq doubled last year over the previous year to return to a level seen in 2003, U.S. Army medical experts said on Tuesday.

Twenty-two U.S. soldiers in Iraq took their own lives in 2005, a rate of 19.9 per 100,000 soldiers. In 2004, the rate was 10.5 per 100,000 and in 2003, the year of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the figure was 18.8 per 100,000.

The figures cover U.S. Army soldiers only. They do not include members of other U.S. military services in Iraq such as the Marine Corps.

Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the Army's surgeon general, cautioned against overinterpreting the figures, saying suicide rates tended to fluctuate from year to year.

"We think that the numbers are so rare to begin with that it's very hard to make any kind of interpretation," he said at a news conference to present a study on the mental health of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

"We have not made a connection between the stress on the force and some massive or even significant increase in suicides," he said.

While every suicide was one too many, Kiley said, the suicide rate among soldiers was lower than the average among civilians of the same age and gender.

The survey, a snapshot of the morale and mental health of U.S. soldiers in Iraq in late 2005, found 13.6 percent of the soldiers reported symptoms of acute stress and 16.5 percent reported a combination of depression, anxiety and acute stress.

Those rates were lower than in 2003 but higher than in 2004, the experts said.

Read More...

Summary only...

General Opposes Adding to U.S. Forces in Iraq, Emphasizing International Solutions for Region

NY Times
General Opposes Adding to U.S. Forces in Iraq, Emphasizing International Solutions for Region
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 — As the new secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, takes stock of the war in Iraq this week, he will find Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, resistant to increasing the American fighting force there.

General Abizaid, who is completing the final months of a highly decorated military career, acknowledges that additional American forces, favored by some of President Bush’s top advisers, might provide a short-term boost in security. But he argues that foreign troops are a toxin bound to be rejected by Iraqis, and that expanding the number of American troops merely puts off the day when Iraqis are forced to take responsibility for their own security.

The New York Times
While American forces may be repositioned within Iraq to meet growing security challenges, especially in Baghdad, the answer is not solely military, and even the leading role in combat cannot long rest on American forces, General Abizaid says.

“The Baghdad security situation requires more Iraqi troops,” he said in a recent interview as he traveled around Iraq, meeting with American commanders.

His assessment, which includes plans to increase the number of American trainers embedded with Iraqi units, is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, as well as by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who must provide the forces and have resisted an increase without first clearly defining the goals it would try to achieve on the ground.

But the generals are facing a different assessment from a growing number of civilian officials in the Bush administration, who see a sharp increase in troop strength as an effective means to stabilize Baghdad and as a dramatic initiative for the president to announce in January.

General Abizaid argues for a broader approach to Iraq than that of looking solely to putting out the fires in Baghdad.

“You have to internationalize the problem,” General Abizaid said. “You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically. You just can’t apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad and a particular problem in downtown Kabul and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, that you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism.”

His views are out of sync with those of some officials in Washington.

General Abizaid has been pounded by senators of both parties for what they said was status quo advice on force levels in Iraq, and for sharing responsibility over a strategy that the Iraq Study Group said was failing. At the same time, he rankled many of his civilian bosses by not sticking to administration talking points for the war, offering accurate, if blunt, public assessments of the Iraq mission since taking charge of Central Command in July 2003.

General Abizaid was the first to label Iraq a guerrilla war, even when the White House and Pentagon dismissed the description. And he was the first four-star general to warn that the rise of sectarian violence in Iraq, after the mosque bombing in Samarra in February, had replaced terrorism and Sunni insurgents as the greatest security challenges there, telling Congress that Iraq risked sliding toward civil war.

But in a bitter exchange last month during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, told the general, “I’m of course disappointed that basically you’re advocating the status quo here today, which I think the American people in the last election said is not an acceptable condition.”

General Abizaid’s reluctance to endorse a spike in American forces is not born of philosophical differences over questions like whether the United States can rely on fewer troops in combat zones abroad because of advanced technology. General Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent, served a tour with United Nations forces in Lebanon, attended the University of Jordan and earned a master’s degree in Middle Eastern studies from Harvard.

He emphasizes that the threat to American national security interests ranges far beyond any one country in his area of responsibility.

“When you take a look at the reach of the extremism as exemplified by Al Qaeda, it’s not just in Afghanistan, it’s not just in Iraq — it’s in Pakistan, it’s in Saudi Arabia, it’s in Great Britain, it’s in Spain,” he said. “It attacked the United States. It is organized in the virtual world in a way that is very unique, very modern, very dangerous.”

Ask for a solution to Sunni insurgents in Anbar Province, and he talks about their supporters in Syria and implications should Saudi Arabia overtly take sides against the Shiites of Iraq.

On the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, General Abizaid says the only course includes understanding tribal loyalties in Pakistan. Turn the conversation to Middle Eastern terrorists, and he describes the military’s efforts to preclude their establishing havens in ungoverned corners of Africa.

General Abizaid is credited with coining the phrase, “the long war,” to describe the challenge of combating terrorism, especially radical Islamic terrorism. He still uses, but no longer favors, the label, according to his aides, because too many people focused only on “war” and a military solution.

He says the United States government is inadequately organized for the new type of threat, and that success in the counterterrorism mission, in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, requires all of the government to go to war, and not just the military.

“I think our structures for 21st-century security challenges need to adapt to this type of an enemy,” he said. “The 21st century really requires that we figure out how to get economic, diplomatic, political and military elements of power synchronized and coordinated against specific problems wherever they exist.”

Long before the Iraqi Study Group advocated a solution for Iraq that included negotiations with Iran and Syria, General Abizaid argued that combating Islamic extremism required a regional approach. The general declined to disclose his private advice to the White House, Pentagon and State Department on direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, or on future force levels for Iraq.

Read More...

Summary only...

Right-Wing Think Tank Advocating Two-Year U.S. Troop Escalation In Iraq ‘Has The President’s Ear’

thinkprogress.org

Right-Wing Think Tank Advocating Two-Year U.S. Troop Escalation In Iraq ‘Has The President’s Ear’

Last night on CNN, reporter Suzanne Malveaux noted that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right-wing think tank in Washington, DC, “has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking” on Iraq. Last week Bush was briefed on a report by AEI scholar Frederick W. Kagan that calls for a troop surge in Iraq that “would probably last for anywhere from 18 to 24 months.” Watch it:

Kagan’s report specifically calls for at least 30,000 more Army and Marines per year for the next two years. It also advocates longer tours for ground forces and increased deployments for National Guard troops. The full report can be found here.

Transcript:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aides say the president is weighing his numerous options for changing tactics in Iraq, following his consultations last week with Iraqi leaders and advisers at the Pentagon and State.

Sources say one conservative policy group that has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking is the American Enterprise Institute. It briefed White House officials last week about its own report, which dismisses the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation to move U.S. troops from fighting positions to training Iraqi soldiers.

FREDERICK W. KAGAN: A surge of two or three months is not going to be productive. We’re proposing a surge that would probably last for anywhere from 18 to 24 months. At the end of that, we would expect that we will have brought the security situation sufficiently under control.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Greatest Threat To Our Standard Of Living

thinkprogress.org

The Greatest Threat To Our Standard Of Living

(The U.S. current account deficit widened to a record $225.6 billion in the third quarter, officials announced yesterday. Below, American Progress Senior Economist Christian Weller explains why it matters.)



The greatest current threat to our standard of living is the current account deficit, which now stands at a whopping $225.6 billion in just the third quarter of 2006. This is the equivalent of 6.8 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). Current account deficits above 5 percent flash a threat level of “red” to economists.

The current account is the broadest measure of our international transactions. It includes, among other, smaller items, exports and imports, as well as the interest U.S. residents earn on their investments abroad, minus the interest paid on debt that U.S. residents owe to the rest of the world.

For most of the past three decades, the current account was in the deficit, largely because imports were larger than exports. Now, we also pay more in interest to the rest of the world than we earn on our assets abroad, adding to the deficit.

A current account deficit means that we spend more than we earn. To pay for this, we borrow from the rest of the world, most importantly by foreigners financing 78 percent of our budget deficit. As a result, we send a lot of interest abroad. In the third quarter of 2006, the federal government spent $37 billion — or 1.1 percent of our economy - on interest payments to the rest of the world. Now, we actually spend more on interest payments than we earn. The last four quarters have been the first time since the government has collected these data in 1960 that this has happened. With trade deficit continuing to be large, we will add more to our debt and interest payments abroad will continue to rise.

Why is this bad?

At some point foreigners will not want to lend us money at low interest rates, especially if an ever larger share of U.S. income is dedicated to interest payments on international debt and not on important investments, such as education or health care. Already, Japan — the largest foreign creditor of the U.S. government — has slowly been selling off its T-bills. If other countries follow suit, interest rates will go up to attract more money to the U.S. This means higher mortgage and credit card payments for families, but also less investment by firms, all of which spells less growth and fewer jobs.

Conservatives contend that our trade deficit is a sign of U.S. economic strength: we consume, therefore we are! This is like celebrating a satisfying drinking binge. It ignores the hangover. Our past debt is coming due, and if we continue on this path, we will have to spend an ever larger share of our economic resources to pay for this debt, automatically leaving less money for investments and possibly leading the way for a serious economic slowdown. Ignore this economic logic at your own risk.

– Christian Weller

Read More...

Summary only...

If Cheney's Talking, He Should Talk to Congress

Huffington Post
If Cheney's Talking, He Should Talk to Congress
John Nichols

Vice President Dick Cheney should get used to testifying under oath.

It is expeacted that he will start talking soon, as part of a self-serving effort to defend a former aide. But once the vice president's done giving that testimony, how hard would it be for him to head over to Capitol Hill and respond to all the questions that members of Congress have been preparing to ask?

It was revealed Tuesday that Cheney will be called to testify on behalf of his former chief of staff, I. Scooter Libby.

Libby stands accused of perjury and obstruction of justice in an upcoming trial involving issues that arose from alleged efforts by the Vice President's office to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife, former CIA operative Valarie Plame, for revealing that the Bush-Cheney administration had manipulated intelligence to make the "case" for invading and occupying Iraq.

Cheney, who resisted testifying before the 9/11 Commission until the bitter end, is reportedly willing to take the stand in Libby's defense.

William Jeffress, one of Libby's attorneys, says of the vice president: "We don't expect him to resist."

Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for the vice president, seemed to confirm that sentiment when she told reporters that, "We've cooperated fully in this matter and will continue to do so in fairness to the parties involved."

Since schedules and notes -- some in the vice president's own handwriting -- confirm that Cheney was involved in conversations about using his office to discredit Wilson, his willingness to testify in the Libby case becomes particularly significant.

Of course, the vice president will make it his purpose to protect his former chief of staff, the loyal retainer who has been described as "Cheney's Cheney." But his openness to testifying under oath about this matter would seem to open the door for him to testify before Congress regarding the matter.

Gerald Ford, while serving as president, testified before a Congressional committee about his 1974 pardon of his scandal-plagued predecessor, Richard Nixon. So there is a clear precedent. And members of the House have already requested that Cheney come clean.

A little more than a year ago, three key members of the House -- Michigan Democrat John Conyers, the incoming chair of the Judiciary Committee; California Democrat Henry Waxman, the incoming chair of the Government Reform Committee; and New York Democrat Maurice Hinchey, one of the most outspoken critics of the administration's misuse of intelligence during the period before the Iraq War began -- sent a letter to the Vice President's office in which they asked the Cheney to "make yourself available to appear before Congress to explain the details and reasons for your office's involvement -- and your personal involvement -- in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative."

At the time the letter was sent, Hinchey said, "We are going to do everything we can to force this administration and this Congress to face up to the truth and to face up to their responsibility under the Constitution."

The congressman explained that, "The people who wrote the Constitution that set this government up knew what they were doing. They knew what would happen if you let a regime go its own way without oversight. That's why they set up the system of checks and balances. This Congress has shunned its responsibility, tossed its obligations under the Constitution aside – allowing the administration to do whatever it chooses, even to the point of looking aside when the administration lies to Congress and violates federal laws. That's got to stop. We cannot have a monolithic government. We have to restore some balance, where the legislative branch is a part of this process. And we think that one way to do that is by asking the vice president, in light of the questions that have arisen with regards to his actions, to come to Congress and answer the questions that are on the minds of the American people and their representatives."

Cheney showed little regard for Congress when Republicans were in charge of the House and Senate. And no one expects him to display any more respect for the system of checks and balances now that Democrats are in control.

But if the vice president is willing to testify in Libby's trial, then surely Congress has not just the right but the Constitutional duty to suggest that Cheney must also take questions from the Congress.

Read More...

Summary only...

Al Gore: The Voice Of Reality, 2006

Huffington Post
Bob Cesca
Al Gore: The Voice Of Reality, 2006

For the last three years, at around this time of year, I've made an effort to recognize and blog about a public figure who, despite the odds, managed to break through the craptastical quantities of horseshit we hear every day to speak strongly, fearlessly and precisely about the realities of our national situation. The qualifications to become a Voice of Reality are simple. 1) A Voice of Reality must speak about controversial issues, 2) a Voice of Reality must never backpedal, and finally, 3) a Voice of Reality be firmly grounded in the reality-based community... of course. I began this annual tradition on my old blog (which I don't update anymore) and now, if you'll indulge me, I'd like to continue that tradition here.

In 2004, the honor went to Richard Clarke for being the first former White House official to apologize for 9/11 and speak out about the administration's failure to prevent the attack. In 2005, it was Keith Olbermann for, among other things, being the only reporter to cover the irregularities of the 2004 election; for standing his ground against his corporate bosses; for taking on Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh; and for delivering what was a truly historic special comment about the Katrina disaster.

This year's Voice of Reality is former Vice President Al Gore for An Inconvenient Truth and for elevating the urgency of global warming to a position close -- close -- to where it should be on our collective national roster of vital issues.

Two nights ago, I bought the DVD of Mr. Gore's documentary. You know, for the hilarious bonus feature outtakes in which Burgess Meredith says, "Look's like Chuck's taking a ride on the wild baloney pony." That was awesome. No wait. Never mind. There aren't any outtakes on the DVD, although the producers could've put together a wickedly funny montage of Senator Inhofe clips. Global warming is "a hoax," Inhofe says. Ha! Not as funny as Chuck riding the baloney pony but it's definitely way up there. Seriously though, while watching An Inconvenient Truth again last night, the documentary carried more weight and was exponentially more powerful (apart from the fact that it was 65°F yesterday -- in Pennsylvania) than it was when I first watched it in theaters.

And here's why. During the 2006 elections, the global warming issue was almost entirely ignored in the national discourse. Of course, ending the Iraq War was, and deservedly so, the issue. But despite it's actual degree of national and global urgency, I can't remember a single congressional debate or campaign commercial or pundit roundtable in which global warming held the position of importance it requires. For most of the Summer, Iraq aside, global warming seemed poised to become, for the first time ever, a major campaign issue due in large part to Mr. Gore's documentary as well as, you know, the melt-your-dog's-brain heat. Yet as soon as Labor Day rolled around and the campaign season kicked into high gear, it vanished from the traditional media headlines and political stump speeches.

The candidates, incumbents and challengers alike, all but ignored Mr. Gore's historic theatrical warnings at their own peril -- peril, not just because this issue impacts all of humanity, but also peril in terms of votes.

Shortly after the election, Zogby released a poll which received very little attention but ought to be required reading for every candidate and pundit as we careen towards 2008:

...a solid majority (58%) of voters agreed their elected officials "should make combating global warming a high priority." Three-quarters (75%) of Americans who voted in the mid-term elections say the "U.S. Congress should pass legislation promoting renewable and alternative energy sources as an effective way to reduce global warming pollution." [...] Global warming may have contributed to the erosion of support for Republicans among religious voters - 50 percent of Catholics identified global warming as important in their 2006 vote.

"Solid majority"? Religious voters abandoned the GOP partly over global warming? 75-percent of voters want global warming legislation? Comparatively, "only" 54 percent of Americans want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq (CNN poll here. Note the photo of the president's creepy black eyeballs). Imagine if the candidates had capitalized on the voter enthusiasm for global warming legislation and said just a little more about the issue in their literature and commercials. Global warming, given a little more attention, could very well have meant the difference between winning and losing. More importantly, however, the numbers tell us that Americans gave the new Congress more than just a mandate to end the war, but also a mandate to end global warming. And much of the credit for this level of voter awareness and concern has to be given to Mr. Gore. And it goes without saying, the poll numbers seem to indicate that if Al Gore were to run for president on this issue, he'd win.

Meanwhile, as we near the beginning of January and the 110th Congress, what about adding the following to Speaker Pelosi's list:

1) A comprehensive carbon emissions tax on industry.
2) Renewed and increased tax breaks for hybrid vehicle purchases.
3) Real tax incentives for green technology investment.
4) And here's a wild idea I just thought of: free low wattage fluorescent light bulbs for every low income and elderly American. In other words, a 100 percent tax refund for every low wattage light bulb purchased. Call it the Affordable Electricity Act. Low income households and senior citizens would save on their electricity bills and get their bulbs for free while we reduce carbon emissions.

It doesn't take much from the government to make a real difference. So who among the 110th will listen Mr. Gore and take the lead next year? More importantly, who will give global warming the campaign trail props it deserves? Put it this way, potential 2008 candidates, you'll win if you do. And ultimately, we'll all win if you do.

Read More...

Summary only...

GOP Rep. Sends Letter On First Muslim In Congress: "If American Citizens Don't Wake Up There Will Likely Be Many More'

tpmmuckraker.com
In Letter, GOP Rep Fears Influx of Muslims
By Paul Kiel

In a letter sent out to select supporters earlier this month reacting to the controversy (among certain extreme conservatives, at least) over Muslim representative-elect Keith Ellison's (D-MN) decision to be sworn in on the Koran, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) sent a short letter to supporters warning that the U.S. must close its borders to guard against the influx of still more Muslims. In it, he also proudly recounts his retort to a Muslim student who asked him why he did not include the Koran with The Ten Commandments on his wall. "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office," he says he told the student.

The letter, which by some horrible error in Goode's office was sent to the chair of the local Sierra Club chapter, was obtained by Charlottesville's C-Ville Weekly. Goode's spokesman, after correcting my pronunciation of his boss' name (it rhymes with "food") refused to expand beyond Goode's comment to the Weekly of “I wrote the letter. I think it speaks for itself,” although I was invited to fax in a question to the congressman.

"[I]f American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran," the letter reads. "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."

The text is reproduced below. (Thanks to Waldo Jaquith)

The text of the letter:

Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

Read More...

Summary only...

Goldman Chairman Gets a Bonus of $53.4 Million

The New York Times
Goldman Chairman Gets a Bonus of $53.4 Million
By JENNY ANDERSON

Goldman Sachs paid Lloyd C. Blankfein, its chairman and chief executive, a bonus of $53.4 million in 2006, the highest ever for a Wall Street chief executive.

Added to his $600,000 salary, the bonus means that Mr. Blankfein will make $54 million this year, up from $38 million last year. The bank’s compensation committee awarded him $27.3 million in cash, $15.7 million in restricted stock and options to buy Goldman stock valued at $10.5 million.

The payout comes a week after Goldman reported a record profit of $9.5 billion, or $19.69 per diluted share, in 2006. Its stock price is up almost 60 percent for the year, and the firm’s market capitalization is nearly $90 billion, more than triple its value when it went public in May 1999.

Mr. Blankfein took over as chairman and chief executive in June, when President Bush named the former chief, Henry M. Paulson Jr., to be Treasury secretary.

Goldman’s co-presidents, Gary D. Cohn, 46, and Jon Winkelried, 47, each received $25.7 million in restricted stock and options. John L. Weinberg, co-head of investment banking, was awarded $15.2 million in restricted stock and options.

It has been a good year to be on Wall Street and an even better one to be running the show. John J. Mack, chief executive of Morgan Stanley, received a $41.1 million bonus last week — also a record, but a record that lasted less than a week. He is also entitled to $5.2 million in 2006, part of a five-year signing bonus, bringing his total 2006 compensation to $46.6 million.

Richard S. Fuld Jr., chairman and chief executive of Lehman Brothers, is also having a good year. The bank recently disclosed that he would be paid $189 million over 10 years as a result of changes in options grants precipitated by the firm’s stock appreciation. He was also awarded $11 million in options last week.

Bolstered by record trading, banking and asset management profits, Wall Street banks are tripping over themselves in press releases to avoid using the word “record” too many times.

The soaring revenues, profits and per-share earnings will also benefit New York.

Securities industry employees in New York City will receive almost $24 billion in compensation this year, up 17 percent from a year ago, according to data provided by Alan G. Hevesi, New York State comptroller. That will translate to $1.6 billion in tax revenue for New York State and $500 million for New York City.

The $24 billion represents only what New York employees have earned. Globally, individual banks are paying record amounts in compensation. Investment banks generally pay about 48 percent to 50 percent of net revenue in compensation.

Goldman paid its 26,467 employees $16.5 billion in compensation in 2006, an average of $622,000 per employee. Lehman Brothers paid $8.67 billion, or $334,000 per employee, and Bear Stearns, $320,000. Employees at Morgan Stanley earned $264,715 per person.

Top-flight investment bankers earned $20 million to $25 million; traders earn a percentage of what they make for the firm, and those who performed well could take home as much as $50 million, compensation specialists estimated.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush Signs 3 Health Care-Related Bills

Daily Press
Bush Signs 3 Health Care-Related Bills
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Tuesday signed bills to raise federal funding for autism, shift AIDS money to rural areas and the South and create a government unit to oversee response to a bird flu pandemic or bioterrorism attack.

The autism bill increases federal funding by 50 percent for the disorder, which afflicts 1.5 million people in the United States.

Congress voted on Dec. 7 to significantly increase federal funding to identify the cause of autism, now diagnosed in one in 166 children. The Senate, acting a day after House passage, approved on a voice vote legislation that authorizes $945 million over five years for autism research, screening and treatment.

The legislation provides the National Institutes of Health with a list of possible research areas related to autism spectrum disorder, including an examination of whether the increase in autism diagnoses is caused by environmental factors.

"By creating a national education program for doctors and the public about autism, this legislation will help more people recognize the symptoms of autism," Bush said in a statement. "This will lead to early identification and intervention, which is critical for children with autism."

The AIDS legislation Bush signed will shift care and treatment money to rural areas and the South.

The House on Dec. 9 agreed by voice vote to renew the $2.1 billion-annual Ryan White CARE Act. The Senate passed the bill earlier after senators from New York and New Jersey dropped their opposition, accepting a compromise that settled months of dispute just as Congress adjourned for the year.

Lawmakers from some urban areas feared losing money under a five-year renewal of the law. The final deal renews it for three years. That allows earlier reviews of the formulas for distributing money and eliminates the large dollar cuts in the final years that threatened some areas.

AIDS began as a big-city epidemic affecting mainly gay white men. The updates, the first since 2000, aim to spread money more equally around the country. Current law had only counted patients with full-blown AIDS. The revision also counts patients with the HIV virus who have not developed AIDS. That change favors the South and rural areas, for example, where the disease is a newer phenomenon.

The president also signed a bill to create a new agency within the Health and Human Services Department to oversee the development of medicine and equipment to respond to a bird flu pandemic or a bioterrorism attack.

"It will increase our preparedness and response capabilities for public health emergencies by increasing our medical surge capacity, strengthening our public health infrastructure, and clarifying the responsibilities of federal officials," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said.

---

The bills are:

Combating Autism Act of 2006 S. 843

Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act S. 3678

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006 H.R. 6143

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

Read More...

Summary only...

Costs for Iraq war approach record: U.S. official

Reuters
Costs for Iraq war approach record: U.S. official

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. costs for the Iraq war are likely to exceed $110 billion this year, approaching the record reached in the fiscal year that just ended, White House budget director Rob Portman told reporters on Tuesday.

Portman also predicted that strong revenue growth would help bring down the overall U.S. budget deficit, offsetting some of the war costs.

Asked if he thought the deficit for fiscal year 2007 would come in below the forecast of $339 billion the White House gave a few months ago, Portman replied, "Yes, I do."

Read More...

Summary only...

Cheney to be called to testify in CIA leak case

Reuters
Cheney to be called to testify in CIA leak case
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney will be called to testify as a defense witness at the trial of his former top aide who is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case, a defense lawyer said on Tuesday.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, is accused of lying to investigators as they sought to find out who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003 after her diplomat husband accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to build its case for invading Iraq.

Administration critics accuse the White House of deliberately blowing Plame's undercover status to retaliate against a critic of its case for war. The White House denies it deliberately revealed her identity.

Testimony by a sitting vice president at a criminal trial may be unprecedented, legal experts have said, though sitting presidents, such as Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford, have given testimony in court cases.

"We're calling the vice president," defense lawyer Theodore Wells said at a hearing ahead of the trial, which is scheduled to start on January 16.

Wells disclosed the defense plan after special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton that the prosecution did not intend to call Cheney.

CHENEY WILL COOPERATE FULLY

"We've cooperated fully in this matter and we'll continue to do so," said Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for the vice president, declining further comment on the proceedings.

Cheney would be the most eagerly anticipated witness of the trial, which is expected to last up to six weeks with testimony likely from a number of other current or former top administration officials.

Both Cheney and President George W. Bush were interviewed by prosecutors as part of the investigation by Fitzgerald into who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity to the news media.

In May, Fitzgerald said in court papers that Cheney could be called to testify because his hand-written notes appeared on a July 6, 2003, article written by Plame's husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, that accused the administration of twisting intelligence before the war in Iraq.

Fitzgerald gave no explanation at the hearing of why he had decided not to call Cheney as a prosecution witness.

It could be because Cheney would be supportive of his former long-time aide. In a recent televised interview, Cheney called Libby "one of the finest men I've ever known."

Defense attorneys did not say whether Cheney would testify in the courtroom or would give videotaped testimony.

According to the indictment, Libby learned from Cheney himself on June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked in the counterproliferation division of the CIA.

Libby has pleaded not guilty to the five counts that accuse him of obstructing justice, perjury and lying.

His main defense is that he was so busy in Cheney's office working on important national security issues that he simply did not remember all details of his conversations with reporters about Plame.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky)

Read More...

Summary only...

The Rules Regarding Senate Vacancy

Bob Moss provides the following corrections to news stories stating that should the seemingly recovering Senator from South Dakota resign or not recover, the Governor would appoint his successor. Bob writes:

The Seventeenth Amendment, the text of which is easily accessible to the public, provides that

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

The 17th Amendment, of course, provided for direct elections of Senators. Prior to that, Senators were selected by state legislatures (Article I, section 3). Reporters, editors, and everyone else except a few of your listeners appear to be reading Article I, section 3, par. 2, without noticing that the relevant text is in brackets, indicating that it has been amended:

[and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.]

In accordance with the 17th Amendment, South Dakota law provides that

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-11-1




12-11-1. Special election to fill congressional vacancy--Time of election of representative. If a vacancy occurs in the office of a senator or representative in the United States Congress it shall be the duty of the Governor within ten days of the occurrence, to issue a proclamation setting the date of and calling for a special election for the purpose of filling such vacancy. If either a primary or general election is to be held within six months, an election to fill a vacancy in the office of representative in the United States Congress shall be held in conjunction with that election, otherwise the election shall be held not less than eighty nor more than ninety days after the vacancy occurs.

Source: SL 1890, ch 84, § 19; RPolC 1903, § 1956; SL 1915, ch 182, § 2; RC 1919, §§ 7214, 7308; SL 1929, ch 117, § 5; SDC 1939, §§ 16.0602, 16.1401; SDCL, § 12-11-2; SL 1974, ch 118, § 46; SL 1979, ch 99, § 5.

Read More...

Summary only...

US grandmother becomes a cause celebre as she faces a second trial over anti-war protest

US grandmother becomes a cause celebre as she faces a second trial over anti-war protest
Associated Press

BENNINGTON, Vermont -- Meet the anti-war movement's newest folk hero: 69-year-old Rosemarie Jackowski, whose arrest during an anti-war protest has made her a cause celebre.

A prosecutor's plan to retry her for blocking traffic while protesting the Iraq war is turning the feisty 4-foot-10 inch (1.47 meters) former schoolteacher into a darling of the dove crowd.

Bloggers have rallied behind her, peaceniks are deluging her with messages of support, and advocates have established a defense fund.

"She's not a loony toon by any means," said Andrew Schoerke, 73, a retired U.S. Navy captain who was arrested with her. "She's a very down to earth, sensible, caring person with some very strong convictions."

Jackowski was one of a dozen protesters arrested at a March 20, 2003 protest, staged within hours of the start of the United States' "shock and awe" bombing campaign in Iraq. Carrying a sign that read "Impeach Bush" on one side and listed U.S. "war crimes" on the other, Jackowski refused police orders to get out of the street and was arrested for blocking traffic.

"It was really hard for me to stand there and just hold my sign," she said in an interview. "I came from a strict ethnic, religious background. I was taught to never ever be disobedient to anyone — teacher, parent, policeman. That was my very first act of disobedience to anyone."

Asked during booking whether she had any aliases, she replied: "Yes, I do. 'Mom.'"

To police, it was no laughing matter.

The protest clogged traffic in this southern Vermont town's busiest intersection, delaying at least one hospital-bound ambulance and infuriating truck drivers and others.

"It wasn't about the war in Iraq," said police Lt. Paul Doucette, who ordered the arrests at the scene. "It was public safety at risk. This whole scene could've turned very ugly very quickly. So we did what was best. Now all of them have paid the price, except this one."

The other members of the so-called "Bennington 12" pleaded guilty and were accepted into a court-ordered program for first-time offenders. Jackowski refused, saying she did nothing wrong. After a one-day trial, a jury took less than 15 minutes to find her guilty.

She appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, her attorney insisting that the disorderly persons charge could only stick if it were proven she intended to disrupt traffic.

On Nov. 22, the justices threw out her conviction, saying trial Judge David Suntag erred in telling jurors they could convict her if they believed she was "practically certain" her conduct would cause public disruption.

Last week, Bennington County State's Attorney William Wright said he would seek to try her again.

"At this juncture, we are going forward with the case," he told the Bennington Banner newspaper. "We think that the evidence was overwhelming in our view, and we think that the jury should have another opportunity to decide Ms. Jackowski's guilt or innocence."

Wright, who lost his re-election and will be leaving office next month, did not return several calls seeking comment.

"It's time for everybody to just walk away from this case," said Stephen Saltonstall, her attorney. "This is an elderly woman who did something out of conscience. I believe she has been punished enough."

For her part, Jackowski — who gives her grandchildren "Give peace a chance" T-shirts and collects peace signs in her modest home — insists that the bombing of Iraqi civilians during the war is grounds enough for her actions. She has no intention of pleading guilty or admitting she was wrong.

"I will never say I'm sorry for what I did," she said Wednesday. "I don't care if they want to lock me up for life."

She could get 60 days in jail if convicted. First, she needs an attorney for the retrial although no date has been set.

Saltonstall has asked to withdraw as her lawyer because the prosecutor who handled the first trial has since joined his firm. She has been contacted by others, but money is an object. Jackowski, who lives alone, subsists on pension checks and said she can't afford high-priced counsel.

"I'm just a little old grandmother who has been really, really affected by the fact that my government is bombing children in Iraq. I can't tell you how deeply I feel about this," she said.

Doucette, the police lieutenant, doesn't buy it.

"What upsets me personally is 'Oh, they're going to send a grandmother to jail.' This isn't about being a grandmother, it isn't about being 70 years old. It's about 'You broke the law and now you have to suffer the consequences.'"

Read More...

Summary only...

Mom asks that wrenching war story end

Des Moines Register
Mom asks that wrenching war story end
By John Carlson

Norwalk, Ia. - You'd have to be the mother of a Marine or soldier to have any real idea what's going through Kimberly Downing's head.

She's spent too many months dreading a knock on the door from a military officer bringing the worst possible news. Or a phone call from a sympathetic sergeant telling her of another explosion - and another injury - to another child.

"My family has given enough to this war," said the 44-year-old Norwalk woman. "No more. They can't ask any more of us. I'll do whatever it takes to make sure my son isn't sent back over there again."

You've heard and read the stories of soldiers and Marines. This is a mom's war story.

In 2004, Kimberly's husband, Jeff, a member of the Marine Reserves, and her sons, Ryan and Justen, active-duty Marines, all were in Iraq at the same time.

Jeff, a Des Moines firefighter, made it home from that deployment without injury. Ryan, now 23, was caught in a hellish firefight in Ramadi in April of that year and wasn't so lucky.

"Ryan was shot in the leg," she said. "He still has shrapnel in the arm, neck and shoulder. He had a hearing loss. He recovered as much as he could, I guess. Now he's back over there. And he's been wounded again."

Justen, now 21, was injured by an improvised explosive device attack in that first deployment.

"He said he thought he was dead after that one," Kimberly said. "He was back over there in 2005, and was in a Humvee accident. He had a head injury and was hospitalized for three days."

Then came word Justen has been ordered on a third seven-month deployment to Iraq and is scheduled to leave with his unit early next year.

This woman, who describes herself as a "pissed-off mom," vows to make sure it doesn't happen.

She's just one woman trying to influence a sprawling military bureaucracy to do what she believes is the right thing for her family. The way Kimberly sees it, she has no choice.

"This is something I have to do," she said, sitting on the edge of a couch in the family's comfortable new home south of Norwalk. "I'm not anti-military, and I'm proud of my husband and sons and their service. I'm not political. I'm not going to stand in front of the White House with a sign, screaming at the president. I just know that sending Justen back over there is morally wrong."

She also knows that her sons enlisted together of their own free will, without coercion, in July 2003. Yes, it was over her objections - the truth is, she begged them not to go - but they wouldn't listen. They'd played football and wrestled in school. They had jobs. And the way they saw it, they had a duty.

"They both said, 'Mom, this is something we have to do.' They knew they'd be sent to Iraq, but they were ready to go. They'd been obsessed with the Marine Corps since they were little boys. I thought they'd outgrown it, until that master gunnery sergeant sat in my living room and they signed the papers. A year later, my sons and Jeff were all in Iraq."

Kimberly met Jeff in her native California when Jeff was stationed there as an active-duty Marine. He adopted Ryan and Justen after their marriage 13 years ago. He became a Marine Corps reservist, but left the service when his enlistment ended after returning from Iraq.

"He knew I couldn't deal with three of them in Iraq again," said Kimberly. "... People ask me how I function. Sometimes I don't function. I don't sleep. I don't like to leave the house. Then I think I can't sit here anymore."

Not that she expects most people to understand what it's like, sitting at home with her husband and their 11-year-old daughter, Megan, worrying about her boys.

It may even be worse when she hears the details.

"You want to know what it's like? Here's the report I got last week from a sergeant who called to tell me Ryan had been wounded again and was in a military hospital. His unit was under heavy attack. He was shooting out the top of a Humvee. A tank (American) was behind them. The tank fired a round over the Humvee and he was injured. Two days before that he was shot in the head. The helmet kept it from killing him, but he was knocked out. He's had two head traumas in a week's time. He only got back over there a month ago."

Kimberly talked to Ryan on the phone, and he said he's doing OK.

"He told me, 'Hey, at least I'm talking to you, Mom.' He should be back with his unit now. He already had two Purple Hearts before this last thing. I asked the sergeant who called to tell me Ryan was hurt, 'How many times do you have to get hurt to get out of that place?' He said, 'A lot.' "

The family has no word on when Ryan will be home. He originally was told his unit would do a "quick in and out" stay of a just few weeks. There's talk now it will be an open-ended deployment.

Justen is another matter. He and Ryan are both due for discharge from active duty in July, but his scheduled third deployment is to begin in February. Which would leave him in Iraq until September if he is required to stay for the full tour.

"Justen has been injured twice. He has a Purple Heart. He knows I don't want him to go back. They both know it. ... Look, I don't want them out of the Marines before their enlistment is up. I know I can't get Ryan home, and I don't know what chance I have to keep Justen from going. But I'm not going to stop trying. Every male in this family has been to Iraq. ... How much are we supposed to give for this war?"

She has written to Iowa's Sen. Tom Harkin for help, and a staffer in his office has asked for more information.

Kimberly is hopeful, but she knows the Marine Corps doesn't base its duty assignments on the outrage of a mom in Iowa.

"I'm just a little person saying what I think needs to be said. I'll get down on my knees and beg somebody if that's what it takes. I just want somebody to do the right thing. My family has given way more than it's share."

Read More...

Summary only...

Who's Making the Call?

washingtonpost.com
Who's Making the Call?
By Dan Froomkin

Whose advice does President Bush take most seriously on Iraq?

If the goal is figuring out which way the president is headed, the press corps could do the public a big favor by reporting on who is whispering in his ear.

Most likely, the chief whisperer is Vice President Cheney -- in which case the back-and-forth over whether Bush will change course is sort of pointless. Bush has made some pretty dramatic about-faces in the past. The same cannot be said of the vice president.

In either case, Bush's evident leaning toward a troop "surge" in Iraq suggests that the very central issue of troop strength is no longer simply up to the American military commanders -- if it ever was.

Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post that "as Bush rethinks his strategy in Iraq and approaches one of the most fateful moments of his presidency, he confronts difficult questions: At what point does determination to a cause become self-defeating folly? Can he change direction in a meaningful way without sacrificing principle?"

Some observers think he will be pragmatic. Former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, tells Baker: "He's going to do outreach. . . . He is a total realist. He knows that the solid, march-in-step Republicans, at least in the House, are gone. . . . Now his legacy depends on the national interest, not partisanship."

But, as Baker puts it so understatedly: "Others don't buy it. . . .

"Critics predicted that any new strategy he announces after the holidays will be little more than a dressed-up version of 'stay the course.' And a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 66 percent of Americans do not think Bush is willing to change his policies in Iraq.

"'I just don't believe that this president, with this vice president whispering in his ear every moment, is oriented to change,' said retired Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in Bush's first term. 'And even if he were, I don't believe his administration is capable of implementing change.'"

Joseph Galloway writes in a blistering column for the McClatchy-Tribune Information Service: "The word on the street, or in the Pentagon rings, is that he'll choose to beef up American forces on the ground in Iraq by 20,000 to 30,000 troops by various sleight-of-hand maneuvers -- extending the combat tours of soldiers and Marines who are nearing an end to their second or third year in hell and accelerating the shipment of others into that hell -- and send them into the bloody streets of Baghdad. . . .

"This hardly amounts to a 'new way forward,' unless that definition includes a new path deeper into the quicksand of a tribal and religious civil war in which whatever Bush eventually decides is already inadequate and immaterial. . . .

"The White House hopes that its much-trumpeted reshuffling of a failed strategy and flawed tactics will buy time for its luck to change miraculously. That this time will be paid for with the lives and futures of our soldiers and Marines -- and their families -- apparently means little to these wise men who've never heard a shot fired in anger.

"This president has made it painfully obvious that he has no intention of listening to anyone who doesn't believe that he's going to win in Iraq."

And, Galloway concludes: "Did you notice that at every stop on the president's information-gathering tour last week, there was a very familiar face looming over his shoulder? There was Vice President Dick Cheney, looking as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

"Should the president suddenly have an original thought or seem to be going wobbly, Cheney will be right there to squelch it or to set him straight.

"It can be argued that Bush understood little about war and peace and diplomacy and honesty in government. Cheney understood all of it, and he bears much of the responsibility for what's gone on in Washington and in Iraq for the last six years. Keep a sharp eye on him. Desperate men do desperate things."
Down the Memory Hole

American Prospect blogger Greg Sargent makes an important point: "It appears we've all agreed to forget that in the past President Bush has repeatedly -- many, many times -- insisted that he would let the troop levels be determined by the commanders on the ground."

Here, for instance, is Bush describing his decision-making process on April 6: "I know you're thinking about, well, when's he going to get our troops out of there? There's a debate going on in Washington, D.C., which it should, and it's an important debate about our troop levels. Here's my answer to you: I'm not going to make decisions based upon polls and focus groups. I'm going to make my decisions based upon the recommendations of our generals on the ground. They're the ones who decide how to achieve the victory I just described. They're the ones who give me the information.

"I remember coming up in the Vietnam War and it seemed like that there was a -- during the Vietnam War, there was a lot of politicization of the military decisions. That's not going to be the case under my administration. They say, well, does George Casey tell you the truth? You bet he tells me the truth. When I talk to him, which I do quite frequently, I've got all the confidence in the world in this fine General. He's a smart guy, he's on the ground, he's making incredible sacrifices for our country, and he -- if he says he needs more troops, he'll get them, and if he says he can live with fewer troops because the Iraqis are prepared to take the fight, that's the way it's going to be."

Writes Sargent: "Right now Bush is reportedly leaning towards sending more troops to Iraq -- a 'surge,' as we keep hearing. But the military commanders -- including the very same General Casey . . . -- appear to be leaning against recommending that more troops be sent.

"I know this is an embarrassingly simple point, but still: Now that Bush appears to be favoring a solution at odds with that of the recommendations of his commanders, why doesn't it matter that back when they were telling him what he wanted to hear, Bush said unequivocally again and again and again that the commanders would determine troop levels? Why have we agreed to forget this? Why isn't it in every news story about this stuff? Or better, why isn't it in virtually any stories about it?"
The Maliki Conundrum and Cheney's Trial Balloon

Michael Abramowitz and Robin Wright write in The Washington Post: "Even as the White House contemplates a faster turnover of responsibilities to the Iraqi government, severe doubts remain within and outside the Bush administration over whether Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki can execute the steps necessary to stabilize the country, according to sources familiar with the ongoing policy review."

So if Maliki can't be counted on to achieve political reconciliation, what's the alternative?

Helene Cooper writes in the New York Times: "Someone in Vice President Dick Cheney's office has gotten everybody on this city's holiday party circuit talking, simply by floating an unlikely Iraq proposal."

The proposal "basically says that Washington should stop trying to get Sunnis and Shiites to get along and instead just back the Shiites, since there are more of them anyway and they're likely to win in a fight to the death. . . .

"At first glance, the idea of siding with the Shiites doesn't seem that crazy. America has, after all, had more spectacular trouble of late from Sunni extremists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban than from Shiites, whose best-remembered attacks on Americans were two decades ago, by hostage-takers in Iran and truck bombers in Lebanon.

"But Middle East experts can provide a long list of reasons why a survival-of-the-fittest theory might not necessarily be the best way to conduct American foreign policy in Iraq. First, they say, it's always dangerous to take sides in a civil war. Second, siding with the Shiites in a Shiite-Sunni war is particularly dangerous since most of the Arab world is Sunni and America's major Arab allies are Sunni. Besides Iraq, Shiites form a large majority only in Iran, and, well, enough said there. . . .

"Can you just hear President Bush's speech to the nation? 'My Fellow Americans, the United States has decided that there are more Shiites than Sunnis in Iraq, so we are therefore going to side with the people most likely to win a fight to the death. We'll figure out how to deal with the rest of the Arab world, where there are more Sunnis than Shiites, later.'"
'A Strategy That Says We Have a Plan'

I've written before about how Bush often confuses tactics, strategy and goals. But now along comes a Bushism that takes the cake. It's from the Bushes' year-end interview with People magazine.

Asked for his view on Iraq, Bush replied: "I think it's been a very difficult year in Iraq -- for our troops, for the families of the troops, for the Iraqi people. And it's been difficult for the American people, because success in Iraq has been slower coming than any of us would like. And so the task at hand now is to come up with a new way forward. I think most Americans fully understand the importance of success; they're wondering whether we have a plan to succeed. It's my job to listen to a lot of opinions and come up with a strategy that says we have a plan." [My italics.]

Kind of makes you nostalgic for "I'm the Decider," doesn't it?
The Twins and the War

Incidentally, People finally popped the question the White House press corps has been too timid to ask.

"This year, we invited readers on our Web site to ask you questions. Here's one: Nina Frazier of New Braunfels, Texas, asks: If you believe in the war, why didn't you encourage your own daughters to fight for your country? Or did you?

"THE PRESIDENT: I believe Americans can contribute to the security and well-being of our country in a variety of ways. That's why we have a volunteer army. What we say to young people is that if you want to serve your country you can do so in the military, or you can do so by teaching children in inner-city Washington, D.C., like one of our daughters did. Or you can help form education programs in New York City, like our (other) daughter. There are all kinds of ways to serve."

Later, a follow-up, of sorts:

"Are your daughters coming home for Christmas?

"Mrs. Bush: They are. Jenna is working with an international organization in Central and South America about education policy. And Barbara is working for a museum in the education department."
The Freedom Agenda and Iraq

Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek: "It's relatively easy these days to point out all the ways in which George W. Bush has been ill-informed, misguided and wrong about Iraq. And in case you run out of examples, the president provides fresh ones continually. But on one central issue, Bush has been right. He has argued from the start that a modern, liberal democratic Iraq would be an example, an inspiration and a spur for progress in the Middle East. The trouble is, the Iraq of today is having precisely the opposite effect. If Bush wants to save his freedom agenda, he needs to decouple it from Iraq. . . .

"Iraq after Saddam presented a unique opportunity to steer history on a new course. But instead the Bush administration drove it into a ditch. As a result, the effort to create an Iraqi model for the Middle East has failed. No matter what happens over the next year or two, the country has developed into more of a warning about the dangers of democracy than a symbol of its promise. When people around the world--and, most important, in the region--look at Iraq, they see chaos, religious extremism and violence."
People Who Mattered

As part of Time's year-end issue, James Carney writes about the "axis of denial":

"It's hard to imagine now, but there was a time when George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were regarded as a national-security dream team, three men perfectly suited to perilous times: the President, instinctive and decisive; the Vice President, a sage and tested Washington veteran; and the Defense Secretary, whose brio and charm were rare and reassuring. Or so it was thought.

"But in 2006, the dream team died, and its members instead became objects of scorn and emblems of failure. Their signature venture -- the Iraq war -- spiraled relentlessly downward into civil war. As it did, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld sealed their fate by diving deeper into denial about the realities on the battlefield."
Where Was Dad?

Curt Smith, a former speechwriter for Bush's father, writes in the New York Daily News: "Prewar, I had phoned ex-White House colleagues still in Washington. Once balanced, they seemed messianic: As Brent Scowcroft said of Vice President Cheney, I no longer knew them. Old friends assured me that we would be viewed as liberators, oil would pay the freight and regional democracy would thrive. They are lucky you can't be more than 100% wrong.

"Don Rumsfeld himself said, 'I don't do quagmires.' True. W has done a catastrophe. . . .

"Speakers at the 1988 Democratic National Convention mocked, 'Where was George?' My query concerns 2003-06: 'Where was Dad?' . . .

"George H.W. Bush was astute and nuanced. By contrast, W's gamble has eviscerated his presidency. Bush the Elder often twitted the word 'prudent.' At one time, prudence might have saved Bush the Lesser. It is unlikely to save him now.

"Some risks are so bad they become immune even to Texas-sized providence. How heedless, needless and, above all, sad."
Now It's Personal

Christopher Caldwell writes in the New York Times Magazine: "Why have few such people risen to the defense of George Bush?

"Here is a guess. The recent election feels like something more intimate than a personnel change. It feels like the beginnings of an escape from a twisted relationship. . . .

"Why are opinions so personal when it comes to President Bush? Because he has frequently sought, like the child of the 1960s that he is, to blur the line between the personal and the political. Posing as an amiable guy rather than a partisan politician has great advantages in democratic power politics. Even if not all of them vote for you, most Americans want to believe that their president is a jolly good fellow. But when a politician makes likability a substitute for authority, his opponents make hatred a substitute for opposition."
Rumsfeld's Goodbye

Ann Scott Tyson writes in The Washington Post that Bush and Cheney were effusive in their praise of Donald H. Rumsfeld, at a ceremony marking the defense secretary's departure.

"Cheney hailed Rumsfeld as his best boss, best friend, an 'ideal' public servant and 'the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had.'

"For his part, Bush portrayed Rumsfeld as a comrade in arms. 'Don Rumsfeld has been at my side from the moment I took office. We've been through war together,' Bush said.

"'We walked amid the rubble of the broken Pentagon the day after September the 11th, 2001. He was with me when we planned the liberation of Afghanistan. We were in the Oval Office together the day I gave the order to remove Saddam Hussein from power,' he said.

"'In these and countless other moments, I have seen Don Rumsfeld's character and his integrity. He has always ensured I had the best possible advice. . . . He spoke straight. It was easy to understand him.'"

Here are transcripts of Bush's speech and Cheney's speech.
Powell Speaks Out

Karen DeYoung writes in The Washington Post: "Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said yesterday that the United States is losing what he described as a 'civil war' in Iraq and that he is not persuaded that an increase in U.S. troops there would reverse the situation. Instead, he called for a new strategy that would relinquish responsibility for Iraqi security to the government in Baghdad sooner rather than later, with a U.S. drawdown to begin by the middle of next year.

"Powell's comments broke his long public silence on the issue and placed him at odds with the administration. President Bush is considering options for a new military strategy -- among them a 'surge' of 15,000 to 30,000 troops added to the current 140,000 in Iraq, to secure Baghdad and to accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others have proposed; or a redirection of the U.S. military away from the insurgency to focus mainly on hunting al-Qaeda terrorists, as the nation's top military leaders proposed last week in a meeting with the president.

"But Bush has rejected the dire conclusions of the Iraq Study Group and its recommendations to set parameters for a phased withdrawal to begin next year, and he has insisted that the violence in Iraq is not a civil war."

Here is video of Powell's appearance on CBS's Face the Nation.
Mary Cheney Watch

James Gerstenzang writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Although he recently expressed confidence that Mary Cheney will make a loving parent, President Bush continues to believe it is best that a child is raised by a man and woman married to each other, the president's spokesman said Friday."

Frank Rich writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required) that "the only Christmas season miracle to lift the beleaguered Bush administration this year has been the announcement that Mary Cheney, the vice president's gay daughter, is pregnant. Her growing family is the living rejoinder to those in her father's party who would relegate gay American couples and their children to second-class legal or human status."
Rove's Deputy Avoids Scrutiny

Aaron Sadler writes for the Morning News of Northwest Arkansas: "A former Republican political operative and top aide to President Bush was named late Friday as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

"The appointment of Tim Griffin drew criticism from Arkansas senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both Democrats. Pryor accused the Bush administration of circumventing the traditional nomination process on behalf of a political ally.

"The open-ended appointment differs from a normal presidential selection, where Griffin would face Senate hearings and a confirmation vote.

"Pryor believes the Senate should be able to quiz Griffin about his qualifications, especially given his background as Bush's deputy director of political affairs under Karl Rove, spokesman Michael Teague said.

"Before that, Griffin worked in opposition research for the Republican National Committee. . . .

"A report by the BBC in 2004 connected Griffin to a possible effort to disenfranchise black voters in Florida. The report said an e-mailed list of 1,886 names was to be used to challenge residents' voting status."
White House Censorship?

The liberal Think Progress blog relates Middle East analyst Flynt Leverett's contention "that the White House has been blocking the publication of an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times. The column is critical of the administration's refusal to engage Iran. . . .

"Leverett says the incident shows 'just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC [National Security Council] will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration's policy.'"

There's more from The Washington Note blog.
More Protection Needed

Ken Herman writes for Cox News Service that experts foresee unprecedented security need for Bush after he leaves the White House, due largely to the war.

"Former Secret Service agent John Vance, who is a former son-in-law of former President Gerald Ford, said Bush's post-presidency will include a variety of challenges.

"'One thing is, he is a relatively young man, and young men are more active and always on the road,' said Vance, now a security consultant in Virginia. 'That takes a lot of manpower and a lot of team effort.'

"And, Vance noted, Bush will be a target.

"'He is the only president that invaded a country without provocation and without it being started by the other side. I think he has gained a lot of enmity.... There are a lot of people who resent this president, both externally and internally, some of whom have lost sons and daughters and had people injured in the war in Iraq,' he said."
Suddenly, Church Is Cancelled

Caroline Daniel of the Financial Times had early-Sunday-morning pool duty, and filed this report: "Ordered into Press Van Two, by 7:23am the pool assumed the proper sobriety of an anticipated church visit, only to be told five minutes later that: 'church is cancelled.' No reason was offered. Perhaps POTUS was keen to avoid a repeat of last week's sermon from Rev. Luis Leon that insisted: 'Repentance is changing your way, changing your mind, changing your direction. It requires the courage to acknowledge that you want to change, to change your direction.' Or perhaps he wanted more time to commune with God from the back of a mountain bike, not a pew."
Holiday Gift Watch

Roy Rivenburg writes in his Los Angeles Times humor column about holiday gift ideas for political junkies. Among them: A 'Karl Rove is Voldemort' tote bag; a shotgun-toting Dick Cheney action figure; a George W. Bush fire-starter; and Drink'n with Dubya, "a talking bottle opener that plays one of Bush's syntax-impaired sentences every time you crack open a brewski."
'His Walk Is a Lie'

Sarah Kaufman of The Washington Post writes about the unsparingly brutal antiwar work 'Banquet of Vultures,' being performed by the Paul Taylor Dance Company at the Kennedy Center Eisenhower Theater.

And guess who's a central character?

"Taylor said he was inspired to create a dance focusing on President Bush after watching him move.

"'The first time I saw Bush walking, on television, I did not trust the man,' he said. 'His walk is a lie.

"'Walks are like fingerprints,' he continued. 'They tell a lot about us. And this one was not sincere.' . . .

"Taylor puts his self-described presidential figure right in the middle of the battlefield, watching stonily as agonies fell the troops." And he doesn't just sit there, either: "After he violates a female recruit, [he] kills her and tosses her aside."
Political Cartoon Humor

David Horsey on Bush's options; Ann Telnaes on the first lady; Walt Handelsman on the space station; and Mike Luckovich on the war slogan memorial.
Late Night Humor

Via U.S. News, Jay Leno on the Tonight Show: "CNN said today that President Bush is seriously considering sending more troops to Iraq. So apparently, his goal is to achieve a negative popularity rating."

Read More...

Summary only...

White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops

washingtonpost.com
White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.

A senior administration official said it is "too simplistic" to say the surge question has broken down into a fight between the White House and the Pentagon, but the official acknowledged that the military has questioned the option. "Of course, military leadership is going to be focused on the mission -- what you're trying to accomplish, the ramifications it would have on broader issues in terms of manpower and strength and all that," the official said.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official said. "Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."

The concerns raised by the military are sometimes offset by concerns on the other side. For instance, those who warn that a short-term surge would harm longer-term deployments are met with the argument that the situation is urgent now, the official said. "Advocates would say: 'Can you afford to wait? Can you afford to plan in the long term? What's the tipping point in that country? Do you have time to wait?' "

Which way Bush is leaning remains unclear. "The president's keeping his cards pretty close to his vest," the official said, "and I think people may be trying to interpret questions he's asking and information he's asking for as signs that he's made up his mind."

Robert M. Gates, who was sworn in yesterday as defense secretary, is headed for Iraq this week and is expected to play a decisive role in resolving the debate, officials said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's views are still open, according to State Department officials. The principals met again yesterday to continue discussions.

The White House yesterday noted the growing number of reports about what is being discussed behind closed doors. "It's also worth issuing a note of caution, because quite often people will try to litigate preferred options through the press," White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters.

Discussions are expected to continue through the holidays. Rice is expected to travel to the president's ranch near Crawford, Tex., after Christmas for consultations on Iraq. The administration's foreign policy principals are also expected to hold at least two meetings during the holiday. The White House has said the president will outline his new strategy to the nation early next year.

As the White House debate continues, another independent report on Iraq strategy is being issued today by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based crisis monitoring group that includes several former U.S. officials. It calls for more far-reaching policy revisions and reversals than did even the Iraq Study Group report, the bipartisan report issued two weeks ago.

The new report calls the study group's recommendations "not nearly radical enough" and says that "its prescriptions are no match for its diagnosis." It continues: "What is needed today is a clean break both in the way the U.S. and other international actors deal with the Iraqi government, and in the way the U.S. deals with the region."

The Iraqi government and military should not be treated as "privileged allies" because they are not partners in efforts to stem the violence but rather parties to the conflict, it says. Trying to strengthen the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not contribute to Iraq's stability, it adds. Iraq's escalating crisis cannot be resolved militarily, the report says, and can be solved only with a major political effort.

The International Crisis Group proposes three broad steps: First, it calls for creation of an international support group, including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's six neighbors, to press Iraq's constituents to accept political compromise.

Second, it urges a conference of all Iraqi players, including militias and insurgent groups, with support from the international community, to forge a political compact on controversial issues such as federalism, distribution of oil revenue, an amnesty, the status of Baath Party members and a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Finally, it suggests a new regional strategy that would include engagement with Syria and Iran and jump-starting the moribund Arab-Israeli peace process.

Read More...

Summary only...

Attacks in Iraq at Record High, Pentagon Says

The New York Times
Attacks in Iraq at Record High, Pentagon Says
By DAVID S. CLOUD and MICHAEL R. GORDON

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 — A Pentagon assessment of security conditions in Iraq concluded Monday that attacks against American and Iraqi targets had surged this summer and autumn to their highest level, and called violence by Shiite militants the most significant threat in Baghdad.

The report, which covers the period from early August to early November, found an average of almost 960 attacks against Americans and Iraqis every week, the highest level recorded since the Pentagon began issuing the quarterly reports in 2005, with the biggest surge in attacks against American-led forces. That was an increase of 22 percent from the level for early May to early August, the report said.

While most attacks were directed at American forces, most deaths and injuries were suffered by the Iraqi military and civilians.

The report is the most comprehensive public assessment of the American-led operation to secure Baghdad, which began in early August. About 17,000 American combat troops are currently involved in the beefed-up security operation.

According to the Pentagon assessment, the operation initially had some success in reducing killings as militants concentrated on eluding capture and hiding their weapons. But sectarian death squads soon adapted, resuming their killings in regions of the capital that were not initially targets of the overstretched American and Iraqi troops.

Shiite militias, the Pentagon report said, also received help from allies among the Iraqi police. “Shia death squads leveraged support from some elements of the Iraqi Police Service and the National Police who facilitated freedom of movement and provided advance warning of upcoming operations,” the report said.

“This is a major reason for the increased levels of murders and executions.”

The findings were issued on the day Robert M. Gates was sworn in as defense secretary, replacing Donald H. Rumsfeld.

At an afternoon ceremony at the Pentagon attended by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Gates said he planned to travel to Iraq shortly to consult with military commanders as part of a broad administration review of Iraq strategy.

“All of us want to find a way to bring America’s sons and daughters home again,” Mr. Gates said. “But as the president has made clear, we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come.”

Over all, the report portrayed a precarious security situation and criticized Shiite militias for the worsening violence more explicitly than previous versions had.

It said the Mahdi Army, a powerful Shiite militia that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal Al-Maliki has not confronted despite American pressure to do so, had had the greatest negative impact on security. It is likely that Shiite militants are now responsible for more civilian deaths and injuries than terrorist groups are, the report said.

But the report also held out hope that decisive leadership by the Iraqi government might halt the slide toward civil war.

While noting that efforts by Mr. Maliki to encourage political reconciliation among ethnic groups had shown little progress, it said that Iraqi institutions were holding and that members of the current government “have not openly abandoned the political process.”

The Pentagon assessment, titled “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq,” is mandated by Congress and issued quarterly.

The new report, completed last month, noted two parallel trends.

On the one hand, the Iraqi security forces are larger than ever, with 322,600 Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other troops, an increase of 45,000 since August. Iraqi forces also have increasingly taken the lead responsibility in many areas.

The growth in Iraqi capabilities, however, has been matched by increasing violence. That raises the question of whether the American strategy to rely on the Iraqi forces to tamp down violence is failing, at least in the short term.

The Bush administration has decided to step up substantially the effort to train and equip the Iraqi forces. A major question being pondered by Mr. Bush is whether that is sufficient, or whether more American troops are needed in Baghdad to control the violence and stabilize the city.

According to the Pentagon, the weekly average of 959 attacks was a jump of 175 from the previous three months. As a consequence, civilian deaths and injuries reached a record 93 a day.

Deaths and injuries suffered by Iraq’s security forces also climbed to a new high, 33 a day, while American and other allied deaths and injuries hovered at 25 a day, just short of the record in 2004, when the United States was involved in battles in Falluja and elsewhere.

The increase in violence coincided with the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, when there had previously been a temporary spike in attacks, but also reflected the deeper sectarian passions that have flared since an attack in February 2006 on a Shiite shrine in Samarra.

According to Pentagon data used in formulating the report, there were 1,028 sectarian “executions” in October. That was a slight dip from July, when there were 1,169 executions, but a major increase since January, when there were 180. During this period, “ethno-sectarian incidents” have steadily risen, the report noted.

Security difficulties varied in different parts of the country. While sectarian strife was the biggest problem in Baghdad, in Anbar Province it was attacks by Sunni militants. North of Baghdad, in Diyala and Bilad, terrorists linked to Al Qaeda have been battling the Mahdi Army, it says.

While Shiite militias are active, the group known as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is still a major threat, despite the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, its leader. “The emergence of Abu Ayub al-Masri as leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq demonstrated its flexibility and depth, as well as its reliance on non-Iraqis,” the report noted.

Indications of progress were few. The report credited the Iraqi government with taking “incremental” steps at assuming more responsibility and said its security forces “have assumed more leadership in counterinsurgency and law enforcement operations.” But it remained “urgent” for the Iraqi government “to demonstrate a resolve to contain and terminate sectarian attacks.”

In a briefing for reporters, Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, a senior aide to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Baghdad operation had been constrained because the Iraqi government had not allowed American and Iraqi troops to “go in and neutralize Sadr City,” the base for the Mahdi Army.

Crude oil output was 2.3 million barrels a day, 7.5 percent higher than in August but still below the government’s goal of 2.5 million barrels.

Proponents of sending more troops to Iraq cited the report to argue that only Americans could ensure security in the short term and that more were needed. Critics said it showed that the initial effort by the American military to reinforce Baghdad had failed to stop the killing.

Gen. James T. Conway, who took over this fall as commandant of the Marine Corps, told reporters in Missouri on Saturday that among other options, President Bush was considering sending five or more combat brigades to Iraq, or about 20,000 troops.

General Conway said he believed that the Joint Chiefs would support such an increase as long as “there is a solid military reason for doing so.” He said sending more troops just to be “thickening the mix” in Baghdad would be a mistake.

Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was opposed to more troops. “Everything I’ve heard and everything I know to be true lead me to believe that this increase at best won’t change a thing,” he said, “and at worst could exacerbate the situation even further.”

Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. withdraws demand for return of secret memo

Reuters
U.S. withdraws demand for return of secret memo

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. government withdrew on Monday a demand for the American Civil Liberties Union to hand over a "secret" Washington memo on its policy on photos of enemy prisoners of war and detainees, the rights group said.

The New York-based civil liberties group said the government had asked a federal court judge to withdraw the subpoena demanding "any and all copies" of the memorandum, saying that the document had now been declassified.

"The Bush administration's attempt to suppress information using the grand jury process was truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in our history as an organization," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement.

In its motion to quash the subpoena to the ACLU, the Justice Department said the memo had been wanted for a criminal investigation into the improper dissemination of classified and sensitive documents from a government agency.

"The document is now declassified and there exist alternate sources for the evidence necessary to the grand jury investigation. Accordingly, the government withdraws the subpoena at issue in this matter," the Justice Department said in its filing.

The memo, titled "The Permissibility of Photographing Enemy Prisoners of War and Detainees" and dated December 20, 2005, advised that news media and the U.S. Army Public Affairs Office can take photos as long as it was done in a way that cannot be interpreted as holding the prisoners and detainees up to public curiosity.

It also said U.S. soldiers are banned from photographing prisoners and detainees except when required as part of official duties. The ACLU did not say how it obtained the memo.

"The issue was not the content of the document but the government's unprecedented effort to suppress it," said ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro. "Now that the document has been declassified, it should be plain for all to see that it should never have been classified to begin with, and that the grand jury subpoena was overreaching and inappropriate."

Romero said the documents "raise the question of whether the guidelines were in place prior to the Abu Ghraib scandal and if not, why it took more than a year after the scandal to issue a policy."

In early 2004, photographs showing American troops abusing detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were published around the world. Several U.S. troops have since been convicted in relation to the abuse.

Read More...

Summary only...

Robert Gates, new U.S. defense secretary, sounds like he is preaching "Stay The Course"!!!

Reuters
Gates warns against failure in Iraq
By Kristin Roberts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Robert Gates, sworn in as U.S. defense secretary on Monday, said he understood the desire to bring troops home but that failure in Iraq would be a "calamity" that haunts and threatens America for decades.

"All of us want to find a way to bring America's sons and daughters home again. But, as the president has made clear, we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East," Gates said at the Pentagon.

"Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come," he said.

The 63-year-old former CIA director acknowledged during his Senate confirmation hearings in December that the United States was not winning in Iraq, but said it was not losing either.

Gates was officially sworn in at 7:03 a.m. EST by White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in the chief of staff's office. Later, he was ceremonially sworn in at the Pentagon by Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the Bush administration's strongest defenders of the Iraq war.

Gates called Iraq his top priority and said he would travel there soon to meet with commanders as he tries to develop a new war plan.

But Gates also warned about growing problems in Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO forces face a resurgent Taliban five years after the invasion.

"The progress made by the Afghan people over the past five years is at risk. The United States and its NATO allies have made a commitment to the Afghan people and we intend to keep it," he said. "Afghanistan cannot be allowed to become a sanctuary for extremists again."

Gates said the U.S. approach to Iraq and Afghanistan would determine whether those countries and others pursue paths of gradual progress or the "forces of extremism and chaos will become ascendant."

President George W. Bush announced Gates would replace Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon a day after voters swept Republicans out of control in the next Congress, largely over anger about Iraq. Rumsfeld had become a focus for criticism of America's management of that war.

"We are a nation at war," Bush said at the swearing-in ceremony. "And I rely on our secretary of defense to provide me with the best possible advice and to help direct our nation's armed force as they engage the enemies of freedom around the world. Bob Gates is the right man to take on these challenges."

Gates easily won the Senate's confirmation earlier this month and has since participated in National Security Council meetings and received briefings at the Pentagon.

Gates, who served as CIA director from 1991 until 1993 under Bush's father, told the president to expect candor.

"You have asked for my candor and my honest counsel at this critical moment in our nation's history and you will get both," Gates told Bush in his six-minute speech at the Pentagon.

Bush has been seeking advice about a new plan for Iraq from military officials, the State Department and others in and out of government.

Recommendations have included both withdrawing and increasing troop levels, now at 134,000. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow would not discuss speculation that the president was considering a plan to add 20,000 or more troops.

"I'm not going to talk about theories of surges (of troops) or non-surges," Snow said, adding the alternatives being weighed include non-military components as well.

Many Democrats have called for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, although Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said he would support a short-term increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq if it was part of a broader pull-out plan.

(Additional reporting by David Alexander and Jeremy Pelofsky)

Read More...

Summary only...

This Just Not In

Huffington Post
Harry Shearer
This Just Not In

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that, despite David Kay's words to contrary, "we" weren't "all wrong" regarding the pre-war intel on Iraq. Let's imagine that there were well-respected and serious intelligence people in the countries most closely allied with ours who attempted to alert people to the fact that the pre-war intel didn't show what Bush, Blair and Howard said it did. We'd know about that by now, wouldn't we? So maybe the names Brian Jones and Andrew Willkie are household words for you. They have been for me, primarily because I didn't depend on the US media for information in the runup to the war. (One reason, perhaps, why the NYT and WaPo have apologized for their credulity in that period; NPR, just as credulous, has not)

So now comes a new name, with impressive credentials, to renew the charge that the intel did not say what our leaders said it did. Now, in this newly enlightened time, when the semi-serious press has apologized, read the polls and changed its tune, this story should be front-page news, yes?

No. Meet Carne Ross, who revealed this past Friday that Britain's leaders never bought the Saddam-WMD and Saddam-al Qaeda stories. He was a part of Britain's UN delegation during the period in question, and what did he know?

Mr Ross told Lord Butler he read UK and US human and signals intelligence on Iraq every working day during the four years he spent in New York up to 2002, and spoke at length to UN weapons inspectors.

And what did that reading and speaking tell him?

"At no time did [the government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK," he told the Butler committee. "On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among the officials dealing with Iraq that any threat had been effectively contained ... At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

FYI, the Butler committee was one of several inquiries convened by Britain's labor government to "prove" that prewar intel wasn't fixed to fit the pre-ordained policy.

So, Sen. Gordon Smith's change on Iraq, and the to-ing and fro-ing of the White House re the ISG are incessant stories, but this is...journalistic chopped liver?

Read More...

Summary only...