Allow Jim Webb to Address the Full Joint Session in His Democratic Response

Huffington Post and Brad Blog
Brad Friedman
Congressional Dems: You're a Co-Equal Branch, the State of the Union Address is the Perfect Opportunity to Point That Out

Pelosi and Reid Should Allow Jim Webb to Address the Full Joint Session in His Democratic Response

I don't know how long the tradition of an Opposition Party "Response" to the President's State of the Union address has been going on. But for as long as I can recall, it has been a drab, embarrassing, cringe-worthy effort by whichever party found itself unlucky enough to not be in the White House.

Over the last six years, the Bush Administration has run rough-shod over their co-equal Congressional partners, stealing extraordinary power for themselves at every turn with the short-sighted blessings of their Republican chums in the House and Senate as an all-but-castrated Democratic party stood quietly by in the background for the most part.

This year, the Dems have smartly tapped freshman Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) to deliver the Democratic response to Bush's State of the Union Address. No simpering softee he, Webb has already shown he has the stones to look Bush straight in the eye and deliver as good as he gets in the face of a classic Dubya bully-boy alpha-dog snarl.

But no matter how much clout, moral authority or gigantic balls the former Reagan Naval Secretary and proud father of a son still serving in Iraq may be, the conventional stagecraft of the SOTU and its Democratic/Republican Response simply stacks the cards insurmountably against the opposition party and -- as is likely again this year -- only serves to reinforce a perceived, if undeserved, imbalance between the two parties and the two branches of Government.

Just moments after the predictable, but rousing reception given to any President during a SOTU address -- featuring long and loud applause break after applause break and the undeniable excitement of a live speech delivered on live television to a packed and contentious house -- there is no way that a one-camera opposition party Response delivered in an all but empty room turned TV studio can ever hope to measure up to the pomp and circumstance of the President's address. That fact would be true even if Superman was selected to deliver the opposition party Response.

It's time to make a change.

And it's time for the Dems to take back just some of the White House's self-proclaimed empirical majesty in the bargain.

With the Dems newly in control of both houses of Congress and with a healthy majority of the country now clearly backing them as the best hope for America's future on virtually all fronts, and with a courageous man who knows how to kill before a live crowd, its time they push back and reclaim some of their rightful Constitutional power. Public perception being as integral to that power as almost anything else.

Controlling both the House and the Senate, the Dems can make the rules for both chambers in how the place is to be run as I understand it.

To that end, unless there is something more than merely "tradition" which I'm unaware of and which keeps them from doing so, the Dems ought to give Webb the same platform of the full joint session of Congress to deliver their party's Response to the SOTU.

Webb should deliver his address to that same jam-packed and receptive chamber on the floor of Congress as the President was granted...and which the opposition party, proudly owning majorities in both chambers of the co-equal branch of Government, now deserve to lay out their vision for the country.

As President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, of course, should be invited to keep his seat during the address behind the podium and next to the Speaker of the House. It'll be up to him if he wishes to show the appropriate respect and stay for the speech and join in for the polite applause at appropriate moments, or if he chooses to shamefully abandon his post and leave the on-camera seat empty behind Webb as he gives his address to the same pomp, circumstance and applause breaks as afforded to his co-equal Executive Branch representative just moments earlier.

For the first time in its history, the Opposition Response to the SOTU can be more than merely an embarrassing, limp, pro forma, predictable "hey, don't forget about us!" rejoinder which the TV Networks begrudgingly carry while most viewers have already changed the channel or moved on to other things. Instead, the Response can truly carry the message -- from a level playing field -- of how the Democrats envision the brave new world and their plans bettering the state of our union.

I believe all it would take is a decision by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to keep the joint session open after Bush's address, and for the floor to then be given to Webb to deliver the party's response to all in attendance. I hope that both will consider doing so.

The Democratic party was placed into power last November to take back America. Webb is the perfect representation of that reclamation of power. The State of the Union address gives the Dems, via Webb's response, the perfect moment to make their intentions crystal clear to the nation. But they need to give Webb the same level playing field they've graciously granted to Bush.

In doing so, the Dems may finally show what they stand for -- and that they will no longer be cowed -- instead of merely and meekly serving as bit players and extras in background support for a grand show which George W. Bush no longer deserves.

The battle for the balance of power in this country was long ago turned into a battle measured by which party is perceived by the country as "the toughest guy." The Dems finally have such a tough guy in Jim Webb. And he's ready to go. The way the Dems choose to use the golden opportunity before them will likely say as much about their ability to lead in a dangerous, threatening world as anything else. Will they now have the cajones to finally stand up to the GOP bully as embodied by George W. Bush to reclaim their equal time so long deserved? Or at least as afforded to them by the Constitution? We'll soon find out.

Brad Friedman is Creator and Editor-in-Chief of The BRAD BLOG.

Read More...

Summary only...

New Orleans

Read More...

Summary only...

Maybe If I Hit It Harder

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama '08

Read More...

Summary only...

Saddam's Forgotten Legacy

Huffington Post
Merrill Markoe
Saddam's Forgotten Legacy

Well, now that the dust has settled and all the cell phones have been put away and the heads picked up off the floor in the gallows room, and all the extra rope put back in to storage... I thought it might be time to look back with a little more perspective at the bright side of the long unsettling secretive reign of Saddam Hussein.

So I Net-Flixed my favorite movie on the subject; a documentary called "Uncle Saddam" which was filmed under false pretenses in the year 2000. Probably a lot of you youngsters don't remember the old pre-American invasion Iraq. To have access to his subject, the director Joel Soler, a Frenchman, claimed to be making a pro-Saddam documentary about architecture. A lot of the footage he shot ended up having to be smuggled out of the country.

Among various highlights, the movie contains a fascinating tour of Saddam's 21 palaces, one of which was totally underground and had an underground airport runway! And one of which came complete with an entry hall floor mosaic of George Bush's face labeled with the inlaid mosaic tile words "Bush is Criminal."

As insane-dictators-freed-from-budgetary-restrictions go, Saddam scored pretty well on the creativity scale. For instance, he really knew how to celebrate a birthday. For his birthday in April 2001, he completed The Umm al-Ma'arik mosque -- translated as the Mother of All Battles mosque -- which he had decorated with four minarets each 43 meters tall, each shaped like a Scud missile and meant to represent the 43 days of conflict with the US during Desert Storm. PLUS (talk about an original idea) a pool shaped like the Arab world and laden with a 24 foot-wide mosaic of the surface details of Saddam's thumbprint! And on his 61st birthday he authorized the construction of a personal artificial lake accessorized by a resort town full of gold domed pyramids linked by beige and pink marble arches! Perhaps concerned that this wasn't enough of a party, 280 couples held a mass wedding.

Compare this to George W. Bush's 56th birthday that included a round of golf with his father.

A lot can be learned about the weirdness of life in Iraq under Saddam in the course of the movie. There's footage of Saddam demonstrating his fishing technique by throwing grenades. Which I guess has nothing on the hunting techniques of Dick Cheney.

And much is said about Saddam's bizarre sado-masochistic family relationships. For example the way he put his two daughters under house arrest after having both their husbands killed. Pretty outrageous. But then again, history may note that Dick Cheney forced his pregnant daughter to have a baby out of wedlock after he campaigned for a law that forbids her to ever marry.

Obviously drawing parallels between the present administration and the presidency of Saddam is a reach and can only go so far. Everyone agrees that Saddam was much, much crazier. For instance, he believed that Mohammed advised him where to put his missiles. Oh wait a minute. Bush takes orders from God .

Well, back to my main point: The film also includes footage of Saddam delivering a rather lengthy discourse on the topic of personal hygiene. A germaphobe, who made sure his office temperature was readjusted daily to match his physical temperature, Saddam woke up every morning at 5 AM to attend to his personal toilette. Cleanliness was very important to Saddam, because, as we can see on film for ourselves, he liked his fellow countrymen to greet him by kissing him in his armpit.

"It is not appropriate for someone to attend a gathering or be with his children with his body odor trailing behind him emitting a sweet or stinky smell mixed with perspiration..." Saddam begins earnestly, from his position behind his desk, looking kind of natty in a light grey double breasted jacket and a white Panama hat with a black hat band," This will take away some of the son's love for the father. "

"Its preferable to bathe twice a day but at least...at least once a day." He continues. (author's note: I personally believe that if he were alive and asked to elaborate, he would agree that this depends on the lifestyle details and levels of filth of the individual male. Much as it does for each of us when we contemplate the instructions to lather, rinse, repeat")

Saddam goes on: "And when the male bathes once a day, the female should bathe twice a day. The reason is that the female is more delicate. And the smell of a woman is more noticeable than the male." (author's note: I would have asked Saddam if he didn't agree that body odor is less a matter of gender than it is about who is doing the smelling of what and from what angle.)

(And for that perhaps I would have been put to death. Oh well. As Jack Bauer said last week when he thought he was being sacrificed to terrorists: "At least I would have died for something.")

But Saddam is not yet finished.

"If a woman can't afford to brush her teeth with tooth paste and a toothbrush, she should at least use her finger."

So, as it turns out Saddam did have a few sensible thoughts upon which we can all agree: Bathing is good. So is brushing your teeth. And when caught without the proper equipment, improvise.

I wonder if, when all is said and done, and we are looking back at the current group in The White House, and are examining the teachings of a very destructive presidency that often looks like it wishes it could have been a free-wheeling dictatorship (albeit one without any insane but entertaining performance artist touches like a pool made to look like somebody's thumb print), we will ever discover any footage of George Bush or Dick Cheney saying anything that made even half that much sense.

Read More...

Summary only...

Deadliest days for U.S. forces since the Iraq war began

Yahoo! News
20 U.S. service members killed in Iraq
By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer

At least 20 American service personnel were killed in military operations Saturday in one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since the Iraq war began, and authorities also announced two U.S. combat deaths from the previous day.

The day's worst loss came from the crash of a U.S. Army helicopter northeast of Baghdad that killed 13 service members. An attack Saturday night blamed on militiamen in the city of Karbala killed five soldiers. Roadside bombs killed another soldier in the capital and one in Nineveh province north of Baghdad.

The military gave little information on the crash of the Black Hawk during good weather in Diyala province, where U.S. and Iraqi forces have been battling Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias around the city of Baqouba for months.

Lt. Col. Josslyn Aberle, a U.S. spokeswoman, said the cause of the crash had not been determined. Navy Capt. Frank Pascual, a member of a U.S. media relations team in the United Arab Emirates, told Al-Arabiya television that the helicopter was believed to have suffered technical troubles before going down.

It was the fourth deadliest crash since the war started in March 2003. The worst occurred Jan. 26, 2005, when a Marine transport helicopter went down during a sandstorm in the western desert. Thirty Marines and one sailor were killed — the most U.S. personnel to die in a single incident in Iraq.

The U.S. military later reported that militia fighters attacked a provincial headquarters in the Shiite Muslim holy city of Karbala, killing five American soldiers and wounding three Saturday night.

The statement said "an illegally armed militia group" attacked the building with grenades, small arms and "indirect fire," which usually means mortars or rockets.

"A meeting was taking place at the time of the attack to ensure the security of Shiite pilgrims participating in the Ashoura commemorations," said a statement from Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, deputy commander of the Multi-National Division-Baghdad.

Karbala is 50 miles south of Baghdad and thousands of Shiite pilgrims are flocking to the city to mark the 10-day Ashoura festival commemorating the death of one of Shiite Islam's most sacred saints, Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.

Brooks said Iraqi officials and security forces as well as U.S. troops were present at the meeting, but his statement did not mention other casualties from the attack. It said the headquarters had "been secured by coalition and Iraqi security forces."

Earlier, Karbala Gov. Akeel al-Khazaali had reported that U.S. troops raided the provincial headquarters looking for wanted men but left with no prisoners. But Brooks said that report was incorrect.

The general did not identify any group suspected of staging the attack, but residents reached by telephone had reported seeing military helicopters flying over the local headquarters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been accused of playing a big role in sectarian killings, has been hit repeatedly in recent weeks by operations in which key commanders have been captured or killed by U.S. and Iraqi troops.

Also Saturday, the U.S. military announced that combat Friday had killed an Army soldier in Nineveh province and a Marine in Anbar province, a Sunni insurgent stronghold west of the capital.

The crash and other deaths come at a critical time for U.S. forces, as the first of 21,500 reinforcements are arriving in Baghdad and surrounding areas to join a campaign that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are waging to curb sectarian slaughter.

In south Baghdad, U.S. helicopters dropped Iraqi police commandos into the dangerous Dora neighborhood to stage a raid on the Omar Brigade, an al-Qaida-linked Sunni militant group, Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf said.

Khalaf said 15 insurgents were killed and five captured during an intense battle at two abandoned houses taken over by Sunni gunmen, who he blamed for a series of kidnappings and killings in a bid to cleanse the once-mixed neighborhood of Shiite residents.

"We were provided with helicopter support by our friends in the multinational forces and we did not suffer any casualties," Khalaf said. U.S. aircraft gave covering fire, but the U.S. military did not respond to a request for comment on the raid.

Elsewhere in Baghdad, Iraqi police and hospital officials said a joint U.S.-Iraqi force searched a hospital in the volatile Sunni-dominated western neighborhood of Yarmouk.

Dr. Haqi Ismail, the hospital manager, said the raid occurred at 4:30 a.m.

"They were looking for someone, they searched all the rooms and the emergency unit," he said.

Al-Sadr's followers voiced increasing anger over Friday's capture of a senior aide to the radical cleric in a raid in eastern Baghdad.

Nassar al-Rubaie, the head of al-Sadr's bloc in parliament, accused U.S. forces of trying to provoke the Sadrists into violence during the expanding campaign to quell Iraq's fighting.

"We condemn strongly the arrest of Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji. He is moderate and well-known as a media personality and always available in negotiations," al-Rubaie said. "He is a peaceful man and what was mentioned in the American release is lies and justification for the aggression against al-Sadr's movement."

U.S. and Iraqi forces reportedly detained al-Darraji during a raid on a mosque complex before dawn Friday.

The U.S. military, in a statement that did not name al-Darraji, said special Iraqi army forces operating with U.S. advisers had "captured a high-level, illegal armed group leader" in Baghdad's Baladiyat neighborhood, next to the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City. It said two other suspects were detained for further questioning.

Sadiq al-Rikabi, an al-Maliki adviser, told Al-Arabiya television the operation was not coordinated with Iraq's political leaders and was not part of the new security campaign.

Police reported at least 16 Iraqis slain in attacks Saturday. In addition, officials said 29 bodies were found in Baghdad and three in the northern city of Mosul, most of them showing signs of torture — a hallmark of killings by sectarian death squads.

Read More...

Summary only...

Watching TV is Not Sacrifice

Huffington Post
Cenk Uygur
President Bush: Watching TV is Not Sacrifice

I should be used to it by now, but I am still flabbergasted every time I see yet another example of how painfully stupid our president is. This time it was during an interview with Jim Lehrer on PBS. Lehrer asked the president if he'd asked anyone but the troops to sacrifice for the Iraq War.

Watch his pathetic response here.

Come on, man. "I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night." Are you kidding me? So, the rest of us sacrifice by watching TV? Wow, don't ask us for too much.

On the other hand, watching Bush on TV is a pretty painful experience, so maybe that's what he's referring to. Put aside for a second that this is a hideously cavalier attitude toward the real sacrifice our troops and think about what a dumb answer this is. Even if you thought this, would you really say it on national television? Who thinks saying people sacrifice by watching TV was a smart answer to that question?

He even says people "are in this fight" because they're watching it on television. Can he possibly believe this? Or is he not capable of putting together a coherent thought? I think we all know the answer to that question.

By the way, I took out all his stammering from the quote above. It sounds even dumber when you add the incomprehensible gibberish he adds between words. And are any of the sentences he put back to back in logical order? Does one thought follow another?

1. People sacrifice by watching TV. 2. Our economy is in great shape. Why do those two sentences follow each other? What the hell is he talking about? We have grown numb to how dumb he is. But if you step back for a second and watch any of these interviews as if you have never heard the man before, it is staggering how little sense he makes.

It's painful, but let's continue. In his next rambling point he says, "When you think of the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war."

Oh, are we feeling down? Wow! Well, that must be sacrifice indeed. Gunnery Sergeant Johnson is missing a leg, but I'm feeling a little melancholy. Let's call it even.

Does this man have any feelings? Does he understand the words that are coming out of his mouth? Can he possibly feel that the death and mutilation of our soldiers in any way equates to other people feeling "somewhat down" about what's happening in Iraq?

And Mr. President, for the record, we feel a little more than just "down" about what's happening in Iraq. Unlike you, we feel sick to our stomachs. And unlike you, we care enough to try to change it rather than feed more of our fellow citizens into an unwinnable civil war for the sake of your ego.

But of course this isn't about what Bush thinks of our reaction to the war. This is about the president protecting his rich friends. He wants to make sure they don't sacrifice for this war.

That's why he keeps putting in references to the economy doing well and how we shouldn't raise taxes. So, when he says "people" are feeling somewhat down, he means my rich friends feel somewhat down because they watch the war on TV - and that's good enough sacrifice without us actually asking them to give up any of their cherished tax breaks so we can fund this war.

If George Bush really wanted to win this war and it was so urgent for the country that we do so, wouldn't he restart the draft, rollback the tax cuts and say we're putting in 500,000 more troops and $500 million more in funding to make sure we win. Otherwise, we might lose Indiana to the terrorists.

The reality is of course we're not going to lose Indiana or even Guam to the terrorists, let alone lose them to the Shiites and Sunnis we're actually fighting in Iraq. This has always been an optional war. And Bush is fighting it in the same lackadaisical, devil may care attitude he has always had. A smug look on his face, a sprinkling of more troops, everyone else watches on TV and his friends get more tax cuts and no-bid contracts.

But Bush isn't done yet. He saves his best for last. Get a load of this quote at the end of his answer: "One thing we want during this war of terror is for people to feel like their life moving on."

What??? First of all, that sentence is barely English. Second, Bob Cesca is right, it sounds like Borat talking. He even says "war of terror." Is he from Kazakhstan? Or is this another one of his famous Freudian slips? Third, his point is that we should move on as if nothing is happening during this war of terror. Isn't this a plain admission that he does not want anyone but the troops making any sacrifice for the war? Move along people, nothing to see here, go about your business.

This reminds me of the time he told us we should keep shopping. I bought an iPod yesterday, so I guess I did my part for the war. And I still have both my arms.

Go shopping. Do your part for the war by watching TV and feeling a little down. And then go on with your lives as if nothing ever happened. As if over 3,000 of our men and women in uniform aren't dead and over 22,000 of them haven't come home in pieces.

In the end, I was left wondering if the president is so monstrously unsympathetic to the real plight of our troops in Iraq that he can't understand why these words might seem uncaring or if he is so monstrously stupid that he thinks making light of their sacrifice will go over well with the rest of us. Then I realized, of course, the answer is both.

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrats refuse to budge on Iraq plan opposition

Reuters
Democrats refuse to budge on Iraq plan opposition
By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democrats on Saturday refused to back down in their war of words with President George W. Bush over his plan for stemming violence in Iraq, saying 21,500 more troops being sent was no course change.

"I have serious concerns about the president's plan to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq," Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said in the Democratic weekly radio address. "His plan is just more of the same."

The White House on Friday denounced as "poisonous" comments by Democratic House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said the president was sending in more troops quickly because he knew that once they were in harm's way, Congress would not cut off resources for them.

Democrats, who won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, have pushed for a phased withdrawal of some 130,000 U.S. troops there now. Next week senators could vote on a bipartisan nonbinding resolution opposing the boost in forces.

The resolution also calls for additional diplomacy in the region and the transfer of military responsibilities to Iraqi forces as quickly as possible.

"The American people expect, and our troops and military families deserve, a real plan for success in Iraq that includes political solutions as well as military action," Schweitzer said.

The Republican president has said his plan has not been given a chance to work and urged those opposed to it to offer their own ideas. His aides have scrambled to try to limit the number of Republicans lawmakers supporting the resolution.

Bush on Saturday received a briefing from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Both have just returned from the Middle East where they met with allies and tried to sell the plan to halt the unrelenting violence in Iraq.

He then flew to the Camp David retreat in Maryland where he was expected to spend the rest of the weekend working on his annual State of the Union speech. He will deliver it to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.

Bush was accompanied on the trip by Rice, his national security adviser Stephen Hadley and his chief of staff Josh Bolten.

(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan)

Read More...

Summary only...

My Dinner With Clinton

Huffington Post
Elayne Boosler
My Dinner With Clinton

January 19, 2007 -- Las Vegas Review-Journal: Host Of This Year's WH Correspondents Dinner Claiming He Was Told To Go Easy On Bush...

Head Of WH Correspondents Assoc: "We Didn't Say Go Easy, We Said "'Singe, Don't Burn'"...

And therein lies the difference in character of administrations. Whatever you think of this White House, you can now add "weenies" to the list. They control the press (you know what Al Jazeera means in English? Fox News), the message, the congress (until now, hopefully), the legal system (Guantanamo, military tribunals, whom lawyers can and cannot defend), the "artistic interpretation" of the Constitution (what is it, Swan Lake?) the bills passed by congress (illegal signing statements, or singeing statements, hey, maybe that's why they said singe), appointments (John Bolton, reactionary right wing judges, all appointed by executive decree while congress was in recess), the limiting of young girls' lives and opportunity (gutting Title IX by executive decree, no access to birth control, abstinence only teaching that doesn't work), etc. etc. But now they've just gone too far!!! Telling a comedian what he can and cannot say?

This is the biggest bunch of cowards to come down the pike since that guy dressed as a woman and got into one of the lifeboats as the Titanic was sinking. You sure can tell none of these White House big shots ever served in the military; afraid of a comedian? And one on social security at that? (Which explains why they would be afraid of him. Maybe they fear he's going to ask Bush to explain the "health care plans" debacle for seniors, or why the government won't negotiate price with drug companies).

When Bill Clinton was elected president, I was the first comedian chosen to entertain at the White House Press Correspondents' Dinner. It was May, 1993, one hundred days into his first term, and there was enough kindling in those three months to burn down Washington. Janet Reno had just blown the hostage situation in Waco, Texas, and 74 members of the Branch Davidians, men, women, and children, were dead. The Tailhook scandal had just come to light; U.S. Navy pilots were accused of drunken sexual abuse of their female comrades, and civilians, at their Las Vegas convention. Clinton had announced that to bring down the deficit he was, yes, raising taxes. The Republican congress was already dead set against any progress on his watch; he got no cooperation on his proposed health care, budget, or economic policy reforms.

booslerwhcahp.jpg

These were raw, sensitive, explosive issues. There was a private cocktail party before the dinner. I thought that meant about a thousand people stuffed into a room, so I went down late. I walked into the room. It was a dozen people. Bill Clinton and a handful of young guys... and me. The president saw me. "Elayne's here! Get Jim. You have to see this!! This guy does the greatest Ross Perot!!" And over came Jim, and did his Ross Perot, and it was perfect, and we all laughed a lot. And we told jokes. And laughed some more. Hillary came in from giving a graduation speech in Washington. She was in a long gold gown, with long gold hair swept up in an intricate, beautiful do. In came Al Gore and Tipper. We talked, we laughed. The head of the White House Press Association entered, told us how to line up to enter and go to the dais where we would all be eating dinner before the speeches started. (I ate dinner with them first. On the dais. It was Bill, Hillary, Al Gore, Tipper, and me. I felt like the SAT sample question. What does not belong at this table?)

So here's my point. With the most combustible confluence of events ever to befall a new president, not once, ever, did anyone say to me, "Go easy. Don't burn". No one told me what to say or not say. In all that pre-dinner opportunity for someone to attempt to censor me, it never came up.

And I did mention all of it onstage, because that's the job. And Clinton laughed, and winced, and laughed. And the audience laughed, and booed, and laughed, and booed. And the press lambasted me the next day, because that seems to be part of the tradition. No matter who the comedian is that year, the Washington press deems her/him inappropriate, out of line, whatever.

Rich Little doesn't have to burn George W. Bush. He'll burn all right.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Administration is Playing a Shell Game With Its Unconstitutional Warrantless Wiretapping

Huffington Post
Miles Mogulescu
The Administration is Playing a Shell Game With Its Unconstitutional Warrantless Wiretapping

The Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program has represented one of its most egregious claims of unfettered executive power and a threat to our constitutional democracy. It spit in the face of both the FISA Act requiring warrants for such wiretapping and the constitutional protections of free speech, privacy and separation of powers.

Before the election, the Bush administration claimed that this program was vital to protect the security of the nation and criticized critics as being soft in the war on terror.

Recently, a Federal District Court ruled the program illegal and unconstitutional. A Federal Appeals court is set to review the case in two weeks and could issue a precedential opinion holding the program illegal, a decision that could only be overturned by the Supreme Court. A new Democratic Congress is likely to hold hearings with the possibility of legislation specifically requiring case by case warrants.

In that context, the Justice Department suddenly announced on Wednesday that it had received sanction for such wiretapping from a single FISA judge in a secret proceeding. Questioned by Senators on Thursday, Attorney General Gonzales refused to reveal whether the FISA judge had approved only a specific wiretap or had approved a wider program of wiretapping. Although the FISA judge offered to supply her decision to the Senate, Gonzales refused, claiming the decision was classified.

This is part of the Bush administration's continuing shell game to keep its unprecedented and unconstitutional claims of executive power away from oversight by Congress or review by the normal Federal court system.

On the eve of the Supreme Court's review of the case of Jose Padilla, Padilla was transferred to the criminal system, thus preventing a Supreme Court ruling. After the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that an enemy combatant has the right to challenge his detention in court, the administration freed Hamdi and sent him to Saudi Arabia rather than face further judicial proceedings. In a much quoted passage from her decision in the Hamdi case, Justice Sandra Day O'Conner stated, "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

In connection with the NSA wiretapping case, the administration maintains still maintains that is free to operate without court approval and had referred the case to the secret FISA judge on a strictly voluntary basis. President Bush denied that there had been any change in the NSA program except that it had been blessed by the FISA judge. According to Bush, "the reason it's important that they [the FISA judge] verify the legalities of the program is it means its going to extend, make it extend beyond my presidency." In other words, Bush wants to make his unprecedented claims of executive power permanent.

It is essential that the Judiciary Committee continue to aggressively pursue this matter in spite of Secretary Gonzales's stonewalling. Senators must insist that they be provided with all relevant information. If necessary, Congress must pass new legislation spelling out the exact procedures the administration must follow to obtain a warrant.. It is equally important that the Federal Appeals Court hear the case until it can determine the specifics of the administration's procedures and the degree to which the administration continues to maintain the right to wiretap without a case by case warrant..

The Bush administration has over and over threatened our constitutional democracy with claims of unfettered executive power--the future of the country demands that it be stopped.

Read More...

Summary only...

Democratic House votes to protect interns

Reuters
Democratic House votes to protect interns
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to better protect its teenage interns in response to an Internet sex scandal that helped Democrats win control of the U.S. Congress last November.

A day after the House wrapped up its "first 100-hour" legislative agenda in less than half that time, it moved to prevent a repeat of the seedy Republican affair.

On a vote of 416-0, the House approved legislation to add a former intern and a parent of a current intern to the House board that oversees its internship program.

The bill also would require the board to meet regularly and seek bipartisanship by stipulating that each party is equally represented with two House members. The majority party now gets two board seats, the minority one.

Last September, Republican Mark Foley of Florida abruptly resigned from the House after it was disclosed he had sent sexually provocative electronic messages to interns, also known as pages.

The scandal mushroomed after it became known that a number of senior Republicans and aides had received warnings about Foley, prompting charges of a cover-up that damaged the party in the 2006 congressional elections.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, hailed passage of the bill "to protect pages who are in the House's care."

"The Democratic majority will also work to oversee the program and enforce these new rules vigorously, which is key to the success of this program and the safety of our young people," Hoyer said.

On Monday, the House will again focus on ethics when it considers a bill to deny congressional pensions to members convicted of a felony, such as bribery.

In accordance with current law, the punishment will not be retroactive. That means former Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, sentenced to 2 1/2 years in jail on Friday for political corruption, would be able to keep his pension.

Republicans groused that much of the legislation so far had been jammed through the House without them getting a chance to shape it. But Democrats were delighted that many Republicans joined them in voting for the popular efforts.

They included legislation to raise the minimum wage, cut in half interest rates on federal student loans, reduce subsidies to big-oil companies, lower prescription drug prices and strengthen America's security.

While tougher fights are certain ahead on such matters as the Iraq war, global warming and immigration reform, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed the early accomplishments.

"These successes are just the beginning. We have set a tone for the 110th Congress that is one of cooperation, consensus and compromise," said Pelosi, a California Democrat.

Read More...

Summary only...

Supreme Court to decide case on broadcast political ads

Reuters
Supreme Court to decide case on broadcast political ads
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide the reach of a federal law that bans certain broadcast advertisements before an election, a case with important implications for the 2008 presidential and congressional campaigns.

The justices said they would decide a case involving an anti-abortion group called Wisconsin Right to Life in its free-speech challenge to a key part of a 2002 federal campaign finance law that seeks to limit the influence of money in politics.

That part of the law bans corporations, unions and special interest groups from using unrestricted money to run television or radio ads that refer to a candidate for federal office two months before a general election or one month before a primary election.

Wisconsin Right to Life argued the ban should not be applied to three ads it wanted to run in 2004 to criticize Sen. Russell Feingold for supporting efforts to block confirmation of several of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

Because Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, was running for re-election at the time, the ads were prohibited. Feingold had coauthored the landmark campaign finance law with Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican.

The ads urged people to call Feingold and the state's other senator, Democrat Herb Kohl, to urge them to oppose filibusters of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

INFLUENCE VOTERS

A federal court panel ruled last month that the ads were not election ads covered by the law, but were general issue ads that did not aim to influence voters.

"The language in ... the advertisements does not mention an election, a candidacy or a political party, nor do they comment on a candidate's character, actions or fitness for office," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote in the opinion.

The law's supporters warned the ruling could create a big loophole by allowing thinly disguised issue ads that really are for or against a candidate.

The Bush administration, representing the Federal Election Commission which administers the campaign finance laws, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Four members of Congress -- Sen. McCain and Reps. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, both Democrats, and Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays -- also appealed. They said the ruling threatened to create a large class of ads exempt from the law.

The Supreme Court could set important rules in deciding whether such ads will be allowed and how judges should decide such cases.

Attorneys for Wisconsin Right to Life said the Supreme Court should decide the key factors for determining when ads involve "grass-roots lobbying" and are exempt from the law.

The high court is expected to hear arguments in late April and to decide the case by the end of June, well in advance of the primaries for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

In 2003, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote upheld key parts of the campaign finance law. But it has allowed challenges on how the law is applied in specific cases, like the one from Wisconsin.

The court's four liberals, along with moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, voted to uphold the law. She has retired and been replaced with Justice Samuel Alito, who could join the court's four other conservatives to limit the law's reach.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ohio County Rigged 2004 Recount

Prosecutor: Ohio County Rigged Recount
By M.R. KROPKO
Associated Press Writer

CLEVELAND (AP) -- Three county elections workers conspired to avoid a more thorough recount of ballots in the 2004 presidential election, a prosecutor told jurors during opening statements of their trial Thursday.

Witnesses testified that, two days before a planned recount, selected ballots were counted so the result would be determined.

"The evidence will show that this recount was rigged, maybe not for political reasons, but rigged nonetheless," Prosecutor Kevin Baxter said. "They did this so they could spend a day rather than weeks or months" on the recount, he said.

Elections have fallen under greater scrutiny since the 2000 presidential election when recounts of paper ballots in Florida dragged on for weeks and the U.S. Supreme Court became involved.

Defense attorneys said in their opening statements that the workers in Cuyahoga County didn't do anything out of the ordinary.

"They just were doing it the way they were always doing it," said defense attorney Roger Synenberg, representing Kathleen Dreamer, a ballot manager.

Charged with various counts each of election misconduct or interference are Jacqueline Maiden, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections' coordinator, who was the board's third-highest ranking employee when she was indicted last March; Rosie Grier, assistant manager of the board's ballot department; and Dreamer. The most serious charge faced by each is a felony that carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison, Baxter said.

Baxter made no claim about whether mishandling the recount could have affected the presidential election.

Ohio gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry and hold on to the White House in 2004. Statewide, Bush won by about 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million cast. Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik sought the recount and complained about its procedure.

In Cuyahoga County, a Democratic stronghold where about 600,000 ballots were cast, the recount did not have much effect on the results. Kerry gained 17 votes and Bush lost six.

Ohio law states that during a recount each county is supposed to randomly choose 3 percent of its ballots and tally them by hand and by machine. If there are no discrepancies in those counts, the rest of the votes can be recounted by machine.

If there is a difference, the county must randomly recount 3 percent of the ballots a second time. All the county's ballots must be recounted by hand if there is a second discrepancy, but if there isn't, all the ballots can be recounted by machine.

Baxter said testimony in the case will show that instead of conducting a random count, the workers chose sample precincts for the Dec. 16, 2004, recount that did not have questionable results to ensure that no discrepancies would emerge.

"This was a very hush operation," Baxter said.

It's unlikely another recount would be ordered because of the court case, which voting rights advocates have used as an example of flaws with the state's recount laws. There were allegations in several counties of similar presorting of ballots for the recounts that state law says are to be random.

Read More...

Summary only...

Holocaust survivors owed as much as $175 bln: study

Reuters
Holocaust survivors owed as much as $175 bln: study
By Joan Gralla

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Holocaust survivors are still owed between $115 billion and $175 billion in restitution despite six decades of efforts to return everything the Nazis stole, from their homes to businesses, a new study said on Thursday.

In the last decade, restitution efforts intensified due to the end of the Cold War, as well as public pressure spurred by new reports of the extent of Nazi looting and an uproar over efforts by Swiss banks to conceal victim accounts, said the study's author, international economist Sidney Zabludoff.

The study was prepared for Jerusalem-based Jewish Political Studies Review and made available to Reuters.

"At least $115-$175 billion (at 2005 prices) remains unreturned despite numerous clear and explicit international agreements and country promises made during World War Two and immediately thereafter," the study said.

European nations have pledged $3.4 billion in restitution payments, though only about half of that was paid by 2005.

This slow pace reflected how quickly the restitution push faded after 2002, when the United States stopped squeezing European governments and public attention waned, said Zabludoff, a former White House, Treasury Department and CIA official.

"No additional noteworthy Congressional hearings were held, efforts by U.S. state regulators diminished sharply and there were unfavorable court cases" on insurance claims, the study said.

During the entire post-war period, only about 20 percent of the assets looted from Europe's Jews was returned, he said.

THOROUGH LOOTERS

Restitution is a complicated task because the Nazis were such thorough looters. And many of the people who survived the Holocaust, which killed 6 million of their relatives and friends, lost all ownership records.

The Nazis forced many Jews to sell their homes and everything they owned, from furniture to companies, often at "far less than prevailing market values," Zabludoff said.

And at the war's end, the Soviets confiscated "large amounts of stocks and bonds" from the Reichsbank in Berlin that belonged to Europe's Jews, he added.

Zabludoff's research has reopened clashes between survivors' advocates over how best to aid elderly Holocaust survivors in Europe, the United States and Israel, some of whom are extremely poor.

"Things are moving much too slowly," said Menachem Rosensaft, a New York lawyer who founded the International Network of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors.

In contrast, Elan Steinberg, the World Jewish Congress' former executive director who helped push Switzerland, Germany and Austria into large settlements, faulted the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany.

The conference, which negotiates with Germany and distributes its Holocaust reparations, should pay out its more than $1 billion of reserves much more quickly, Steinberg said.

He added that individual survivors should get the money, not hospitals and agencies that also aid other people.

"What I and many Holocaust survivors think is that they are holding onto a mountain of cash while Holocaust survivors are going hungry and sick and are approaching the end," he said.

However, conference spokeswoman Hillary Kessler-Godin said only about $275 million of the $900 million of reserves it had at the end of 2005 has not been earmarked to pay property claimants and providers of services, like home care.

That means the money runs out in about three years, she said, adding the conference hopes fund-raising and more restitution payments will carry it through.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. tells China concerned by satellite-killer test

Reuters
U.S. tells China concerned by satellite-killer test
By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States, Australia and Canada have voiced concerns to China over the first known satellite-killing test in space in more than 20 years, the White House said on Thursday.

"The U.S. believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "We and other countries have expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese."

Using a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile, the test knocked out an aging Chinese weather satellite about 537 miles above the Earth on January 11 through "kinetic impact," or by slamming into it, Johndroe said.

Canada and Australia had joined in voicing concern, he said. Britain, South Korea and Japan were expected to follow suit, an administration official added.

On a visit to New York, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia raised concerns with the Chinese some days ago.

"So far, the answer from the foreign affairs people in China, including the ambassador in Canberra, is that they are not aware of the incident and they are getting back to us," Downer told reporters.

"What we don't want to see is some sort of spread, if you like, of an arms race into outer space. The danger there is that you get into a situation where other countries, including the U.S. I suppose, would have to start to look for ways to protect satellites in space," he said.

"The other concern is that the debris from the destroyed satellite could hit other satellites and damage (them)," Downer said.

The last U.S. anti-satellite test took place on September 13, 1985. Washington then halted such Cold War-era testing, concerned by debris that could harm civilian and military satellite operations on which the West increasingly relies for everything from pinpoint navigation to Internet access to automated teller machines.

According to David Wright of the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists, the satellite pulverized by China could have broken into nearly 40,000 fragments from 1 cm to 10 cm or up to 4 inches, roughly half of which would stay in orbit for more than a decade.

On the day of the test, a U.S. defense official said the United States was unable to communicate with an experimental spy satellite launched last year by the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office. There was no immediate indication that that was a result of the Chinese test.

SATELLITE-KILLING CAPABILITY

Aviation Week & Space Technology, the first to report the test, cited space sources as saying a Chinese Feng Yun 1C polar orbit weather satellite, launched in 1999, was destroyed by an antisatellite system launched from or near China's Xichang Space Center in Sichuan Province.

The capability demonstrated by China was no surprise to the Bush administration, which revised U.S. national space policy in October to assert a right to deny space access to anyone hostile to U.S. interests.

The United States has been researching satellite-killers of its own, experimenting with lasers on the ground that could disable, disrupt and destroy spacecraft.

Marco Caceres, a space expert at the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm in Fairfax, Virginia, said China's test could bolster a host of costly military space programs, almost all of which are over budget and behind schedule.

"They are going to use this for as much as they can," he said, referring to Pentagon officials. Major corporate beneficiaries could be Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp., which build U.S. communications, surveillance and early warning satellites, Caceres said.

(Additional reporting by Irene Klotz in Cape Canaveral, Florida and Michelle Nichols in New York)

Read More...

Summary only...

Gonzales defends Bush's revised domestic spying

Reuters
Gonzales defends Bush's revised domestic spying
By Thomas Ferraro and Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fended off lawmakers on Thursday who demanded to know why the administration took more than five years to obtain court approval of its war-time domestic spying.

"I somewhat take issue ... with (Republican) Senator Arlen Specter's innuendo that this is something we could have pulled off the shelf and done in a matter of days or weeks," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "This is a very complicated application. We worked on it a long time."

Gonzales announced an abrupt end to the warrantless electronic surveillance program on Wednesday, just two weeks after Democrats took control of the U.S. Congress, promising investigations and legislation to bring the program in line with the law.

Critics have charged that President George W. Bush overstepped his authority after the September 11 attacks with the domestic spying program as well as other measures such as holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without charges, and interrogations that some said amounted to torture.

Gonzales said the Justice Department had recently reached an agreement with a secret court, which gives out warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that would allow swift approval to monitor international communications.

Specter of Pennsylvania, who headed the Judiciary Committee when Congress was controlled by Republicans the past two years, said the administration should have moved faster to get court approval of the spying.

"SENSE OF URGENCY"

"I cannot help but conclude that there hasn't been a sufficient sense of urgency on behalf of the Department of Justice to get this job done faster," Specter said.

Gonzales said after the 2001 attacks, the administration looked at the 1978 FISA law, which requires court approval to spy on U.S. citizens inside the United States.

"We all concluded, there's no way we can do what we believe we have to do to protect the country under the strict reading of FISA," he said.

Senators demanded details about the agreement the Justice Department reached with the FISA court. They cited a letter from FISA's presiding judge stating that the court would have no objections to giving the committee confidential information, but that it would be up to Justice to provide it.

Gonzales was noncommittal, prompting Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, to ask: "Are you saying you might object to the court giving us decisions that you've publicly announced?"

Gonzales said, "There's going to be information about operational details about how we're doing this that we want to keep confidential."

Bush ordered the National Security Agency in late 2001 to conduct the program to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without a warrant, if those wiretaps were made to track suspected al Qaeda operatives.

When the program was first disclosed in December 2005, it drew fire from Democrats and some Republicans in Congress who charged it violated the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Bush insisted he had inherent war-time presidential powers to order the spying program. However, Gonzales said the Justice Department stepped up efforts to bring it under FISA.

In a letter to congressional leaders on Wednesday, Gonzales said the program would not be renewed. Instead electronic surveillance would be subject to approval from the secret but independent FISA court, as demanded by critics.

Leahy told Gonzales, "The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists, but doing it legally and with proper checks and balances." Leahy added, "This reversal is a good first step."

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate votes to clean up how it does business

Reuters
Senate votes to clean up how it does business
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The new Democratic-led U.S. Senate resolved a stalemate on Thursday and overwhelmingly passed legislation to toughen its lobbying and ethics rules in an effort to clean up how lawmakers do business.

The bipartisan bill, approved on a 96-2 vote, became the first passed by the Senate since the 110th Congress convened two weeks ago. It would ban gifts from lobbyists, strengthen restrictions on travel and prohibit former lawmakers from lobbying Congress for two years.

The measure would also deny pensions to senators convicted of bribery, publicly identify the sponsors of any special projects slipped into massive spending bills and require disclosure of negotiations by any senator for a job in the private sector.

Democrats won control of Congress from President George W. Bush's Republicans in last November's elections, promising to end "a culture of corruption" on Capitol Hill that involved a number of influence-peddling scandals in recent years.

Senate passage came after Republicans lifted a procedural roadblock. They reached an agreement with Democrats over a proposed amendment to cut wasteful spending.

The measure now goes for needed concurrence to the U.S. House of Representatives, which adopted similar rule changes earlier this month.

"This is the toughest reform bill in the history of this body as it relates to ethics and lobbying," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

"This is a classic example of bipartisanship ... at its best," said Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who sponsored the bill with Reid.

"It's a step in the right direction," said Paul Light of New York University's John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress. "But the real question is will it be enforced."

REPUBLICANS LIFT ROADBLOCK

Republicans had pushed an amendment to the bill to permit a president to single out specific spending or tax provisions in bills approved by Congress, and then ask that lawmakers go back and delete them.

Democrats refused to allow a vote on the proposal as an amendment to the ethics bill, many complaining it amounted to an unlawful presidential encroachment on congressional powers.

But to clear the way for passage of the overall bill, Democrats agreed to give Republicans a vote on it when they consider next week an increase in the minimum wage.

A decade ago, the Supreme Court ruled as unlawful "line-item veto" power for presidents, saying it crossed into congressional authority. Backers contend the proposed provision would comply with the law. Critics disagreed.

The Senate rejected a proposed amendment that would have created an independent Office of Public Integrity to investigate the ethical conduct of members.

The proposal was backed by public watchdog groups, but critics argued such probes should be left to the Senate's Ethics Committee.

The Senate approved an amendment that would prohibit spouses of senators from lobbying Congress -- unless they were a lobbyist at least a year before election of the member or were a lobbyist for at least a year prior to their marriage.

"Democrats are taking down the 'For Sale' sign on the Capitol and putting up a new sign: 'Under New Management,'" said Assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lawmakers seek to bar U.S. attack on Iran

Reuters
Lawmakers seek to bar U.S. attack on Iran
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives pushed legislation on Thursday to prohibit a U.S. attack on Iran without congressional permission.

The effort, led by Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who in 2005 joined calls from many Democrats for a phased U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq war, came as lawmakers voiced concerns the Bush administration might provoke a confrontation with neighboring Iran.

"The resolution makes crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress" authorizes a U.S. attack on Iran, Jones told reporters, referring to the 2002 vote by Congress authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The joint resolution would have to be passed by the House and Senate and signed by President George W. Bush to acquire the force of law. It would waive the congressional authorization only if Iran attacked the United States or its armed forces, or if such an attack was "demonstrably" imminent.

So far, Jones' resolution has 11 co-sponsors in the 435-member House.

At the White House, Bush, asked whether there were any U.S. plans to take action against Iran, told Sinclair Broadcasting: "I have made it clear that if they're moving weapons inside Iraq that will hurt the cause of democracy and more particularly hurt our soldiers, we'll take care of business there.

We're not going to let them," he said on Thursday. "I made that abundantly clear the other day in my speech."

Bush's comment echoed remarks last week when he accused Iran and Syria of allowing the use of their territory for launching attacks inside Iraq.

The White House has since made clear the plan was to disrupt weapons supply lines inside Iraq and that the United States was not preparing for military action against Iran or Syria.

Rep. Martin Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, said that while he did not trust Iran or its intentions in the Middle East, he also did not trust the White House.

Meehan said the resolution on Iran was needed because the Bush administration had "lied so many times" in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Concerns about a U.S. attack against Iran increased after the United States moved an additional aircraft carrier into the Gulf region and the Bush administration told Arab allies it would do more to contain Tehran.

The legislation's backers said they hoped Democratic leaders in the House would advance their resolution in coming months, possibly as part of Iraq war funding legislation or other Iraq-related measures.

Read More...

Summary only...

House seeks more oil royalties, kills tax breaks

Reuters
House seeks more oil royalties, kills tax breaks
By Chris Baltimore and Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The new Democratic-led House of Representatives passed legislation on Thursday aimed at "Big Oil" that would roll back some industry tax breaks and force energy companies to pay more drilling royalties, valued at $14 billion over 10 years.

Passage of the bill by a vote of 264-163 capped House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 100-hour agenda, which included measures to raise the minimum wage, lower student loan interest rates and bolster homeland security.

The $14 billion raised from the additional royalties and repealed tax breaks would fund research for renewable energy sources. The measure must be approved by the Senate and the president before it becomes law.

It is unclear if President George W. Bush would sign the measure. He supports repealing some of the tax breaks but opposes renegotiating royalty contracts.

Going after major integrated U.S. oil firms like Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips has been a top priority for the House Democratic leadership, which says the companies' record profits have come at the expense of U.S. motorists paying high gasoline prices.

"The oil and gas industry is extraordinarily well established and well off," said House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer. "It does not need the American taxpayer's help to be successful or to make a dollar."

'WIN FOR OPEC'

Republican opponents said the bill would raise U.S. energy costs, and Republican Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri called it "a win for OPEC," referring to the group of oil-exporting nations that produces over a third of the world's oil.

About half the bill's savings comes from eliminating a lower tax rate on oil companies, which will bring in about $6.5 billion from 2007 to 2016, according to a congressional estimate. The lower tax rate had been given to all U.S. manufacturers in 2004, including oil companies.

The rest of the money would come from a "conservation fee" on oil and gas production that the bill would impose on energy companies that refused to renegotiate faulty leases signed in 1998 and 1999. That would raise about $7.6 billion.

Republicans and U.S. oil and gas industry groups said such measures would hurt U.S. consumers by making it more expensive to find and produce domestic supplies.

"In reality, the only people it punishes is the American people," said Rep. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican and former House speaker.

Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican, said the bill would require U.S. consumers to import more oil from U.S. nations like Iran and Venezuela, which are both OPEC members and foes of U.S. policy.

"If you care about our children, stop sending the money to (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez," Rogers said.

Bush has said big oil companies do not need government help amid historically high oil prices, but opposed forcing energy companies to renegotiate faulty drilling contracts, which as written would allow energy companies to avoid paying about $10 billion in royalties.

(Additional reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh)

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush won't reauthorize U.S. eavesdropping program; Will follow substitute measure approved by Secret court

Reuters
Bush won't reauthorize U.S. eavesdropping program
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has decided not to renew a program of domestic spying on terrorism suspects, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday, ending a tactic criticized for infringing on civil liberties.

Gonzales said electronic surveillance will be subject to approval from a secret but independent court, which Democrats in Congress and other critics have demanded during more than a year of fierce debate.

"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that disclosed the administration's shift in approach.

Bush has reauthorized the program every 45 days, and the current authorization is mid-cycle, a senior Justice Department official said. Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program.

The program, adopted after the September 11 attacks, allowed the government to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without a warrant, if those wiretaps were made to track suspected al Qaeda operatives.

Critics have said the program violated the U.S. Constitution and a 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which made it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without the approval of the special surveillance court.

Gonzales said a judge on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on January 10 approved a government proposal allowing it to target communications into and out of the United States when probable cause exists that one person is a member of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.

The court's judges provide an independent review of the administration's requests for warrants for eavesdropping.

PROGRAM STILL DEFENDED AS LEGAL

He reiterated the administration's position that the program has been legal, but said the government will now have the ability to act with sufficient "speed and agility."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the new rules approved by the court addressed administration concerns.

"The president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts," Snow said.

Gonzales' letter came the day before he was scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the Democrats now in power were expected to question him closely about the program.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and the judiciary committee's chairman, welcomed Bush's decision.

"We must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and should do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans including the right to privacy," he said.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and a judiciary committee member, said, "Why it took five years to go to even this secret court is beyond comprehension."

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the judiciary committee, said, "It is regrettable that these steps weren't taken a long time ago."

Last year a federal judge in Detroit ordered the Bush administration to stop the surveillance because it violates Americans' civil rights.

The Bush administration has appealed the ruling to a federal appeals court, where the case is pending. The administration immediately told the court of Bush's decision.

Gonzales said the administration began exploring options for seeking FISA court approval for the program in the spring of 2005, well before it was publicly disclosed at the end of that year, creating a firestorm of criticism.

He did not give details of the court's orders.

(Additional reporting by Tom Ferraro, Deborah Charles and Tabassum Zakaria)

Read More...

Summary only...