Obama to turn down additional fall debates

The Politico
Obama to turn down additional fall debates
By: Mike Allen

Inundated by dozens of invitations, Sen. Barack Obama will turn down requests to join future debates and forums this fall, his Democratic presidential campaign announced Saturday.

Obama will honor his commitment to eight more debates (five sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, one by the Spanish-language broadcaster Univision and two in Iowa), but he does not plan to accept many invitations for forums, where the candidates appear sequentially.

Campaign sources confirmed that the announcement could affect such key Democratic constituencies as the Congressional Black Caucus, Iowa AARP and League of Conservation Voters, which are planning to sponsor forums in the fall.

(UPDATE: The League of Conservation Voters, citing Obama's own words on energy being "an urgent moral challenge," says it would be disappointed if Obama did not come to their forum.)

“Unfortunately, we simply cannot run the kind of campaign we want and need to, engaging with voters in the early states and February 5, if our schedule is dictated by dozens of forums and debates,” campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement.

“Ultimately, the one group left out of the current schedule is the voters, and they are the ones who ask the toughest questions and most deserve to have those questions answered face to face.

“We simply cannot continue to hopscotch from forum to forum and run a campaign true to the bottom-up movement for change that propelled Barack into this race.”

Although the Illinois senator has lagged behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in national polls for the Democratic presidential nomination, his record-breaking crowds and fundraising underscore his status as the most exciting candidate in the race. His participation or absence can make or break an event.

The Clinton campaign declined to comment, as did the campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.).

Critics and opponents can be expected to charge that Obama is dodging debates, because he has made several statements that Clinton and others have painted as reflecting ill-preparedness.

His assertion at the YouTube/CNN debate that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of hostile nations sparked a weeklong round of accusations, spin and counterspin.

On the other side of the equation, the campaigns of some of Obama's opponents have complained that too many candidates are participating in debates and forums to make the appearances satisfying or worthwhile. In July, a microphone picked up Clinton and Edwards conferring about whether their campaigns should discuss smaller debates. "Our guys should talk," Clinton was heard saying.

Obama campaign sources said no decision has been made about an invitation by Caroline Kennedy for a nationally televised presidential debate at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston on Dec. 17, with CNN as the television partner and Politico.com as the Internet partner. That is beyond the Dec. 10 period covered by the first round of DNC-sanctioned events, so it is not covered by Obama’s statement, the sources said.

Here is Plouffe’s whole statement, posted on Obama’s campaign website.

"As we head into the fall, the campaign is entering a new more engaged phase that will give voters an even greater sense of Barack's message of change and require the campaign to make decisions that balance the important role of debates and maximize time to run the kind of campaign we need to.

We have just been thru a period of three debates/forums in six days and the outlook for the future holds more of the same. And, because of likely calendar movement, once we get past Labor Day the Iowa caucuses are less than 120 days away.

"So far, Barack has attended seven Democratic debates and nineteen candidate forums. There are five remaining sanctioned DNC debates, which we are committed to attend and two Iowa debates normally held in January, which are being held in December, which we are also committed to attend. We will also be attending the Univision debate in Florida on September 9. This means that by the end of this year, Obama will have participated in a total of 15 Democratic debates.

"The debates have been important moments for our campaign, demonstrating clearly that Barack Obama is the candidate who will bring about the greatest change to our broken politics. Looking at the first sanctioned DNC debate in South Carolina, Obama was scored the clear winner by undecided voters in South Carolina and New Hampshire.

"Unfortunately, we simply cannot run the kind of campaign we want and need to, engaging with voters in the early states and February 5 states, if our schedule is dictated by dozens of forums and debates. Ultimately, the one group left out of the current schedule is the voters and they are the ones who ask the toughest questions and most deserve to have those questions answered face to face.

"Therefore, after this week, we will only be attending the five DNC debates through the sanctioning period of December 10, Univision, and the two Iowa debates previously mentioned. Candidate forums - where candidates appear sequentially will be considered, but we are unlikely to accept many of these. Instead, Barack will spend his time answering questions directly from voters in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and elsewhere. We simply cannot continue to hopscotch from forum to forum and run a campaign true to the bottom up movement for change that propelled Barack into this race.

"After the sanctioning period, there will undoubtedly be a large number of debates scheduled in the early states and in February 5 states. We will make decisions on those as we get closer, but will clearly be doing a healthy number of debates after the sanctioning period.

"Many friends and terrific organizations are sponsoring or planning to sponsor debates and forums. So this is not an easy decision for us to execute. But it simply won't work to navigate this one by one. We felt we needed to make our approach clear and consistent.

"I think this approach will be better for the voters and the campaign."

Read More...

Summary only...

Did Bush Cabinet members aid candidates?

Did Bush Cabinet members aid candidates?

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 (UPI) -- Bush administration political appointees appeared to help Republican candidates at U.S. taxpayer expense, a newspaper investigation found.

McClatchy Newspapers reviewed public appearances and grant announcements by top officials between 2001 and 2006. McClatchy was also told that the White House arranged 10 political briefings for Commerce Department officials and four at the Treasury Department that provided details on congressional battleground districts.

The House Oversight Committee is looking into potential violations of the Hatch Act. Under the law, cabinet members can appear with congressional candidates and attend political briefings, but may not use public funds for partisan purposes.

The committee has found "a number of remarkable coincidences," one congressional aide told McClatchy.

The newspaper found that White House Drug Czar John Walters made 20 trips paid for by taxpayers to appear with Republican congressional candidates in 2006. Commerce Secretary Don Evans made eight appearances with candidates in swing districts or in key states to announce grants -- appearing on two occasions with Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., who was in a tough contest for re-election.

Read More...

Summary only...

Reagan's adviser Michael Deaver dies

Reagan's adviser Michael Deaver dies

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Michael Deaver, a media strategist who shaped iconic images of President Ronald Reagan only to be convicted of perjury over his later lobbying business, died on Saturday, aged 69.

Deaver had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He died at his home in Bethesda, Maryland, surrounded by family members, said a statement issued by Edelman, the public relations firm he served as a vice chairman.

As deputy chief of staff during Reagan's first term in the White House, Deaver engineered dramatic photo opportunities for the president, including the cliff-top backdrop of his 1984 visit to D-Day invasion beaches in France.

For U.S. television audiences, Reagan, overlooking the English Channel and addressing D-Day veterans, stole the show from allied leaders gathered to mark the 40th anniversary of the Normandy invasion of Europe during World War Two.

Deaver left the White House in 1985 and was convicted two years later of three counts of lying to a grand jury and congressional investigators probing his lobbying activities. He was fined $100,000. His chief defense was a loss of memory because of alcoholism.

Deaver hitched his star to Reagan's after the former Hollywood actor was elected California governor in 1966. He became a close confidant of Reagan and his wife Nancy.

He later joined Reagan for his presidential campaigns in 1968, 1976, 1980 and 1984 and took a particular interest in Reagan's image on TV.

"It's fair to say that I always believed that most people got all their information from television, and so television was the most important part of my job," he said in a 2004 interview with the National Public Radio program "On the Media."

Read More...

Summary only...

What Karl Rove REALLY Had in Mind for a "Permanent Republican Majority"

The Huffington Post
Paul Abrams
What Karl Rove REALLY Had in Mind for a "Permanent Republican Majority"

Most of us, myself included, tend to take our democratic institutions for granted. They were there when we were born. They were there for 200+ years. The idea that the US could somehow no longer be a representative democracy does not resonate at the gut-level, even when events should demonstrate the vulnerability of our system.

Yet, twice in the last 4 decades, the US Constitution has come very close to extinction. Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly, each occurred in the setting of a war begun with a series of lies, and continued beyond the point when everyone knew the ultimate outcome would be unaffected, but was pursued just for the vanity of those in power.

The first was Nixon-Watergate-Vietnam. Barry Werth's excellent book, "31 Days", the story of the first month of the Gerald Ford Administration, is only the latest to indicate that the ONLY barrier to a coup d'etats was crusty, old, conservative Judge Sirica who knew he was being lied to by the Watergate burglars, and was insulted. He imposed the maximum sentence on the burglars, and then one (ex-CIA agent, James McCord) broke because he did not want to go to jail. [Scooter's commuted sentence shows that theyDO learn.] Without Judge Sirica, there would have been no John Dean, no special prosecutor, and no impeachment.

Otherwise, Nixon had his stonewall erected, and spoke prospectively about how he could "crush" the opposition after the '72 election. [Dallek's book, "Nixon and Kissinger", indicates that both realized they could start ending the Vietnam war in 1971, but wanted to wait so it would not impact Nixon's re-election chances---i.e., ~20,000 additional Americans lost their lives for Nixon's re-election]. Absent Sirica's pique, Nixon would have succeeded. Nixon's Gonzales, Attorney General John Mitchell, told the Watergate committee that their abuses were done because: "all we were trying to do is get the President re-elected". The danger to our Republic was not that sentiment, but that the Attorney General of the United States, a legal expert on municipal bonds, actually believed it was a sufficient justification.

What about Karl Rove, a man who had an early career job with Brown & Williamson tobacco company, learning how to sell something that no one, rationally, would buy, and being comfortable knowing that he was helping recruit 5000 children per week to start a life habit of smoking?

Rove's vision for a permanent Republican majority had little to do with winning properly run elections for the simple reason that there IS no Republican majority in free elections, and Rove knows that. To get a Republican majority and make it permanent, therefore, he had to 1) gain power; and 2) destroy the vitality of democratic institutions. He accomplished (1). It did not matter to him whether he used "Republican" policies to do that or not: just consider, Bush's only positive legacy will be the prescription drug law that, while terribly flawed, added an entitlement. True, he also lined pockets of his supporters, and that helped Rove's cause. Bush also tried to gain Latino votes by siding with Ted Kennedy, John McCain and others on immigration reform, while dissing his entire rightwing base.

They pushed the Iraq War in the fall of an election cycle to squeeze Democrats by providing as little time as possible to parry their lies [not that they may have acted differently if given more time], and then invaded Iraq while the inspectors were still doing their work fearing that no WMD might be found. The idea was to have a spectacular display of US military power (if you recall, Afghanistan, according to the greatest Sec'y of Defense in interplanetary history, did not have enough "high quality targets") to develop the popular support so the President could push through his domestic programs and grow executive power. The domestic agenda was to de-link financially people from government, so they would be weak and even easier prey for corporate manipulation.

Even that, however, would have been insufficient, Rove knew it, and had a comprehensive approach to a true takeover. As Judge Sirica showed, and as dictators such as Hitler, Chavez, Khomenei, Saddam, and others knew, the last bastion of democracy is a truly independent judiciary where an individual can take on the entire power of the government. So, Rove et al. planned to destroy that independence by appointing truly pedestrian people, who grew up in the "movement", to interpret the law against individuals, and in favor of the government and big corporations.

Rove's pretentions could not survive increased voter turnout. Hence, the attack against minorities and others who were trying to vote in non-Republican areas, and the firing of US attorneys who, apparently, had not received the memo that the rule of law was, as Attorney General Gonzales called the Geneva Conventions, "quaint". Dragging their feet on voting reform (despite the Baker-Carter Commission Report), and using non-paper trail machines, most made by rightwing Republican CEOs, they wanted to grab a majority where none existed. The districts in the '04 that had voting machines with no paper trail had greater divergences from the exit polls than those with paper trails.

For '08, they are trying to get California to eliminate its winner-take-all approach to divvying up electoral college votes, so that, instead of a Democrat winning 55 votes (about 20% of the total needed to win), might only get 35 and a Republican get 20. They NEVER quit. And, they care nothing about American traditions and the Constitution.

Another arrow in the Rove quiver was the radical rightwing media. Dangerous as it is as a purveyor of hate, of lies masquerading as scientific evidence, and the echo chamber that provides the imprimatur of legitimacy, it was not good enough. Hence, the move to allow more media concentration, fortunately foiled not by what John McCain called the largest outpouring of opposition he had ever seen (hang the people, they will become irrelevant anyhow), but by a judicial system that retained pockets of independence.

Still, that was not enough. Rove paid columnists to plant Administration propaganda, they provided certain "reporters" like Judith Miller unique access to what they called "facts" so they would be published as "scoops", preying on Miller's vanity as an ace reporter. She published the "information" they provided her in the New York Times, and then Administration spokespeople quoted the Times as an impeccable source for their opinions. Rove also went through the government, schooling people on how to use their power to help Republican candidates, a violation of law.

Perhaps the most pathetic, they insisted that any policy statement from the government mention George Bush favorably at least 3-times per page. It triggers visions of the wife of Romanian dictator Ceaucescu, who insisted upon being called "Doctor", and had her name included as co-author on scientific publications whose substance she knew nothing about.

They hired people for loyalty, not competence. In the regulatory agencies, they placed industry people so that not much enforcement would occur. They found young, recent college graduates, from places like Pat Robertson's "Regent University", to take high level positions (e.g., Monica Goodling), so they could guarantee unquestioned obedience to George Bush. People were recruited for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who had absolutely no expertise in anything, but on the basis of their opinions on Roe v. Wade, and how they felt about the Florida recount in 2000. That is how much Bush Rove and Cheney cared about Iraq.

In the meantime, they proceeded mostly in a stealth fashion with increasing claims of executive power, with attacks against opponents of such claims as unpatriotic and endangering the lives our citizens. With a lockstep Republican Congress for 6 years, who were easily lulled by power into abandoning their oaths of office ("supporting the Constitution of the United States"), there was no barrier to encroaching on the balance of power among the branches. As Bush removed more and more of our civil liberties, our Constitution was more and more under attack, and there were fewer effective responses.

(As an aside, for those who believe in a "unitary executive", I pose a single question: does the President believe that he could, if he wished, overrule the Federal Reserve, and set interest rates? That is, can Congress establish an independent agency, without control by the executive, or not? If the answer is the President could overrule, I suggest that today's Dow Jones Industrial average is in the stratosphere compared to what it will be if that answer were confirmed).

To bring this all together, there is the Department of Homeland Security. Note that the Administration resisted making this an actual Department---why? Because Dick Cheney understood that, as a Department, it would have to provide Congress information and testimony for oversight. Imagine what it could do as an "advisor" to the President, operating in complete secrecy. Fortunately, not all rightwingers "got it" at the time, and joined the chorus for creating a Deparment. Even Bush and Cheney could not rebuff that groundswell.

Immediately following World War II, many of the eastern european countries had democracies of sorts. But, the Communist Party, that was part of ruling coalitions, bargained for the internal security portfolios. They used that power to quell opponents, break up meetings, bully voters and voting places, manipulate the media, and paved the road for Communist, totalitarian dictatorships to take control.

Katrina, the Iraq War disaster, pockets of a remaining independent judiciary, the rise of the internet as alternative communications, corruption, and the recognition by the American people that their liberties, and their way of life was at stake, prevented the Rove plan from working.

But, it was close. Webb, Tester and McCaskill won by very small margins in their Senate races, if any had lost, Cheney would be controlling the Senate. [Remember, he is not part of the executive branch, an example of how they are willing to say absolute anything, no matter how preposterous, if they think that it will make the question go away]. Many of the Democrats who beat Republican incumbents won by very small margins; this showed the collective disgust for Bush et al. on the one hand, but the extraordinary power of incumbency on the other.

And, if Katrina had not struck when it did, if the US attorneys had acted in lockstep as had the Republican Congress rather than investigate Republican scandals, I am afraid that I am not confident that the media would have had the spine to reveal the truth about Iraq, or to ask the questions that this Administration assumed would never be raised. Given the small margins of victory, it seems to me more likely than not that Bush would have had a lockstep Republican Congress for his last two years, and Rove would have been able to pursue his multi-faceted attack on democratic institutions.

No, this was no ordinary attempt by a savvy political strategist to win elections by resonating with the majority of the American people. It was a partially executed, and nearly successful, plan to create a permanent majority by weakening to the point of irrelevance all potential challenges to the unaccountable exercise of power.

It is a familiar story, but not an American story.

Read More...

Summary only...

FISA Court Orders Bush-Cheney Administration to Respond to ACLU Requests for Key Rulings

FISA Court Orders Bush-Cheney Administration to Respond to ACLU Requests for Key Rulings

August 17, 2007 (LPAC)--The FISA Court has told the Bush-Cheney Administration that it must respond to a request for the key legal opinions which provide the backdrop to the White House's demand that Congress give it expanded wiretapping power.

The court is requiring the government to respond to a motion filed ten days ago by the ACLU, asking for two of the court's rulings in particular. The first is a January 10, 2007 order which apparently permitted the program which the White House calls the "Terrorist Surveillance Program'' to come under court supervision -- although apparently in a more limited manner than the way the original program directed by Vice President Dick Cheney operated -- which LPAC and EIR believe involved the "data-mining'' of information obtained by tapping into the major telecommunications hubs.

The second is a ruling, apparently around March of this year, which reportedly held that the government could not tap any communications passing through communications hubs inside the United States, without a court order. That ruling was used as the pretext by the White House to demand the power to monitor almost any telephone call which may involve a party overseas, not limited to terrorist suspects.

"Disclosure of these court orders and legal papers is essential to the ongoing debate about government surveillance,'' said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "We desperately need greater transparency and public scrutiny. We're extremely encouraged by today's development because it means that, at long last, the government will be required to defend its contention that the orders should not be released.''

The court ordered the government to respond by August 31.

Read More...

Summary only...

Edwards divesting lenders targeting Katrina victims

Edwards divesting lenders targeting Katrina victims

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said on Friday he plans to divest from his personal fortune any money tied to lenders who are trying to foreclose on the homes of Hurricane Katrina victims.

Edwards, who formally launched his campaign last year in a storm-battered section of New Orleans, was taking the action after The Wall Street Journal reported he held investments in lending units of the hedge fund Fortress Investment Group LLC.

Edwards, who earned a fortune as a trial lawyer, worked for Fortress as an adviser after he lost his vice presidential campaign in the 2004 election.

His campaign said he would also take unspecified steps to help those individuals who are facing foreclosure by Fortress' units.

Edwards, whom polls show running in third place behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic nomination ahead of the November 2008 election, has made a campaign issue of the swooning mortgage market. He has said he would end predatory lending practices and protect home owners.

Edwards was paid $479,512 in 2006 for consulting work for Fortress and had $16 million invested with the firm.

His campaign said Edwards would divest any holdings tied to lenders trying to foreclose on victims of the devastating August 2005 hurricane, but gave no specific figure.

An Edwards spokesman, Eric Schultz, said while some subprime lending is a valuable alternative for families with poor credit histories, some mortgages carry predatory terms.

"The distinction is sometime difficult to make, but John Edwards believes that nobody in New Orleans should lose their home because of Hurricane Katrina," Schultz said.

Read More...

Summary only...

White House's Snow to leave before Bush term ends

White House's Snow to leave before Bush term ends

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House spokesman Tony Snow plans to leave his job before U.S. President George W. Bush's term ends in January 2009, citing financial reasons rather than his recurrence of colon cancer.

In a radio interview this week, Snow, 52, did not reveal when he would leave. Snow earlier this year suffered a return of colon cancer and has been receiving chemotherapy.

But he said his reasons for leaving would be financial. He took a pay cut to leave Fox News.

"I've already made it clear I'm not going to be able to go the distance, but that's primarily for financial reasons," Snow said on conservative radio program "The Hugh Hewitt Show."

"I've told people when my money runs out, then I've got to go."

Snow joined the White House last year to become the voice of the administration, which was under fire for its handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In March, Snow learned his cancer had returned and underwent surgery to have a small growth removed. Doctors also found a tumor attached to his liver and he has since been undergoing treatment.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, asked about Snow's comments, said on Friday he did not know whether Snow had formally submitted his resignation.

Two years ago Snow fought through colon cancer, the same disease that killed his mother.

His leaving would be yet another significant departure from the Bush camp. Chief political adviser Karl Rove this week announced his resignation from the end of August.

Read More...

Summary only...

Army suicides highest in 26 years

Yahoo! News
Army suicides highest in 26 years
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer

Army soldiers committed suicide last year at the highest rate in 26 years, and more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new military report.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its scheduled release Thursday, found there were 99 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers during 2006, up from 88 the previous year and the highest since the 102 suicides in 1991.

"Iraq was the most common deployment location for both (suicides) and attempts," the report said.

The 99 suicides included 28 soldiers deployed to the two wars and 71 who weren't. About twice as many women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide as did women not sent to war, the report said.

Preliminary numbers for the first half of this year indicate the number of suicides could decline across the service in 2007 but increase among troops serving in the wars, officials said.

The increases for 2006 came as Army officials worked to set up a number of new and stronger programs for providing mental health care to a force strained by the longer-than-expected war in Iraq and the global counterterrorism war entering its sixth year.

Failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems and the stress of their jobs were factors motivating the soldiers to commit suicide, according to the report.

"In addition, there was a significant relationship between suicide attempts and number of days deployed" in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby countries where troops are participating in the war effort, it said. The same pattern seemed to hold true for those who not only attempted, but succeeded in killing themselves.

There also "was limited evidence to support the view that multiple ... deployments are a risk factor for suicide behaviors," it said.

About a quarter of those who killed themselves had a history of at least one psychiatric disorder. Of those, about 20 percent had been diagnosed with a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder and/or depression; and 8 percent had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, including post traumatic stress disorder — one of the signature injuries of the conflict in Iraq.

Firearms were the most common method of suicide. Those who attempted suicide but didn't succeed tended more often to take overdoses and cut themselves.

In a service of more than a half million troop, the 99 suicides amounted to a rate of 17.3 per 100,000 — the highest in the past 26 years, the report said. The average rate over those years has been 12.3 per 100,000.

The rate for those serving in the wars stayed about the same, 19.4 per 100,000 in 2006, compared with 19.9 in 2005.

The Army said the information was compiled from reports collected as part of its suicide prevention program — reports required for all "suicide-related behaviors that result in death, hospitalization or evacuation" of the soldier. It can take considerable time to investigate a suicide and, in fact, the Army said that in addition to the 99 confirmed suicides last year, there are two other deaths suspected as suicides in which investigations were pending.

___

Associated Press reporter Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report from Washington.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

Read More...

Summary only...

The Surge's Short Shelf Life

Yahoo! News
The Surge's Short Shelf Life
By BOBBY GHOSH

Hospital officials in northwestern Iraq have told TIME that the death toll from Tuesday's blasts in Qahataniya may exceed 300, making the multiple suicide bombings the deadliest terrorist operation in the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein. One hospital is saying that there are at least 500 bodies and that 375 people are injured. That report, however, cannot yet be verified. The only previous occasion when the toll from concerted attacks has exceeded 200 was last November, when six car-bombs in Baghdad's Sadr City killed 215 people. If the toll in the Qataniya incident grows, it could become the worst terrorist incident since al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001 attack on the U.S. (The Beslan massacre in Russia in September 2004 came to approximately 330, about half of the total children).

Since then, the massive "surge" of U.S. and Iraqi troops in and around Baghdad has made the Iraqi capital safer than before from such bombings - but terrorist groups have stepped up attacks elsewhere. There have been a number of attacks in northern Iraq, which had enjoyed a long spell of peace before the start of the "surge."

Tuesday's bombings were also a reminder that even successful U.S. military operations can have a short shelf life - a sobering thought for Bush Administration officials and independent analysts who have recently been talking up the successes of the "surge." After all, the area around Qahataniya was the scene of a major anti-insurgent operation barely two years ago. In the fall of 2005, some 8,000 American and Iraqi troops flushed a terrorist group out of the nearby town of Tal Afar in an operation that was a precursor to the "clear, hold and build" strategy that underpins the current "surge." A few months later, President Bush cited Tal Afar as a success story for the U.S. enterprise in Iraq.

There have been several attacks in and around Tal Afar since then; last March, two truck bombs killed more than 100 people in a Shi'ite neighborhood in the town. The bombings in Qahataniya were a deadly reminder that the terrorists have not gone very far away.

The U.S. military said al-Qaeda was the prime suspect; some Iraqi government officials fingered Ansar al-Sunnah, which has links to al-Qaeda and has long been active in northern Iraq. Early reports suggest the majority of the victims were Yazidis, a pre-Islamic sect in Syria and northern Iraq.

Throughout history, Yazidis have faced persecution because an archangel they worship as a representative of God is often identified by Muslims (and some Christians) as Satan. Branded as devil worshipers, they are detested by extremists on both sides of Iraq's sectarian divide.

The Yazidis have their own extremists: earlier this year, members of the community stoned to death a young woman they accused of converting to Sunni Islam to marry her lover. A widely distributed video of the stoning inflamed Sunni sentiments; in retaliation, insurgents executed 23 Yazidi factory workers near Mosul. With reporting by Andrew Lee Butters

View this article on Time.com

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama says Bush not solely to blame

Yahoo! News
Obama says Bush not solely to blame
By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer

Not all the nation's ills can be blamed on President Bush, Democratic candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday as he called on Americans to change the nature of politics and institute more openness in government.

"Part of the problem here is not just George Bush and the White House," Obama told a crowd of hundreds gathered at a park in Cedar Falls. "We can't just change political parties and continue to do the same kind of things we've been doing. We can't just go about business as usual and think it's going to turn out differently."

Obama, a senator from Illinois, said average Americans must be brought back to the table when dealing with every issue, from health care to education to trade.

"We've got to make sure workers are represented, not just CEOs. We've got to make sure patients are represented and the nurses are represented, not just drug companies," he said.

To make the government more accountable, Obama said he would post all non-emergency bills online for five days before he signed them into law, allowing Americans a chance to weigh in on the legislation. In addition, he said he would post all meetings between lobbyists and government agencies online.

Obama said he would require Cabinet officials to speak to Americans via national broadband town-hall style meetings to discuss issues at their agencies. He also pledged to issue an executive order that information about the government's operations must be released to those seeking it unless it could harm a protected interest.

Obama cited his record of backing ethics and lobbying reforms, including co-authoring a bill that requires all government spending to be posted online — allowing anyone to do a simple Internet search and find that information. He said that during his time as a state lawmaker he helped to create hospital report cards so that patients could understand the quality of care offered at each hospital.

___

On the Net:

Obama '08: http://www.barackobama.com/

Read More...

Summary only...

Tragic Wordplay" and the Right to Life

The Huffington Post
Adam Freedman
Tragic Wordplay" and the Right to Life

Until a few days ago, terminally ill patients had a constitutional right to access potentially life saving drugs - even if those drugs have not yet been approved by the FDA.

On Tuesday (August 7), in the case of Abigail Alliance v. Eschenbach, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held that no such right exists, reversing last year's decision in the Abigail case by - the DC Circuit. In other words, the court reversed itself. Ooops.

The issue is clearly one of life and death, but in the courts it came down to a battle of semantics.

The FDA says that you cannot acquire prescription medications without the FDA's say-so, even if you are dying and, presumably, have nothing to lose. Courts review this sort of administrative action, but they tend to defer to the executive branch - unless they find that a "fundamental right" is threatened.

The first panel of the DC Circuit found that the FDA's actions (in denying drugs to terminally-ill patients) interfered with the "right to life," which implicitly includes the right to preserve one's life through medication. Stated this way, the right is "fundamental" because it is - as constitutional jurisprudence requires - "deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions." So in the first Abigail decision, the DC Circuit held that the FDA could not justify its meddling with this fundamental right.

But in the second Abigail holding, the DC Circuit described the contested right differently: "the right to access experimental and unproven drugs in an attempt to save one's life." Stated in these terms, the right hardly seems fundamental - indeed, the court's words conjure up the image of some deluded sicko grasping for the nearest bottle of snake oil. So much for respect for the terminally ill.

In any event, the DC Circuit has now decided that this right is not fundamental. After all, since the FDA has only been around for a few decades, the "right" to circumvent its rules can hardly be "deeply rooted" in our history.

The dissent assailed the majority's reasoning as "tragic wordplay" and Roger Pilon, writing in the Wall Street Journal lambasted the decision as "linguistic legerdemain." The critics are correct. The right at stake in Abigail is not the right to circumvent FDA rules - to describe it so gets the issues exactly backward. For centuries before the FDA existed, a dying man or woman had the right to take whatever medication they thought might save them. It is the FDA's interference with that "deeply rooted" right that requires strict scrutiny by the courts.

This issues doesn't neatly divide into liberal vs. conservative, as Pilon (a civil libertarian) notes. In finding a "right to life" that includes a right to self-medicate, the DC Circuit's first panel searched in the penumbra (shadows) of certain other rights - the judicial technique made famous by Roe v. Wade and abhorred by conservatives (even though the opinion in the first Abigail decision included conservative judge Douglas Ginsburg). The DC Circuit's later opinion, describing the right more narrowly was supported by liberal judges who wish to protect the modern regulatory state from judicial activism which - hey! - suddenly doesn't look so great.

The Abigail story may not be over yet. The Supreme Court has a chance to review the DC Circuit's decision. Let's hope they do - and let's hope they're in no mood for word games.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kent Man Faces Fine For 'Impeach Bush' Sign

NewsNet5.com
Kent Man Faces Fine For 'Impeach Bush' Sign

KENT, Ohio -- A northeast Ohio man is in trouble for displaying his thoughts on President George W. Bush.

The Kent homeowner wants the president impeached, but how he voiced that opinion could cost him $125 and possible hundreds more, reported NewsChannel5's Pete Kenworthy.

"I was charged with advertising on public property, a violation of Kent city ordinance 503.02," said Kevin Egler.

Egler maintains that the ordinance doesn't cover what he did, placing a sign saying "Impeach Bush" on public property.

While the sign was on city land, he claims that so are many other signs around Kent, some of which are advertising that allows businesses to benefit -- a direct violation of the ordinance.

"Everything from a lost kitten sign put on a telephone pole to military recruitment posters on poles to signs similar to mine that said 'House for sale, this direction,'" he said.

Egler's attorney, who is handling the case pro bono, agrees.

"What police don't have a right to do is selectively enforce the law. Military recruiters can place signs, garage sales, Realtors, but if someone doesn't like the president, you arrest them and treat them like a criminal. That's not what the United States is about," said attorney Bob Fitrakis.

He said, "In this case, all the officer had to do is treat him like they admit they treat mainstream political candidates and just say, 'Hey, remove the sign.' But the fact that you would criminalize this case, I think is an attempt to suppress free speech."

The prosecution decided to drop the charges but the Kent law director implied he would re-file under a littering charge.

Now, instead of a possible $125 fine, he faces a fine of up to $500.

No date has been set for the next hearing.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush War Adviser Says Draft Worth a Look

truthout.org
Rep. Schakowsky: Petraeus Hints at Decade-Long Iraq Presence •
Bush War Adviser Says Draft Worth a Look
The Associated Press

Washington - Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

"The president's position is that the all volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft. General Lute made that point as well," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

In the interview, Lute also said that "Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well."

Still, he said the repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military.

"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."

The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re- established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.

Read More...

Summary only...

New York City maintains "radiological threat" alert

New York City maintains "radiological threat" alert
By Chris Michaud

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Police manned checkpoints and set up radiological monitoring equipment in Manhattan and the city's other boroughs over the weekend in response to unverified threats by al Qaeda on the Internet of dirty bomb attacks.

The moves stemmed from an "unverified radiological threat," a police department statement said, adding that the city's alert status remained at "orange" and stressing the increased security was precautionary.

The checkpoints went up Friday night and continued on Saturday at transit points into and out of Manhattan including the Holland tunnel, which connects lower Manhattan with New Jersey.

Police had initially said the increased security was in response to threats of a dirty bomb attack on Friday evening near 34th street, where the Empire State Building, Madison Square Garden, Penn Station and Macy's draw tourists and commuters.

But Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne clarified on Saturday the information the department received was not specific to that neighborhood.

Uniformed police officers lined the streets by the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, scanning passing vehicles and questioning some drivers, most of whom seemed to find their presence reassuring.

"I'm glad to see them here," said one man behind the wheel of a van. "It means they're aware of any dangers and are doing something about it."

"These actions are like those that the NYPD takes every day, precautions against potential but unconfirmed threats that may never materialize," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement, stressing the reality of life since the September 11 attacks,

Authorities were responding to Internet chatter reported on Israeli Web site www.debka.com, which reported a rush of chatter on al Qaeda sites in recent days, including one saying there would be an attack "by means of trucks loaded with radioactive material against America's biggest city and financial nerve center."

Another mentioned New York, Los Angeles and Miami as targets, the Jerusalem-based DEBKAfile Internet news site reported.

In response, police stepped up use of radiological sensors to monitor the streets, water and air throughout the city with the help of boats and helicopters.

New Yorkers, accustomed to life under "code orange" -- the second-highest such level, below red -- mostly shrugged off any possible danger.

"It really seems like a lot of fuss about nothing much," said Paul Machado, who was walking near the Holland Tunnel after having had brunch with friends in Tribeca. "They've (the police and media reports) said the threat was unsubstantiated so no, I'm not concerned at all."

Carrie Cuiccio sounded a somewhat skeptical note as she made her way toward the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel into Manhattan, which was restricted to one traffic lane and was closed to all trucks.

"I can't really see how the action they're taking would really prevent anything," she said.

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security in Washington had also said the threat to New York was "unsubstantiated," and there was "no credible information telling us there is an imminent threat to the homeland at this time."

Read More...

Summary only...

Edwards attacks Giuliani over Sept 11 comment

Edwards attacks Giuliani over Sept 11 comment
By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani came under attack on Friday from Democratic rival John Edwards for saying he spent as much time if not more at the site of New York's destroyed World Trade Center than rescue workers.

The clash highlighted the continued importance of the September 11 attacks to U.S. presidential politics as Giuliani tries to use his record as former New York City mayor to help him get into the White House.

The group 9-11 Families, which represents some of those rescue workers, demanded an apology, saying, "Rudy Giuliani has insulted all September 11 first responders, family groups and especially those of us who are battling life-threatening illnesses with his delusional statement."

In a visit to Cincinnati on Thursday, Giuliani told reporters that no one did more for firefighters killed in the attacks and their families than he did and that he raised millions on their behalf.

"Every single penny of the $227 million went to the families," Giuliani said. "This is not a mayor or governor or president who was sitting in an ivory tower."

"I was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers," he said.

The Edwards campaign issued a statement from its national chairman, former Michigan Democratic Rep. David Bonior, who said, "Evidently, Rudy Giuliani has taken a break from reality."

"It is outrageous for Giuliani to suggest, in any way, shape or form that he did more at Ground Zero or spent more time there than the brave first responders who worked tirelessly around the clock for many months during the rescue and recovery operation," Bonior said.

Thousands of rescue workers who combed through the debris of the collapsed World Trade Center towers have developed health problems from breathing in the dust and fumes from the buildings.

Giuliani admitted on Friday in an interview with talk radio host Mike Gallagher, "I probably could have said it better."

"What I was trying to say yesterday is that I empathize with them because I feel like I have that same risk," Giuliani said.

He said he was not suggesting he was competing with the rescuers, while admitting it came across that way.

"Gosh almighty, I was there often enough, even though they were there, people there more and people there less, but I was there often enough so that every health consequence that people have suffered, I could also be suffering," he said.

Giuliani's communications director, Katie Levinson, lashed out at the Edwards camp for its attack.

"For John Edwards to lecture Rudy Giuliani about September 11 is laughable at best. This is, after all, the same guy who thinks the 'war on terror' is simply a bumper sticker," she said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Romney wins Iowa Republican straw poll

Romney wins Iowa Republican straw poll
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

AMES, Iowa (Reuters) - Republican Mitt Romney won the first test of the 2008 White House race on Saturday, using a big wallet and broad organization to muscle aside a field of lesser-known rivals in an informal Iowa straw poll.

Romney won 31 percent of the votes cast in the nonbinding mock election, a traditional early gauge of support in the state that holds the first nominating contest leading up to the November 2008 election.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee finished second with 18 percent of the 14,302 votes cast -- a smaller turnout than the approximately 24,000 who voted in the last straw poll in 1999.

Romney was a heavy favorite after the other top three national Republican candidates -- former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson -- skipped the poll to save money. Their names remained on the ballot.

In their absence a half-dozen second-tier candidates battled for the chance to finish second and perhaps vault into contention, and Huckabee won that contest by appealing to Iowa's large bloc of social conservatives.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback finished third with 15 percent, and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo finished fourth with 13.7 percent in the poll, which could force some of the weaker candidates out of the race and give the winner at least a temporary shot of momentum.

The area around the Iowa State University basketball arena, where the poll was held, turned into a political carnival for the day-long voting, with campaigns erecting tents and play areas for kids and enticing supporters with free food and entertainment.

"We're going to send a message to the entire nation that we want to see a Washington that can actually get the job done," Romney told supporters, many wearing yellow "Team Mitt" T-shirts.

POLITICAL MUSCLE

Romney, who leads opinion polls in Iowa and is one of the top fundraisers in the Republican field, showed his financial and organizational muscle during the poll.

His campaign area was the most elaborate and included a rock climbing wall, play areas for kids and a vast tent for shade from the brutally hot sun. Buses carrying Romney supporters from around the state rolled into the poll grounds all morning.

Any Iowa resident at least 18 years old and with a valid ID, regardless of party, could vote in the poll, which was a fundraiser for the Iowa Republican Party.

A ticket cost $35, and campaigns paid the bill for as many supporters as they could afford. Romney's rivals said they could not compete with his ability to spend millions to win the poll.

"I'm not the best-funded candidate in America. I can't buy you, I don't have the money," former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told the Ames crowd. "I can't even rent you."

The results were delayed more than an hour after officials had to recount about 1,500 ballots on one malfunctioning machine, a party spokeswoman said.

Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo had battled Romney for conservative support in Iowa over the last few weeks, questioning Romney's recent emergence as an opponent of abortion rights.

"The people of Iowa know that elections and the future of our country are based on principles, not on personalities," Brownback said.

For the biggest losers, the poll often means a quick exit. In 1999, four Republicans dropped out of the race within weeks of losing the straw poll to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush as he started his road to the White House.

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson finished sixth after saying anything less than a top two finish would end his campaign. Several other candidates faced similar decisions.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. withdrawal needed for security, Iran tells Iraq

Reuters
U.S. withdrawal needed for security, Iran tells Iraq
By Fredrik Dahl

TEHRAN (Reuters) - An end to violence in Iraq depends on the United States withdrawing its troops, Iran told Iraq's prime minister on Thursday, seeking to deflect accusations from Washington that it is responsible for bloodshed there.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, facing deepening political woes at home and U.S. criticism for lack of progress in bridging sectarian divisions, won pledges of support from Shi'ite Iran during a visit to the neighboring country.

With Shi'ite Muslims now also in power in Baghdad, ties have strengthened between the two oil-rich states since 2003, when U.S.-led forces toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab who waged an eight-year war against Iran in the 1980s.

But the U.S. military accuses the Islamic Republic of arming and training militias behind some of the violence ravaging Iraq. Iran rejects the charge and blames the presence of U.S. forces, numbering about 162,000, for the mayhem.

"Iran fully backs Iraq's popular government... Iraq's biggest problem is the presence of American forces there," Iran's most powerful figure, Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted as telling Maliki in the holy city of Mashhad by the official IRNA news agency.

Khamenei said the Washington wanted to maintain a "puppet government" in Baghdad and called on U.S. forces to withdraw.

"The occupying forces should leave Iraq and let the Iraqis decide about their own faith," he said.

Baghdad has urged both Iran and the United States to negotiate and not fight out their differences on Iraqi soil.

TALKS "SUCCESSFUL"

Maliki described his talks in Iran as "successful", his office said in a statement issued in Baghdad.

Iranian media said the two sides had planned to sign security agreements, but few details were released about any concrete results apart from Iranian promises to help provide fuel to Iraq during the winter and with building a refinery.

Tehran and Baghdad are expected to agree a deal soon on a pipeline to transfer crude to refineries in Iran from oilfields in Iraq, whose oil industry has suffered major damage during decades of sanctions and war, Iranian media reports said.

Maliki, who also met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other senior officials, is facing mounting pressure to secure a power-sharing deal among Iraq's warring sects before a U.S. report in September on strategy in Iraq.

But his government is in crisis, with almost half the cabinet ministers quitting or boycotting meetings, and the death toll from sectarian killings is steadily climbing.

"The terrorists want to take control ... but with God's help we foil all their plots," Maliki said.

The visit came after Iraqi, Iranian and U.S. officials on Monday held the first meeting of a committee aimed at improving cooperation on stabilizing Iraq.

It was set up after landmark meetings in Baghdad in May and July between Washington and Tehran, their most high-profile face-to-face dialogue since diplomatic ties were cut shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.

Analysts say the two old foes, despite their mutual accusations, have a shared interest in ending the violence in Iraq. Iran wants a friendly government running a stable country while a secure Iraq would enable the United States to pull out.

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Tehran and Mariam Karouny in Baghdad)

Read More...

Summary only...

Minorities Now Form Majority in One-Third of Most-Populous Counties

The New York Times
Minorities Now Form Majority in One-Third of Most-Populous Counties
By SAM ROBERTS

In a further sign of the United States’ growing diversity, nonwhites now make up a majority in almost one-third of the most-populous counties in the country and in nearly one in 10 of all 3,100 counties, according to an analysis of census results to be released today.

The shift reflects the growing dispersal of immigrants and the suburbanization of blacks and Hispanics pursuing jobs generated by whites moving to the fringes of metropolitan areas.

From July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006, metropolitan Chicago edged out Honolulu in Asian population, and Washington inched ahead of El Paso in the number of Hispanic residents. In black population, Houston overtook Los Angeles.

“The new wave of immigration, along with its continued dispersal to the suburbs and Sun Belt, is transforming the places which are now being classified as multiethnic and majority minority,” said William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution.

“The new melting pots are not large international gateways,” Professor Frey said, adding, “Rather, many are fast-growing suburbs themselves.”

In 36 counties with more than 500,000 residents each, non-Hispanic whites are now a minority, up from 29 counties of that size in 2000.

From 2005 to 2006 alone, eight other mostly less-populous counties shifted to a majority of minorities, the Census Bureau said. They were Denver, Colo.; East Baton Rouge Parish, La.; Winkler, Waller and Wharton in Texas; Blaine, Mont.; Colfax, N.M.; and Manassas Park, Va., an independent city that is considered the equivalent of a county.

In a new study for the Population Reference Bureau, Mark Mather and Kelvin Pollard found that Hispanic people were increasingly attracted to job opportunities and lower costs outside major metropolitan areas.

“Between 2000 and 2006, the total population in small towns and rural areas increased by 3 percent, but the Hispanic population in these counties grew from 2.6 million to 3.2 million, a 22 percent increase,” the authors of the study wrote.

So far this decade, they added, “there are also new areas of growth, including exurban counties in the Atlanta, Chicago, New York, and Washington, D.C., metropolitan areas, plus parts of Texas, central Florida, and a few other states.”

Since 2000, the Hispanic population more than doubled in metropolitan Winchester, Va.; Scranton, Pa.; Cape Coral, Fla.; and Hagerstown, Md.. The largest numerical increases were in metropolitan Los Angeles (576,630); Riverside, Calif., (545,152); Dallas (472,222); Houston (470,157); and New York (418,720).

Black populations declined in metropolitan New Orleans, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and New York. The biggest numerical gains were in Atlanta (370,470), Houston (142,364), Dallas (130,367), Miami (126,819) and Washington (114,915).

The growth in Atlanta, Houston and Dallas was attributed in part to survivors of Hurricane Katrina moving to those cities. The highest growth rates among Asian populations were in metropolitan Napa, Calif., and Ocala, Naples, Cape Coral and Port St. Lucie, Fla. The greatest numerical increases were in New York (309,773), Los Angeles (216,987), Washington (105,390), San Francisco (103,073) and Chicago (93,237).

Metropolitan Phoenix; Atlanta; Dallas; Houston; Las Vegas; Austin, Tex.; Charlotte; Portland, Ore.; and Raleigh, N.C., each recorded gains in non-Hispanic whites of more than 100,000 since 2000. The largest losses were registered by metropolitan New York (248,422), Los Angeles (193,109), San Francisco (127,151) and New Orleans (111,162).

Harris County, Tex., home to Houston, gained 121,400 minority residents from 2005 to 2006, the most of any county. Sixty-three percent of its residents were members of minorities.

Maricopa County, Ariz., home to Phoenix, recorded the biggest numerical increase in Hispanic residents (71,000) and also the biggest increase in non-Hispanic whites (35,500).

Harris County and East Baton Rouge Parish registered the biggest increases in black residents, 52,000 and 19,000, respectively.

Read More...

Summary only...

The `Dump Cheney' Countdown Is On

Executive Intelligence Review
The `Dump Cheney' Countdown Is On
by Jeffrey Steinberg

In the immediate aftermath of Lyndon LaRouche's July 25 webcast from Washington, D.C., momentum has grown for the removal of Vice President Dick Cheney from office—before the Guns of August are fired. In his remarks, LaRouche directly addressed members of the U.S. Congress:

"This is the month of August; it's the anniversary of August 1914. It's the anniversary of August 1939. The condition now is worse, objectively, than either of those two occasions. Either we can make a fundamental change in the policies of the United States government now, or you may be kissing civilization good-bye for some time to come. That's the reality. Anyone who thinks differently is either just an incompetent, or an idiot, or a raving lunatic: That's reality. Are you prepared to act now? If you're not prepared to act, please leave the House of Representatives. If you're not prepared to act, please leave the Senate; and above all, leave the Federal government, in terms of the key officials, because you'll only make a mess of things. It'll be worse with you there, than if you simply got out, and left it to a minority to solve the problem."

LaRouche then got to the heart of the issue: "There are two things that must be done. Let's start with the simplest thing, which is on the table now: Remember, impeachment is in the background, but impeachment is not the issue. The issue is getting Cheney out. You get Cheney out, now, and the situation can be manageable. If you do not get Cheney out, you're kissing civilization good-bye. If it survives, it's not to your credit. And any Congressman who says he's not going to get Cheney out now, should leave the premises now, as a final act of decency. If Nancy Pelosi and others—if they can't get Cheney out now, if they're not determined to do it now, this month, before they leave Washington, they should quit now! Submit their resignations, and let somebody who's more competent come in, because it has to happen. Cheney has to go."

Cheney's War

Extremely well-placed U.S. military and intelligence sources have re-emphasized to EIR that all of the preconditions for a U.S. preventive attack on Iran have been met. Over half of the U.S. Navy's combat force is now in the immediate vicinity of Iran, with two U.S. aircraft carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, and two more in the Indian Ocean, ostensibly as part of five-nation manuevers scheduled for September in the Bay of Bengal. U.S. and Arab military sources report on a massive buildup of U.S. Air Force bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The buildup of naval and air power, contrary to some news accounts, is not directed at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, where Taliban and al-Qaeda forces have established a serious base once again. Pentagon sources confirm that the target of these awesome military assets is Iran.

The reason for the buildup in Iraq and Afghanistan is that no Arab state is willing to allow U.S. basing or overflight rights, for an attack on Iran, thus rendering U.S. air bases and naval ports in such countries as Bahrain, Oman, and Qatar useless. Turkey, likewise, is not about to allow the U.S. to launch attacks on Iranian targets from air bases in Turkey. In fact, Turkey and Iran are working together, behind the scenes, against the PKK, the Kurdish insurgent group promoting an independent "Kurdistan" to be carved out of the territories of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

As one retired flag officer reported, no such costly buildup of military force is undertaken unless there is a clear plan to go to war—soon. And Cheney's unmistakable target is Iran.

Since the June 2007 deployment of Gen. Kevin Bergner to Baghdad, as the designated Cheney/Elliott Abrams "stovepipe" for a steady stream of anti-Iran propaganda into the White House and the press, the Administration has shifted its focus away from the scare stories about Iran being "months away" from having a nuclear bomb, to inflated allegations that Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq that is killing American soldiers, and preventing the "surge" from succeeding. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and other top military brass are reportedly seething over the Bergner-Abrams-Cheney agitprop efforts.

And it now appears that there are even counter-moves coming out of the Executive branch. According to U.S. intelligence community sources, White House officials have recently leaked a series of news stories, revealing that the biggest "foreign" factor in the Iraqi insurgency is not Iran, or Syria, but Saudi Arabia, which accounts for 40% of the foreign fighters now in jail in Iraq, and an even higher percentage of the suicide bombers. In comparison, according to several recent news accounts, originated at the White House, only 1% of the insurgents captured in Iraq are Iranians, and under 10% are Syrians. These stories certainly angered the Vice President and Abrams, the National Security Council Middle East chief and a rabid neo-con.

On July 26, Helene Cooper penned a story for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune, that reported on "U.S. frustration with Saudis over Iraq." "Bush administration officials," Cooper wrote, "are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia's counterproductive role in the Iraq war." The unnamed officials charged that the Saudis are providing arms and money to Sunni insurgents, many of whom are Salafi fundamentalists, to wage war against the al-Maliki government in Baghdad, which the Saudis view as an Iranian puppet regime. Edward W. Gnehm, a former U.S. ambassador to Kuwait and Jordan, reported to Cooper that the Saudis have been soliciting funds from other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to arm Sunni rebels in Iraq's Anbar province, and other Sunni-controlled areas of the country.

What the Times story neglected to report is that the "Sunni versus Shi'ite" scheme which the Saudis have been pursuing with great passion, was promoted by top Bush Administration officials—beginning with Cheney—since late 2006, undoubtedly under the advice of British Arab Bureau spook, and top Cheney advisor Dr. Bernard Lewis. In October 2006, White House counterterrorism and homeland security advisor Frances Townsend traveled to Riyadh to meet with King Abdullah and his Cabinet, to discuss the growing threat from Iran. A month later, Cheney made his now infamous trip to Saudi Arabia, to promote the idea of a Sunni security alliance to combat Iran. According to U.S. intelligence sources, the Cheney trip unleashed a process that has now veered out of Washington's control, and is causing significant ruptures between the U.S.A. and the Saudis over the future of Iraq.

As the result of the Saudi promotion of the Salafi tribal insurgency inside parts of Iraq, there is growing concern among some senior U.S. military and Administration officials that a major eruption of Sunni versus Shi'ite violence in Iraq could spill over into a larger regional confrontation. It is here where the consequences of allowing Dick Cheney to stay on the job take on catastrophic proportions.
Does Congress Have the Guts To Impeach?

At a recent speaking engagement in California, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced that if three more members of Congress signed on to Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-Ohio) H.R. 333 bill to impeach Cheney, he would begin committee proceedings—despite opposition from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). On July 25, Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) added his name to H.R. 333, bringing the number down to two.

At the close of the LaRouche webcast that day, LaRouche spokesperson Debra Freeman vowed that the remaining two signators would be added before the Congressional recess—through a non-stop mobilization of the LaRouche Youth Movement, and other LaRouche activists. At least six other members of Congress indicated that they were about to sign on to the Kucinich bill in the days following the webcast.

As LaRouche emphasized on July 25, impeachment is but one means of forcing Cheney's immediate ouster—which is the only serious war-avoidance option. Other Congressional actions, already underway, could also accelerate Cheney's departure, according to well-placed Washington sources. One crucial initiative was announced on July 26 by four Democratic Senators, who wrote to U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, demanding the appointment of an independent counsel to probe whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress about the firing of U.S. Attorneys and the government's warrantless domestic spying programs.

The sources emphasize that Gonzales is the last remaining "firewall" between the President, the Vice President, and impeachment. The letter to the Solicitor General was sent by Democratic Senators Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Russell Feingold (Wisc.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). Were Gonzales to go, the sources insisted, Bush might be far more inclined to throw Cheney overboard, rather than face his own then-imminent impeachment.

In the aftermath of the July 25 webcast, LaRouche emphasized that, given the current countdown for war, Congress cannot leave town for the month of August—without running the risk that Cheney will prevail on Bush to order a preventive attack on Iran. At minimum, a group of key House and Senate leaders must remain on the job, and should maintain close liaison with the top military brass, who could call on Congress, at any moment, to step in under the Constitution and the War Powers Act, to prevent an out-of-control White House from launching another preventive war in the Persian Gulf—one that historians would write about in decades to come as the opening shots of the next world war.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush may veto bill to expand child insurance

The Guardian
Bush may veto bill to expand child insurance

THE White House said last weekend that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the children's health insurance programme drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee.

The vow puts Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular programme to cover some of the nation's eight million un-insured children.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman said: "The president's senior advisers will certainly recommend a veto of this proposal. And there is no question that the President would veto it."

The programme, which insured 7.4 million people at some time in the last year, is set to expire September 30.

The finance committee is expected to approve the Senate plan next week, sending it to the full Senate for action later this month. Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat, who is chairman of the committee, said he would move ahead despite the veto threat. "The Senate will not be deterred from helping more kids in need," Baucus said. "The president should stop playing politics and start working with Congress to help kids, through renewal of this programme."

The proposal would increase current levels of spending by $35 billion over the next five years, bringing the total to $60 billion. The Congressional Budget Office says the plan would reduce the number of uninsured children by 4.1 million.

The new spending would be financed by an increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco products. The tax on cigarettes would rise to $1 a pack, from the current 39 cents.

Fratto, the White House spokesman, said, "Tax increases are neither necessary nor advisable to fund the programme appropriately."

Democrats in the House would go much further than the bipartisan Senate plan. They would add $50 billion to the programme over five years, bringing the total to $75 billion. By contrast, in his latest budget request, Bush proposed an increase of $5 billion over five years, which would bring the total to $30 billion.

White House officials said the president had several other reasons to veto the bipartisan Senate plan.

"The proposal would dramatically expand the children's health insurance programme, adding non-poor children to the programme, and more than doubling the level of spending," Fratto said. "This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government - subsidised programme."

In addition, Fratto said, the Senate plan does not include any of Bush's proposals to change the tax treatment of health insurance, in an effort to make it more affordable for millions of Americans.

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the finance committee, said he would like to consider such tax proposal. But, he said, "it's not realistic - given the lack of bipartisan support for the president's plan - to think that can be accomplished before the current children's health care programme runs out in September."

Read More...

Summary only...