Wednesday, April 06, 2005

The Judges Made Them Do It

The New York Times
April 6, 2005

The Judges Made Them Do It

It was appalling when the House majority leader threatened political retribution against judges who did not toe his extremist political line. But when a second important Republican stands up and excuses murderous violence against judges as an understandable reaction to their decisions, then it is time to get really scared.

It happened on Monday, in a moment that was horrifying even by the rock-bottom standards of the campaign that Republican zealots are conducting against the nation's judiciary. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, rose in the chamber and dared to argue that recent courthouse violence might be explained by distress about judges who "are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public." The frustration "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in" violence, said Mr. Cornyn, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which supposedly protects the Constitution and its guarantee of an independent judiciary.

Listeners could only cringe at the events behind Mr. Cornyn's fulminating: an Atlanta judge was murdered in his courtroom by a career criminal who wanted only to shoot his way out of a trial, and a Chicago judge's mother and husband were executed by a deranged man who was furious that she had dismissed a wild lawsuit. It was sickening that an elected official would publicly offer these sociopaths as examples of any democratic value, let alone as holders of legitimate concerns about the judiciary.

The need to shield judges from outside threats - including those from elected officials like Senator Cornyn - is a priceless principle of our democracy. Senator Cornyn offered a smarmy proclamation of "great distress" at courthouse thuggery. Then he rationalized it with broadside accusations that judges "make raw political or ideological decisions." He thumbed his nose at the separation of powers, suggesting that the Supreme Court be "an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people." Avoiding that nightmare is precisely why the founders made federal judgeships lifetime jobs and created a nomination process that requires presidents to seek bipartisan support.

Echoes of the political hijacking of the Terri Schiavo case hung in the air as Mr. Cornyn spoke, just days after the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, vengefully vowed that "the time will come" to make the judges who resisted the Congressional Republicans' gruesome deathbed intrusion "answer for their behavior." Trying to intimidate judges used to be a crime, not a bombastic cudgel for cynical politicians.

The public's hope must be that Senator Cornyn's shameful outburst gives further pause to Senate moderates about the threats of the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist, to scrap the filibuster to ensure the confirmation of President Bush's most extremist judicial nominees. Dr. Frist tried to distance himself yesterday from Mr. DeLay's attack on the judiciary. But Dr. Frist must carry the militants' baggage if he is ever to run for president, and he complained yesterday of "a real fire lighted by Democrats around judges over the last few days."

By Democrats? The senator should listen to what's being said on his side of the aisle, if he can bear it.

Read More...

A 3rd DeLay Trip Under Scrutiny

washingtonpost.com
A 3rd DeLay Trip Under Scrutiny
1997 Russia Visit Reportedly Backed by Business Interests

By R. Jeffrey Smith and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 6, 2005; Page A01

A six-day trip to Moscow in 1997 by then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was underwritten by business interests lobbying in support of the Russian government, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the trip arrangements.

DeLay reported that the trip was sponsored by a Washington-based nonprofit organization. But interviews with those involved in planning DeLay's trip say the expenses were covered by a mysterious company registered in the Bahamas that also paid for an intensive $440,000 lobbying campaign.

It is unclear precisely how the money was transferred from the Bahamian-registered company to the nonprofit.

The expense-paid trip by DeLay and four of his staff members cost $57,238, according to records filed by his office. During his six days in Moscow, he played golf, met with Russian church leaders and talked to Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, a friend of Russian oil and gas executives associated with the lobbying effort.

DeLay also dined with the Russian executives and two Washington-based registered lobbyists for the Bahamian-registered company, sources say. One of those lobbyists was Jack Abramoff, who is now at the center of a federal influence-peddling and corruption probe related to his representation of Indian tribes.

House members bear some responsibility to ensure that the sponsors for their travel are not masquerading for registered lobbyists or foreign government interests, legal experts say. House ethics rules bar the acceptance of travel reimbursement from registered lobbyists and foreign agents.

In this case, travel funds did not come directly from lobbyists; the money came from a firm, Chelsea Commercial Enterprises Ltd., that funded the lobbying campaign, according to the sources. Chelsea was coordinating the effort with a Russian oil and gas company -- Naftasib -- that has business ties with Russian security institutions, the sources said.

Aides to DeLay, who is now the House majority leader, said that despite the presence during the trip of the two registered lobbyists, DeLay thought the nonprofit organization -- the National Center for Public Policy Research -- was funding the trip on its own. Suggestions to the contrary have come to light in media reports only in the past few weeks, an aide said.

"The trip was initiated by the National Center," spokesman Dan Allen said, "and they were the ones who organized it, planned it and paid for it." Sources connected to the trip say, however, that Abramoff, acting at the behest of his Russian-connected client, Chelsea, brought the idea to the center.
Questions on Three Trips

The 1997 Moscow trip is the third foreign trip by DeLay to be scrutinized in recent weeks because of new statements by those involved that his travel was directly or indirectly financed by registered lobbyists or a foreign agent.

Media attention focused on DeLay's travel last month after The Washington Post reported on DeLay's participation in a $70,000 expense-paid trip to London and Scotland in 2000 that sources said was indirectly financed in part by an Indian tribe and a gambling services company. A few days earlier, media attention had focused on a $106,921 trip DeLay took to South Korea in 2001 that was financed by a tax-exempt group created by a lobbyist on behalf of a Korean businessman.

DeLay on March 18 portrayed criticism of his trips and close ties to lobbyists as the product of a conspiracy to "destroy the conservative movement" by attacking its leaders, such as himself. "This is a huge, nationwide, concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in," DeLay told supporters at the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group.

The three foreign trips at issue share common elements. The sponsor of the Moscow trip, the Capitol Hill-based National Center for Public Policy Research, also sponsored the later London trip. The center is a conservative group that solicits corporate, foundation and individual donations.

Also, Abramoff not only joined DeLay in Moscow but also helped organize DeLay's subsequent London trip. Abramoff also filed expense reports indicating he paid for some of DeLay's hotel bill in London, according to a copy obtained by The Post.

Edwin A. Buckham, who was DeLay's chief of staff in 1997 and then became a Washington lobbyist for major corporations, participated in two of the three trips. In 1997, he visited Moscow twice -- once with DeLay -- and on one of these trips he returned via Paris aboard a Concorde jet with a ticket he told the Associated Press in 1998 had been financed by the National Center.

Buckham also joined DeLay on the Korea trip. Buckham did not respond to messages left by The Post.

Untangling the origin of the Moscow trip's financing is complicated by questions about the ownership and origins of Chelsea, the obscure Bahamian-registered company that financed the lobbying effort in favor of the Russian government that targeted Republicans in Washington in 1997 and 1998. Those involved in this effort also prepared and coordinated the DeLay visit, individuals with direct knowledge about it said.

In that period, prominent Russian businessmen, as well as the Russian government, depended heavily on a flow of billions of dollars in annual Western aid and so had good reason to build bridges to Congress. House Republicans were becoming increasingly critical of U.S. and international lending institutions, such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the International Monetary Fund, which were then investing heavily in Russia's fragile economy.

Unlike some House conservatives who scorn such support as "corporate welfare," DeLay proved to be a "yes" vote for institutions bolstering Russia in this period. For example, DeLay voted for a bill that included the replenishment of billions of dollars in IMF funds used to bail out the Russian economy in 1998.

A DeLay aide said he tried to reform these institutions through the legislative process. DeLay voted to fund these agencies because their financing was usually included in appropriation bills that he generally supported, the aide said. They also noted that OPIC had the strong backing of the energy industry, including companies from Texas that received OPIC financing.
Meetings in Moscow

The Russian campaign is detailed in disclosures filed with the House by lobbyists. Those records state that Chelsea, with an address listed variously as a post office box on the British island of Jersey -- a tax haven off the French coast -- or a law firm in the Bahamas, paid at least $440,000 to fund lobbying aimed at building "support for policies of the Russian government for progressive market reforms and trade with the United States," according to lobbying registration documents.

The Washington offices of two lobbying and law firms collected the fees. Preston Gates Ellis and Rouvelas Meeds LLP -- where Abramoff then worked -- received $260,000 in 1997 and less than $10,000 in 1998; Cadwalader Wickersham and Taft LLP was paid $180,000 in 1997 and less than $10,000 annually for the next three years, according to the registrations. Their listed lobbying targets included members of the House and Senate and officials of the State Department and the Agency for International Development.

"One of the functions of the lobbying effort was to encourage U.S. policymakers to visit Russia and to learn more about Russia," Ellen S. Levinson, a lobbyist then working on the Chelsea account at Cadwalader, said in an e-mailed response to questions.

She said Preston Gates used its "contacts with policy institutes and congressional offices" to arrange these trips. Preston Gates said in a written statement that it does not comment on its work for clients.

In a Cadwalader memo dated May 6, 1997, and obtained by The Post from another source, Levinson depicted the DeLay trip as one of six organized that year as part of the lobbying effort. Others included an "advance team" that visited Moscow later that month and a visit by "think tank" experts in June. A copy of the memo was sent to Abramoff.

A total of six members of the two lobbying firms participated in these trips, according to those involved. Levinson and two Preston Gates lobbyists were members of the "advance team."

During the third visit, Cadwalader lobbyist Julius "Jay" Kaplan joined DeLay and Abramoff at a "fancy dinner" in Moscow, according to one of those present -- a circumstance first reported last month in an article about the trip in National Journal's Congress Daily.

Breaking with traditional practice for congressmen traveling overseas, DeLay did not contact the State Department in advance or meet with officials at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow regarding his meeting with Chernomyrdin, according to a department spokeswoman who said she checked with 10 people at the embassy then or responsible for facilitating congressional trips.

Allen, DeLay's spokesman, said the State Department was not contacted because "the National Center was responsible for the arrangements on the trip, including setting up the meetings. Beyond that, members of Congress aren't required to have the State Department present at meetings with leaders from other countries."

Last month, Amy Ridenour, director of the National Center, posted a statement on her organization's Web site in response to questions about DeLay's trip to Russia stating that the center itself had "sponsored and paid" for all the expenses associated with it. Ridenour and her husband also took part in the visit.

But a person familiar with planning for the trip said Abramoff -- who has long been close to DeLay -- approached the National Center with the idea for the trip on behalf of Kaplan and his client, Chelsea. That person said the expenses by the center were in turn replenished by "an American trust account affiliated with a law firm" that the person declined to name.

Kaplan declined to be quoted for this article, citing what he called "lawyer-client privilege." But another person with direct knowledge about the trip arrangements said that it was Chelsea -- which had the registered Washington lobbyists in its employ -- that "gave the money to NCPPR to pay for the trip."

This person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his business interests, added: "I didn't see anything wrong there. All these foundations get money from somewhere, and they give it out." Moreover, the source said, "this was the Russians' way of doing business then -- moving money from one firm to another."
Who Financed Travel?

The question is: Who stood behind Chelsea, and thus ultimately financed the trip? A regular office for the firm could not be located by The Post, in Moscow or at its two listed addresses; its Bahamian registration ended in 2000, officials there said. Efforts by The Post to find the three men -- one Belgian, one British, one Russian -- named in lobbying registrations as Chelsea investors or owners in lobbying disclosures were unsuccessful.

A spokeswoman for Cadwalader, Paula Zirinsky, said the firm had no contact information for anyone from Chelsea, because "persons that worked on that matter have not been with the firm since 1997." Jonathan Blank, managing partner of the Washington office for Preston Gates, similarly said his firm had no current contact information for Chelsea.

In interviews, however, five individuals with direct knowledge of the lobbying effort separately described executives of a diversified Russian energy firm known as Naftasib as being intimately involved in the lobbying.

Naftasib, which oversees interests in mining, oil and gas, construction and other enterprises from a four-story unmarked building in downtown Moscow, says it is a separate company from Chelsea but acknowledges seeking to cultivate friends in Washington in 1997.

In a written statement issued Friday in response to questions from The Post, Marina Nevskaya, Naftasib's deputy general manager, explained that her firm "wanted to foster better understanding between our country and the United States, and felt that if these trips were successful they would foster a better overall climate that could ultimately benefit Naftasib as well as other Russian enterprises."

Nevskaya said her company "did not finance in any manner" the DeLay trip or the others described in Levinson's memo. But she said Naftasib "did host and pay for some dinners for participants in some of the trips, organized a few other special events . . . and may have provided minor courtesies, such as some auto pickups and dropoffs for some visitors during one or more of the trips."

She also acknowledged providing "advice about trip logistics" before they occurred and meeting trip participants. Nevskaya did not offer details, but those involved in organizing DeLay's trip said he met with Nevskaya and was escorted around Moscow by the general manager of Naftasib, Alexander Koulakovsky. DeLay has also met with Nevskaya and Koulakovsky in Washington since then, according to several sources with direct knowledge of the contact.

During the June 1997 trip to Moscow by "think tank" experts -- one of the scheduled visits listed in Levinson's memo -- several participants said they got the impression that Preston Gates was the organizer, Naftasib was the ultimate financier and that the trip was a dry run for DeLay's visit.

"It was done through or under the auspices of NCPPR," said Bart Adams, a North Carolina journalist who joined the expense-paid trip. But he said he recalls hearing that "the money was coming from a Russian oil company."

David Lowe, an official at the National Endowment for Democracy, said he was recruited to join the trip by the Preston Gates firm; former Senate aide James P. Lucier, who also was on the trip, said Naftasib's executives played such a large role that they "seemed to be the clients of Preston Gates," a claim the firm denies. "Some American investment or tie was the end goal," said a third participant, "and the plan was to bring over some congressmen" later.

A publicist who works for Abramoff attorney Abbe David Lowell said Abramoff did lobby for Chelsea but not for Naftasib. The publicist said Abramoff thought "bringing a greater understanding of Russia to American decision makers was and is good for America."

The efforts by Naftasib's executives to curry favor among Republicans -- including DeLay -- sowed controversy at the time among conservatives. A journal published by a Washington think tank, the American Foreign Policy Council, claimed within a few days after DeLay's trip ended that it was actually "sponsored" by Naftasib. The journal -- the Russian Reform Monitor -- also highlighted what it characterized as Naftasib's tight connections to the Russian security establishment.

The journal quoted promotional literature for Naftasib that described the firm as a major shareholder in Gazprom, the state-controlled oil and gas giant. The literature also said Natfasib's largest clients were the ministries of defense and internal affairs. The literature also states that Nevskaya was an instructor at a school for Russian military intelligence officers. She declined to address those claims in response to questions from The Post.

Steve Biegun, who was then a senior Russia expert for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and later served as executive secretary to the National Security Council during President Bush's first term, said he deliberately blocked a meeting that Nevskaya sought with Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), then the committee chairman.

"They were a client of the lobbying firm Preston Gates," said Biegun, who is now a Ford Motor Co. vice president for international governmental affairs. "I made some calls . . . and got enough warning signs" to ensure that Helms avoided dealing with the firm. Biegun said the information he obtained from his sources was "nothing that would stand up in court" but he worried that in this period, "a lot of unsavory figures from Russia were buying their way into meetings and getting their pictures taken, to put on the wall back in Moscow."

"I just had my doubts, and nobody did anything to allay them," Biegun said. "I did not know who either of them really were."

Asked to comment, Blank, Preston Gates's Washington managing partner, said in a written statement: "Chelsea was our only client. Naftasib was not our client. We did work with Naftasib representatives when their interests coincided with our client's." Blank added that "we are confident that the individuals still with the firm who were involved at the time acted ethically, appropriately, and in service of the client."

Abramoff left Preston Gates at the end of 2000.

Staff writer Susan Schmidt, research editor Lucy Shackelford, and researchers Alice Crites and Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

Read More...

GOP's moral agenda doubted

USA Today
GOP's moral agenda doubted
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The controversy over Terri Schiavo has raised concerns among many Americans about the moral agenda of the Republican Party and the political power of conservative Christians, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds.

(Related: Poll results: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2005-04-03-poll.htm )

In the survey, most Americans disapprove of the efforts by President Bush and Congress to draw federal courts into the dispute over treatment of the brain-damaged Florida woman. She died last week.

Some old stereotypes about the two parties have been reversed:

•By 55%-40%, respondents say Republicans, traditionally the party of limited government, are "trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans" on moral values.

•By 53%-40%, they say Democrats, who sharply expanded government since the Depression, aren't trying to interfere on moral issues.

The debate over Schiavo has spotlighted the central role "values" issues — abortion, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage and the right to live or die — now play in politics.

Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University in Virginia who studies religion and politics, says the case has created a "clear backlash."

"It's one thing to look at religious conservatives as part of a broad coalition that makes up the Republican Party," he says. "It's entirely another if people think that religious conservatives are calling the shots in the Bush administration for what was a deeply personal situation."

But Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition says a poll his group commissioned shows wide support for those who sought to preserve Schiavo's life when the issue is placed "in the broader context of protecting the rights of the disabled."

He met with members of Congress Tuesday to push for legislation to set "clear guidelines" in such cases.

In the poll taken Friday and Saturday, Bush's job-approval rating is 48%, 3 percentage points higher than in mid-March. His standing on personal characteristics such as trustworthiness remains above 50%.

Still, Americans by 53%-34% say they disapprove of Bush's handling of the Schiavo case. Congress' rating on Schiavo is worse: 76% disapprove, 20% approve.

By more than 2-to-1, 39%-18%, Americans say the "religious right" has too much influence in the Bush administration. That's a change from when the question was asked in CBS News/New York Times polls taken from 2001 to 2003. Then, approximately equal numbers said conservative Christians had too much and too little influence.

Read More...

Republican Stepchildren

April 11, 2005 Issue
The American Conservative

Republican Stepchildren

Message to social conservatives: Thanks for the votes. We’ll call you in four years.

by W. James Antle III

Theresa Fleming is charmingly ebullient as she rattles off the names of co-operative state legislators who have met with her and her colleagues. The Strongsville mother of two is the director of the Moms for Ohio political action committee, with allies in both parties. “The insurance industry, the health care industry, people with interest in tax issues, they are already organized politically,” she says. “Moms needed a voice for issues that affected our children.”

Asked if this makes her a soccer mom, she quickly agrees. “We’re all soccer moms,” Fleming says. “We take our kids to soccer, baseball, basketball, swimming, and everything else.” But the issues that motivate her are almost exactly the opposite of what most political analysts mean when they use the phrase. She isn’t a swing voter turned off by social conservatism; instead, she is committed to the right to life, the battle against same-sex marriage, and keeping the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

It was voters like Fleming who gave George W. Bush Ohio and, by extension, a second term. Many like-minded people across the country volunteered on Republican campaigns and turned out on election day, helping the GOP win key races and increase its congressional majorities. They also succeeded in passing constitutional amendments affirming the traditional idea of marriage as a union between a man and a woman in 11 out of 11 states.

While some of the post-election chatter about values voters was exaggerated, the designation describes a real and growing electoral phenomenon. According to the Pew Research Center, nearly four out of five white evangelical Christians supported President Bush in 2004, representing more than a third of all ballots cast for him. When traditionalist Catholics and members of other conservative religious communities are factored in, it becomes clear that the voters usually lumped together under the banner of the Religious Right form the largest single constituency of today’s Republican Party.

As the euphoria from November begins to fade, however, some conservative Christians are starting to ask hardheaded questions about how much clout they are getting in return for their stalwart support. Pro-choice moderate Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), rescued from a pro-life primary challenge by Bush and his state’s conservative GOP junior Sen. Rick Santorum, has ascended to the Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship. He offered cultural conservatives conciliatory rhetoric when this position appeared to be in jeopardy, but upon assuming the gavel he has reverted to type.

The gay-marriage debate, where social conservatives saw their greatest successes in 2004, has been the source of even larger disappointments. Both the White House and the congressional Republican leadership have assigned a much lower priority to a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex matrimony—believed by many on the Right to be the only way to stop the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision from being replicated nationally—than to reforming Social Security and the tax code. Even before the election, Bush indicated some flexibility on civil unions. “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement,” he said in a televised interview, “if that’s what a state chooses to do…”

In January, many pro-family leaders decided it was time to voice their frustration. The Arlington Group is a loose network of socially conservative organizations that meet to collaborate on strategy. Participants sent Bush advisor Karl Rove a notably blunt letter. “We couldn’t help but notice the contrast between how the President is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where public opinion is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side,” the activists wrote. “Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage?”

Contrary to some press reports, the statement stopped short of threatening to withhold support from the president’s Social Security initiative unless he stepped up his lobbying on the federal marriage amendment. Instead, the Arlington Group conservatives “respectfully request” that Bush “spend his political capital on the issue of the preservation of marriage just as he intends to do on other priorities.” But it was surprisingly tough criticism—describing the White House’s stance on gay marriage as “passive” and “defeatist”—from some of the president’s strongest supporters. The signatories of the letter comprise a virtual Who’s Who of Christian Right leaders—Gary Bauer, Paul Weyrich, Tony Perkins, and James Dobson. Dobson has been particularly pointed: “If Republicans do what they’ve done in the past, which is say, ‘Thanks so much for putting us in power: now we don’t want to talk to you any more,’ they will pay a serious price.”

As this warning suggests, some veterans of the Religious Right feel a sense of having been here before—they vote in large numbers for GOP candidates, but to little effect. The other players in the big tent end up getting to set the agenda. Christian conservatives were first a major factor in national politics during the Moral Majority years of the 1980s. Many of them hoped that by electing Ronald Reagan and a Republican Senate, they could at least roll back the cultural liberalism of the 1960s and at best help usher in a spiritual reawakening.

Neither goal was realized. While moral conservatives got access and sympathetic presidential speeches, they had little impact on public policy. The Reagan administration’s signature conservative achievements include enduring reductions in marginal tax rates and winning the Cold War. While most religious conservatives supported and obviously benefited from both accomplishments, the items of particular importance to them are conspicuous by their absence from this list.

Reagan did sign executive orders curbing federal funding of abortion and many of his judicial nominees believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, although not enough to build an anti-Roe majority on the Supreme Court. But constitutional amendments banning abortion and reinstating school prayer went nowhere. Reagan, like Bush today with the federal marriage amendment, often endorsed them in speeches but in retrospect some question whether he did enough to promote their passage. Also like Bush, he only addressed pro-life marches by telephone.

The Religious Right rebounded in the 1990s, and Ralph Reed was a major figure in its revival. Reed’s strategy was to mainstream Christian conservatives within the Republican Party—getting them elected to leadership positions alongside establishment regulars—and to work in tandem with the other elements of the conservative movement.

He can claim some results. Religious conservatives contributed mightily to the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. Many of the high-profile freshmen, such as Oklahoma Republicans Steve Largent and J.C. Watts, were themselves evangelicals. Pro-lifers had an even better election than Republicans—no pro-life incumbent of either party was defeated that year by a pro-choice challenger. But even then, the party leadership shelved many of their concerns. The only items in the vaunted Contract with America that were designed to appeal to them were promises to strengthen child pornography laws, cut taxes for families with children, and include anti-illegitimacy provisions in welfare reform. No major social issue—not even one with broad public support, like restoring school prayer or banning partial-birth abortion—was listed in the contract.

Even some on the Left are beginning to argue that the GOP’s appeal to social conservatives might be something of a shell game; Republicans employ pro-life and pro-family rhetoric to win elections but don’t deliver once in office. In What’s the Matter With Kansas? Thomas Frank wrote, “Historians often attribute the withering and disappearance of the nineteenth-century Populist movement to its failure to achieve material, real-world goals… Yet with the pro-life movement, the material goal of stopping abortion is, almost by definition, beyond achieving.”

The crux of Frank’s argument is that conservatives have avoided debates about socioeconomic class by appealing to Middle America’s sense of cultural embattlement. This helps them win middle-class votes by appearing to identify with the moral values of people whose economic interests might be better served by voting Democratic. Once in power, Frank contends, the Republicans cannot address these social issues because they would lose their ability to appeal to these voters once these grievances are removed from the debate.

You don’t have to endorse the entirety of Frank’s argument to acknowledge one point he raises: social conservatism has brought people into the Republican Party with lower incomes than the party’s traditional base, some of whom are more economically moderate and less hostile in general toward activist government than other conservatives. Reihan Salam, writing in the Los Angeles Times, has referred to the “crisis of ‘Sam’s Club’ Republicans.”

In addition to marriage and abortion, Moms for Ohio lists pocketbook issues that affect the family as major concerns, including job losses caused by global trade. “If we are going to say we are compassionate conservatives, we have to mean it,” Fleming says. “And it is impossible to help others unless we stay strong ourselves.” One pro-family volunteer notes the “scandal of World War II veterans having to board a bus to Canada to get affordable prescription drugs.”

These differences have been bridged in the past by the conservative consensus that libertarian means can achieve traditionalist ends. In the 1990s, Grover Norquist began making the argument that social conservatives were a part of the Right’s anti-statist “Leave us Alone” coalition: “Conservative leaders can meet in a room, and the taxpayers can agree not to throw condoms at the children of Christians and orthodox Jews; the gun owners can agree not to raise everyone else’s taxes; the Christians can agree not to steal anyone’s guns; and they all can agree not to take anyone’s property.”

Even back then fissures were apparent. Supply-siders never warmed to the $500-per-child tax credits; although popular with pro-family groups, they did not enhance work incentives by lowering marginal rates. Then House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-Ohio), who eventually became a supporter of the credits, once half-jokingly described them as a sop to “greedy Christians.”

Tensions aside, many social conservatives remain optimistic about their prospects with Republicans controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and Bush personally has a tremendous reservoir of goodwill to tap among the grassroots. “I think we need to give the president the benefit of the doubt on marriage and other issues,” says Carrie Gordon Earll, a senior policy analyst at Focus on the Family. “Wherever he has had the opportunity, he has seized it. People I speak to are encouraged.” Fleming agrees: “I think the president won re-election based on issues like marriage. I hope he delivers, and I believe he will.”

“Pro-family groups are the locomotive on this train,” Earll emphasizes. “We need to be the ones pushing to keep our issues on the table.”

This much is clear: religious conservatives have won their place in the GOP’s big tent. They will be watching carefully to see how the ringmasters perform.

Read More...

Senator links violence, judges

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: National

Senator links violence, judges
Cornyn suggests 'political decisions' may be a factor in recent incidents at courthouses
By GEBE MARTINEZ

WASHINGTON - In an eyebrow-raising speech on the Senate floor Monday, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn suggested a connection between "political decisions" by some judges and incidents of courthouse violence across the nation.

The remarks by Republican Cornyn, a former justice on the Texas Supreme Court, prompted immediate criticism from Democrats.

Cornyn, citing recent cases of violence against judges, said he wondered "whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people ... engage in violence."

The violence is unjustified, Cornyn said, but is "a concern that I have that I wanted to share."

Cornyn, who also served as a district judge in San Antonio, delivered a blistering critique of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court has taken on the role of "policymaker" rather than enforcer of laws and had "generated a lack of respect for judges generally," he said.

In March, a state judge and three other people were killed by an escaping criminal suspect in an Atlanta courthouse. Days earlier, the husband and mother of a federal judge in Chicago were killed by a troubled plaintiff in a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Democrats respond
Cornyn's statement "shows a remarkable lack of sensitivity to the people involved and the families of these judges, who, by all accounts, were serving their communities in their capacities as judges," said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "He owes these people an apology."

In response, Cornyn's staff pointed to introductory remarks in which he said that he meant no blanket criticism of the Supreme Court or the rest of the judiciary. Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republican presidents.

The speech by the Republican senator, who has previously complained of "judicial activism," came just as the Senate braces for a possible showdown over Democratic efforts to block some of President Bush's more conservative judicial nominees. Cornyn is expected to play a role as a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Social conservative leaders, already poised to fight hard for Bush's picks, have elevated the political fight in the wake of the case of Terry Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who died last week after federal courts refused to order the reinsertion of a feeding tube.

When Schiavo died, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, said judges will "answer for their behavior."

Judges 'mere mortals'
Vice President Dick Cheney, saying he had not seen DeLay's remarks, distanced himself from the call for retribution against the courts.

"I don't think that's appropriate," Cheney said in an interview with the New York Post.

Cornyn did not address the role of the courts in the Schiavo case Monday.

He cited a 5-4 decision last month by the U.S. Supreme Court that forbids executing convicts who committed their crimes before turning 18. The majority opinion noted the views of international courts had been taken into account.

"If this trend continues, foreign governments may have a say in what our laws and our Constitution mean and what our policies in America should be," Cornyn argued.

Referring to his 13 years of experience as an elected state court judge, Cornyn called members of the judiciary "mere mortals, subject to the same flashes of mediocrity, sometimes making mistakes, and sometimes displaying flights of brilliance."

Federal judges, who have lifetime appointments, should be held in check, he argued.

"It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. "No one, including those judges, including the judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, should be surprised if one of us stands up and objects."

gebe.martinez@chron.com

originally published April 4, 2005

Read More...

New Yorkers Say We're Not Ready

CBS 2 - New York News | cbsnewyork.com

New Yorkers Say We're Not Ready

* Subways, Water Supply, Grand Central and Airports Are Main Cause for Concern

Apr 5, 2005 1:50 pm US/Eastern

A majority of New Yorkers feel the city is not prepared to respond to a terrorist attack, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion said the city does not have an adequate emergency response plan.

The poll found that only 32 percent of the city's residents have confidence in the government to protect its subways and bridges; 39 percent expressed confidence that the city it could protect its water supply; 44 percent said the city could protect Grand Central Terminal; and 45 percent said it could protect the airports.

Fifty-three percent said they were confident the city could protect historic sites such as the Empire State Building and the Statute of Liberty.

Overall, however, New Yorkers are slightly less worried about an attack than they were last fall. Fifty-one percent said they worried about it -- compared to 60 percent last September.

More than 3 1/2 years after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, the poll found that 73 percent of residents do not believe the federal government has given New York City its fair share of money to combat future terrorism.

When asked if they had an emergency plan in place for family members, 35 percent of New Yorkers said they had some semblance of a plan in the event of a terrorist attack. Twenty-three percent said they have put together basic necessities such as food and water, a flashlight, a portable radio and a meeting place for family members.

The poll surveyed 1,012 New Yorkers by telephone on March 9-15. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read More...

'Death Toll' Tops 3,000 in NJ, CT Terror Drills...

CBS 2 - New York News | cbsnewyork.com

'Death Toll' Tops 3,000 in NJ, CT Terror Drills...

* Poor Communication, Overstretched Staffing Limit Effectiveness

Apr 5, 2005 5:47 pm US/Eastern

Problems with communication and hospital staffing surfaced Tuesday as the nation's largest anti-terrorism drill entered its second day of simulated biological and chemical weapons attacks.

The "death toll'' as part of the fictitious exercise in New Jersey involving an outbreak of pneumonic plague soared past 3,000 by midday. At the same time, Connecticut officials were dealing with an influx of fake victims from a simulated chemical weapons attack on the New London waterfront.

One of the most crucial decisions made by New Jersey officials on Monday as part of the exercise _ drastically restricting travel within and into Union and Middlesex counties _ was poorly communicated and did not reach nearly enough of the "public'' or emergency responders, said state police Lt. Dennis McNulty.

"Decisions were made at the highest levels of government, but there are early indications those decisions were not disseminated in an appropriate fashion,'' he said. "There seems to have been some disconnect. Rest assured, that will be scrutinized.''

Likewise, officials at Union Hospital, a small 201-bed community facility nearest to the site of the simulated plague release, said staffing issues quickly cropped up as waves of "victims'' showed up at four large blue outdoor triage tents set up in the emergency room parking lot.

"We will face the reality of employees who will not want to come to work and who will want to stay home with their families. We will have to deal with a shortage of beds and we will have to deal with traffic in and around the hospital,'' said Kathryn Coyne, the hospital's executive director.

Fatigue among hospital workers also was becoming a problem.

"The staff has been doing this for 24 hours now,'' Coyne said. ``We have people who hadn't eaten or gone to the bathroom all day long.''

In a real emergency, the hospital would have to set up areas for large numbers of workers to eat, shower and sleep and would have trouble storing a large number of dead bodies, Coyne said.

By day's end, more than 100 fake patients were expected at the hospital; 64 arrived by about 9 a.m. Doctors, nurses and the actors all wore white face masks, and each ``patient'' was given a colored toe tag to signify the severity of their condition. Black tags were reserved for several patients who were ``dead on arrival'' and 22 others were "admitted'' to the hospital and given gowns and beds.

By noon Tuesday, drill participants had counted 3,076 "deaths'' from the plague in New Jersey, a figure that included fictitious "unattended deaths,'' or people supposedly found dead in their homes. The toll could reach 9,000 by week's end, said Roger Shatzkin, a spokesman for the state Office of Counterterrorism.

Exercise planners had victims "traveling'' as far away as Canada before falling ill, including some on a fictitious cruise ship that supposedly left Bayonne with some exposed patients on board.

The $16 million, weeklong drill began Monday with an investigation of a black sport utility vehicle suspected of releasing an aerosolized form of the deadly bacteria.

Connecticut officials focused Tuesday morning on recovery and investigation from the simulated attack there. Rescue crews and dogs sorted through the rubble pile, looking for volunteers playing victims and dummies used to represent fatalities. State officials discussed how to clean up the partially collapsed building without risking additional injuries or contaminating the environment with the simulated mustard gas.

Volunteers posing as grieving family members began arriving at a family center Tuesday morning, as FBI and state police investigators worked to determine who planned the attack.

As intelligence agencies attempt to find the culprits of the attack in New Jersey, the state's health care system was expected to be pushed to the breaking point. Hospitals were to continue to be open and operating normally to treat real patients during the drill.

The drills are being monitored by top U.S. Homeland Security officials from a command center near Washington, as well as regional centers in New Jersey and Connecticut. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was expected to hold a news conference on the exercise Wednesday at Rutgers University in Piscataway.

Large-scale simulated dispensation of medication is to be the focus of Wednesday's drills at various locations.

Read More...

9/11 Report: New Thinking Needed On Evacuating Skyscrapers

CBS 2 - New York News | cbsnewyork.com

9/11 Report: New Thinking Needed On Evacuating Skyscrapers

* Engineers Issue Three Reports

Apr 5, 2005 6:59 pm US/Eastern

Investigators have concluded that new thinking is needed on how to evacuate people from endangered skyscrapers and how to get rescuers into them more quickly, according to a federal report released Monday on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Engineers issued three reports during a briefing Tuesday in New York analyzing the Sept. 11, 2001, twin tower collapses and the response by rescue workers and building occupants.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology also detailed how early decisions played a key role in determining who lived and who died. The attacks killed 2,749 at the towers, including those who died on the two jetliners that hijackers crashed into the buildings.

NIST found current expectations of how quickly people move down stairwells is based on a “phased” evacuation, not the full-scale evacuation experienced in the towers.

“The average surviving occupants moved slower down stairs and through stairwell exits than previously recorded for a non-emergency evacuation,” investigators concluded.

To underline the importance of the finding, NIST estimated that had the buildings been hit at a time when they were full, as many as 14,000 people may have died.

In Tower 1, the average survivor took 48 seconds to descend a flight of stairs, or about half the slowest evacuation speed calculated in a current fire safety handbook used by engineers in designing buildings, the report found.
The briefing in New York was conducted by Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the agency’s building and fire safety investigation into the disaster.

The buildings would not have collapsed if the fireproofing material surrounding the steel had not been stripped away by the impact of the planes, Sunder said.

Without that stripping effect, the intense heat of up to 800 degrees Fahrenheit would not have been enough to bring the buildings down. Sunder added, however, that it would not have been reasonable for engineers to have installed fireproofing designed to sustain the impact of a fuel-laden jetliner.

The thickness of the fireproofing had been called into question during the course of the two-year investigation; Sunder said far more important was the material’s ability to stick to steel. Now there are other ways to put on fireproofing to make it adhere to the steel better.

NIST also found the much-documented problems with radio communication and information-sharing among first responders probably led to deaths among emergency personnel.

“Lack of timely information sharing and inadequate communication capabilities likely contributed to the loss of emergency responder lives,” according to the draft report.

Sunder said some of the firefighters they interviewed said they felt they would have gotten better real-time information at home watching TV than what they were told at the scene.

The findings represent NIST’s last step before issuing its final recommendations in June, the culmination of exhaustive research and testing that produced 10,000 pages of data.

The other findings—about the emergency response and the behavior of those who were in the building—are likely to fuel an ongoing debate over skyscraper safety.

Investigators have determined that previous expectations about how long people would take to evacuate buildings were not borne out by events at the World Trade Center.

The report also noted that some people delayed their evacuation by “milling” in offices, deliberating about what to do, or debating how to find the next stairwell.

The previous evacuation models cited in the report are important because architects use them to calculate the capacity needed in stairwells, elevators, and other means of exiting a building.

The report also emphasizes the limited ability of rescue personnel to reach higher floors quickly to battle fires and rescue trapped civilians.

That proved critical for firefighters who climbed 70 flights of stairs carrying up to 100 pounds of gear—and then tried to battle flames or clear debris once there.

Those concerns are spurring a debate both within the NIST group and among the larger fire rescue and construction fields about stairwell and elevator design.

The debate centers around whether “fireproof” elevators, designed to resist flames and smoke, should be installed in new buildings, particularly those that rise above 40 or 50 stories, and the best width and location of stairwells.

Elevators played a critical, but contradictory, role. In some cases, they helped significant numbers of people get out quickly. For others, they became sealed containers trapping them inside a doomed building.

NIST’s ultimate goal is to recommend building code improvements.

Read More...

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

The Technology Behind the Social Security Debate

baselinemag.com
The Technology Behind the Social Security Debate
By Larry Dignan

AARP runs television spots panning the idea of allowing tens of millions of U.S. citizens to establish private accounts for their retirement, as part of the federal Social Security program.

President Bush travels the country pitching these accounts as a way to modernize the system.

Meanwhile, think tanks are busy trying to weigh the policy implications of any Social Security tweaks.

But while debate still roars about whether the program is in danger of running out of money by 2041, as the Social Security Administration estimates, none of the aforementioned parties have pondered the technology investment needed to make private accounts a reality.

What would this information system look like? How long would it take to build a system to manage private accounts? What are the hurdles in data management?

"Those are big questions," says Virginia Reno, vice president of income security at the National Academy of Social Insurance, a think tank that examines social insurance policy. "I don't think many [people] are looking for answers."

Currently, the biggest idea about reforming Social Security revolves around allowing the 159 million workers currently covered to divert 2 percent to 4 percent of the 15.3 percent tax paid on income to private accounts.

The goal? Close a $4 trillion unfunded liability in current dollars through 2079.

In theory, these accounts would earn a better return than Social Security, whose assets will be depleted in 2041, according to the 2005 annual report from Social Security's board of trustees, released March 23.

Indeed, a report commissioned by President Bush on ways to strengthen Social Security, released in December 2001, didn't mention information technology once.

Mark Lassiter, press officer for the SSA (Social Security Administration), says pondering the technology needed to handle private accounts is "premature" given that the proposals are still being formed.

"In politics, you often decide what to do and then ask how to do it," says Dallas Salisbury, CEO of think tank Employee Benefit Research Institute. "It's as if the question of how to do it is not being asked."

One thing is certain: Social Security reform would require heavy lifting on the IT side. And Bush has said he wants private accounts in place by 2009. Hitting that target is increasingly unlikely.

"If the SSA built a system [for tracking private accounts] itself, it would take at least three to five years to build," says Marcus Fedeli, manager of federal opportunity products at Input, a consulting firm. "That's conservative. It could take three years just to design the system."

In the meantime, the key information management issues are:

Challenge: Designing the system

Fix: Limit options

When current Social Security processes are compared to what would happen if private accounts are adopted, the complexity becomes apparent.

Today, SSA systems account for a limited number of data inputs.

Is the beneficiary alive? What's the age? Are there dependents? Is there a divorce?

Once those questions are answered, they are matched to rules and formulas, and a check is sent.

Private accounts introduce moving parts.

What percentage of funds will be invested in a private account? Did the allocation change this quarter? Should the accounts be paid in an annuity if below a set level or taken in a lump sum? This information would probably be collected quarterly.

And money needs to go to accounts faster.

Currently, it can take 18 months to reconcile individual contributions to Social Security, Salisbury says.

That lag applied to private accounts means you could miss an entire bull market.

"It's impossible to do what has to be done," says Francis Cavanaugh, the first executive director of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which was the agency responsible for administering the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees. His tenure ran from 1986 to 1994.

The Thrift Savings Plan is often cited as an example of how private accounts in Social Security could work. The plan is like a 401(k) for federal employees.

The catch? You can't compare the two programs because Social Security processes millions more transactions, Cavanaugh said.

Launching a record-keeping system for the federal savings plan was easy compared to what would be required for private accounts, he says.

"Our system worked because I could rely on the agencies' systems and only had to deal with one employer—the U.S. government," Cavanaugh said. "Our challenge was getting all the agencies to work together and report data in a uniform fashion. We then built a record-keeping system that took it in."

According to Salisbury, building a system is daunting but not impossible.

To simplify the system, individual choice could be removed by making accounts mandatory, setting an allocation rate, say 3 percent of all Americans' salaries, and allowing one investment mix, say 40 percent in a stock fund, 40 percent bond fund and 20 percent cash.

"Voluntary accounts are harder because they allow choice," Salisbury says. "Every option makes the system more complicated. If accounts are mandatory with set options, you know the inputs."

Challenge: Manage the Data

Solution: Require Electronic Filing

Even if a system could be designed to handle the private accounts of potentially all of the 159 million people covered by Social Security, managing all the account information would be a huge procedure, says Input's Fedeli.

Why? Much of that data arrives on paper forms.

"You are talking stacks and stacks of paper. The principal challenge is collecting the information and then allocating the money," Salisbury says. "We assume the world is automated. It isn't."

Without an all-electronic system, processes could easily bog down.

Speaking before a House Appropriations subcommittee in February, SSA commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart said the agency is making progress with electronic filings, but still has a ways to go to become all-electronic.

For fiscal 2004, 60 percent of employee wage reports were filed electronically, up from 27 percent in 2001.

Barnhart added that the SSA is also encouraging online filing for benefits claims.

In fiscal 2004, 217,000 benefit claims were filed online, up from 148,000 the year before.

That lack of automation would magnify the problems with record-keeping if employers were required to report wages going into private accounts more frequently.

Today, half of employers in the United States report data on wages, employees and taxes paid annually.

Millions of small employers go bust and never pay Social Security.

With private accounts, small employers would have a fiduciary responsibility to get 2 percent to 4 percent of Social Security funds to a private account.

Meanwhile, private accounts would tax existing SSA systems. In 2005, the SSA projects it will pay $518 billion to 48 million beneficiaries, or 4 million checks a month.

The agency also processes 8 million claims for benefits, conducts 58 million transactions through its 800 -number and issues 140 million Social Security statements.

Private accounts would mean more statements and call volume.

"You'd get to billions of transactions quickly," Cavanaugh says.

Challenge: Managing the project

Fix: Set realistic time lines, up front

If the SSA and Congress work out the aforementioned information management issues, the real work begins: implementing the system.

To see the perils, look no further than the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board's Thrift Savings Plan.

In July, Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman blasted the board and American Management Systems, now known as CGI-AMS, for "a failed computer-programming project that wasted $36 million in federal retirement assets."

In 1997, AMS was contracted to build a record-keeping system to allow federal employees to track investments online.

Four years later, repeated delays and budget overruns produced an "almost useless" system, as stated in the report by Collins and Lieberman.

Materials, Communications and Computers Inc. was hired in 2001 and completed the project in 18 months at a cost of $33 million.

Fedeli says the SSA has a good track record with project management, but building a system to handle private accounts won't be easy.

The SSA's fiscal 2006 information-technology budget of $494 million is devoted to office automation projects such eDib, an electronic disability claim processing system.

Building a system to handle private accounts would be another ball game.

"I hope the SSA realizes its strengths and weaknesses," Fedeli says. "This project would be out of its specialty. There could be a lot of time and money wasted for a lot of work the SSA is not used to doing."

originally published April 1, 2005

Read More...

Personal Account

Read More...

The $2 Million Dollar Flip-Flop

tompaine.com
The $2 Million Dollar Flip-Flop

From TalkingPointsMemo:

Several days ago, we linked to a post on the Center for American Progress blog that raised an important question for the 18 senators that voted for a 1991 amendment offered by former Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) to limit the interest rate credit companies can charge to 14 percent only to vote against an amendment offered by Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) to the current bankruptcy bill that would have limited that rate to 30 percent.

Thinkprogress asked:

Why would 18 Senators, including co-sponsors of the original measure, vote for a tougher pro-consumer measure in 1991, and then vote against a weaker measure in 2005? Could it be that the more than $2 million these Senators took from the credit card/banking industry in the interim made them change their mind?

We offer the following list of those senators in case our readers wish to get an answer for themselves:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
1991-1996 contributions from commercial banks: $88,900
1997-2002 contributions from commercial banks: $170,777


Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
1991-1996 contributions from commercial banks: $73,575
1997-2002 contributions from commercial banks: $33,675


Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MO)
1991-1996 Commercial Banks: $24,750
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $40,100

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)

Spoke in favor of D'Amato Amendment during floor debate
1991-1996 Commercial Banks: $89,120
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $66,290

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $123,300


Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $183,102


Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)
1991-1996 Commercial Banks: $70,575
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $80,800


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $235,228


Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
1991-1996 Commercial Banks: $84,800
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $55,800


Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
1991-1996 Commercial Banks: $246,533
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $215,600


Sen. Arlen Specter(R-PA)
Co-sponsored the 1991 D'Amato amendment
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $105,225


Sen. John Warner (R-VA)
1997-2002 Commercial Banks: $43,800


Other Senators who voted for the D'Amato amendment, but against the Dayton bill (data on contributions from commercial banks unavailable):

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)


Co-sponsored the 1991 D'Amato amendment

Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)

Sen. Herb Kohl(D-WI)

Sen. Pat Leahy(D-VT)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)

-- Michael Negron

originally posted March 31, 2005

Read More...

Monday, April 04, 2005

AN INSECURE NATION: Guns for Terrorists

The New York Times
April 4, 2005
AN INSECURE NATION
Guns for Terrorists

If a background check shows that you are an undocumented immigrant, federal law bars you from buying a gun. If the same check shows that you have ties to Al Qaeda, you are free to buy an AK-47. That is the absurd state of the nation's gun laws, and a recent government report revealed that terrorist suspects are taking advantage of it. There are a few promising signs, however, that the federal government is considering injecting some sanity into policies on terror suspects and guns.

The Government Accountability Office examined F.B.I. and state background checks for gun sales during a five-month period last year. It found 44 checks in which the prospective buyer turned up on a government terrorist watch list. A few of these prospective buyers were denied guns for other disqualifying factors, like a felony conviction or illegal immigration status. But 35 of the 44 people on the watch lists were able to buy guns.

The encouraging news is that the G.A.O. report may be prodding Washington to act. The F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller III, has announced that he is forming a study group to review gun sales to terror suspects. In a letter to Senator Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat, Mr. Mueller said that the new working group would review the national background check system in light of the report. We hope this group will take a strong stand in favor of changes in the law to deny guns to terror suspects.

In the meantime, Senator Lautenberg is pushing for important reforms. He has asked the Justice Department to consider making presence on a terrorist watch list a disqualifying factor for gun purchases. And he wants to force gun sellers to keep better records. Under a recent law, records of gun purchases must be destroyed after 24 hours, eliminating important information for law enforcement. Senator Lautenberg wants to require that these records be kept for at least 10 years for buyers on terrorist watch lists.

Keeping terror suspects from buying guns seems like an issue the entire nation can rally around. But the National Rifle Association is, as usual, fighting even the most reasonable regulation of gun purchases. After the G.A.O. report came out, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, took to the airwaves to reiterate his group's commitment to ensuring that every citizen has access to guns, and to cast doubt on the reliability of terrorist watch lists.

Unfortunately, the N.R.A. - rather than the national interest - is too often the driving force on gun policy in Congress, particularly since last November's election. Even after the G.A.O.'s disturbing revelations, the Senate has continued its work on a dangerous bill to insulate manufacturers and sellers from liability when guns harm people. If it passes, as seems increasingly likely, it will remove any fear a seller might have of being held legally responsible if he provides a gun used in a terrorist attack.

Read More...

Bin Laden and Zarqawi: How a deadly deal was made

Newsweek

Terror Broker
Bin Laden needed a role in the Iraqi insurgency, and Zarqawi needed outside support. How a deadly deal was made.
By Sami Yousafzai and Ron Moreau

April 11 issue - Hardly anyone was more surprised by Iraq's insurgency than Osama bin Laden. The terrorist chief had never foreseen its sudden, ferocious spread, and he was likewise unprepared for the abrupt rise of its most homicidal commander, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. Bin Laden and his aides knew the Jordanian-born Palestinian from Zarqawi's Afghan days, but mostly as a short-tempered bully and a troublemaker. So in the late summer of 2003, unwilling to sit on the sidelines, bin Laden sent two of his most trusted men to assess the Iraqi resistance and carve out a leading role for Al Qaeda. "The resistance happened faster than we expected, and differently, so we were not prepared to assist and direct it," one of the two envoys later told a senior Tali-ban official. "The sheik sent me to see how we could help."

The Taliban man recently told the envoy's story to NEWSWEEK. He personally heard the account from the envoy, a top-ranking Qaeda member known as Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi, at a meeting last December in western Pakistan. The Taliban official, who uses the name Zabihullah, is a liaison between his group and Al Qaeda. Many of the account's details are borne out by interviews with other well-informed jihadis. Officials familiar with U.S. intelligence, while refusing to discuss many of the story's specifics, confirm that its fundamentals are accurate.

The two bin Laden envoys traveled overland from Afghanistan separately. One never got to Iraq. Authorities in Iran later announced that they had apprehended the Egyptian-born Saif al-Adel, and he seems to be there still. Al-Iraqi did better. Those who know him say he fits in perfectly wherever he goes. Born in Iraqi Kurdistan about 1960, he rose to the rank of major in Saddam Hussein's Army before joining the jihad in Afghanistan in the late 1980s. He speaks not only Arabic but Urdu, Kurdish, the Waziri tribal dialect of Pashtu and a courtly form of Persian. In the palatial salons of the gulf states he has raised millions of dollars for Al Qaeda. But dressed for the part he can easily pass for a mountain tribesman. "He's just like any Afghan," says Zabihullah. "He doesn't have the arrogance and formality of other Arabs."

Al-Iraqi needed all the poise and charm he could muster for his mission to the insurgents. By the time he reached Iraq, in late 2003, Zarqawi had built a fearsome team of resistance fighters. The Jordanian considered himself to be the obvious choice for Al Qaeda's top man in Iraq. He was livid at the news that bin Laden had chosen al-Iraqi for the job. "I'm already here!" Zarqawi told al-Iraqi. "So why is the sheik sending someone else?"

No one but Zarqawi could see much mystery there. Zarqawi was widely disliked in Afghanistan. Even bin Laden was repulsed by reports of his vicious temper and gratuitous cruelty. In the late 1990s, commanding a unit of Arab irregulars near Afghanistan's Iranian border, the Jordanian terrorized local civilians and infuriated Taliban leaders. Mullah Mohammed Omar's men had just taken control of the area and were trying to win the trust of its mostly Shiite inhabitants. When Zarqawi wasn't busy persecuting Shiites, he wrangled with other Arabs and with the local Taliban chief.

Zarqawi had "a terrifying face," al-Iraqi recalled later. But the envoy said he knew at once that Zarqawi was exactly what Al Qaeda needed. "There is no —doubt that he is the best man to lead foreign and Iraqi insurgents in Iraq," al-Iraqi told bin Laden when he got back to the caves, according to Zabihullah's account. "He deserves our support." The envoy has made three trips to Iraq since then. Just before the last, in September, a London-based Arabic-language daily quoted Zarqawi as repudiating bin Laden and Al Qaeda: "I have not sworn allegiance to the sheik and I am not working within the framework of his organization." But after meeting again with al-Iraqi, the Jordanian proclaimed his loyalty to bin Laden and announced a new name for his terrorist group: "Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers." "I'm a loyal soldier and ready to sacrifice myself to the sheik, who is our leader," he told al-Iraqi.

Bin Laden replied by issuing an audiotape that praised Zarqawi's exploits and called him the "prince of Al Qaeda in Iraq." The tape instructed all Qaeda supporters to follow Zarqawi's orders. Bin Laden had already made his wishes known to Zarqawi via al-Iraqi. "My greatest wish is for you to keep the resistance alive and growing, to increase the number of local insurgents and give the Iraqis more decision-making powers," Zarqawi was told. "Make it as much of an Iraqi organization as possible." Bin Laden also urged his prince to widen the war against America: "We have to expand our attacks on the enemy outside Iraq."

The envoy is proud of his work. "I'm the person who broke the silence and solved the difficulties between Zarqawi and the Al Qaeda leadership," he told Zabihullah. Donations to Al Qaeda's coffers had dried up as bin Laden's top men were killed or captured. Now private money is once again flooding in. Bin Laden himself is looking more confident and relaxed—maybe too relaxed, al-Iraqi said. When he visited the Qaeda leader in November, the envoy noticed fewer checkpoints than previously along the trail. "The sheik has a new mentality and is more healthy," he told Zabi-hullah. On his last visit to Iraq, the envoy got an offer from Zarqawi: if life got too risky in the mountains along Pakistan's border, bin Laden would be welcome to take refuge with him among the insurgents in Iraq. The envoy politely declined. At present, the Qaeda leader seems to be doing just fine where he is.

With Mark Hosenball in Washington

Read More...

Typical al-Qaeda recruits Western educated

heraldsun.news.com.au
Typical al-Qaeda recruits Western educated

04apr05

THE typical recruit to al-Qaeda is Western-educated and has a wealthy, professional background, according to a new study.

The analysis of 500 members of Osama bin Laden's organisation has turned Western experts' presumptions about al-Qa'ida upside down.

Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist who conducted the study, said he assumed it would find that most recruits were poor and ill-educated.

"The common stereotype is that terrorism is a product of poor, desperate, naive, single young men from Third World countries, vulnerable to brainwashing and recruitment into terror," he said.

However, his study showed 75per cent of the al-Qaeda members were from upper-middle-class homes and that many were married with children; 60 were college-educated, often in Europe or the US.

Some, such as British-born terrorist Omar Sheikh, were educated at fee-paying schools before heading for Afghanistan, Bosnia or Chechnya.

Sheikh, who has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for his role in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, attended Aitchison College in Lahore, Pakistan, and the fee-paying Forest school in east London.

Dr Sageman said most of the terrorists came from a small number of wealthy Arab countries, from immigrant communities in the West or from Southeast Asia. Few were from poor Islamic countries such as Afghanistan.

"Al-Qaeda was very selective at first in terms of who it recruited," said Dr Sageman, a former CIA officer who once worked with anti-Soviet mujaheddin fighters while based in Islamabad.

"If you look at the Saudis who have been killed while fighting for the organisation, you find the majority come from Riyadh, the capital, rather than poor rural provinces."

He said most grew up in caring families concerned about their communities.

The men in Dr Sageman's sample joined al-Qaeda at an average age of 26. About half grew up as religious children, but only 13 - mostly from Southeast Asia - attended Islamic schools.

The study is backed by Abdullah Anas, a former senior mujaheddin commander in Afghanistan who now lives in London.

"There is no question (but) that most of those who came to Afghanistan in the 1980s were from middle-class backgrounds - teachers, doctors, accountants or imams," he said. "Most came with their families."

But Dr Sageman and Mr Anas agree that more recent al-Qaeda recruits are likely to come from less privileged backgrounds.

Read More...

Former CIA Chief Disputes Warning Over Iraq Data

Yahoo! News
Reuters
Former CIA Chief Disputes Warning Over Iraq Data

By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former CIA Director George Tenet on Friday disputed that he was warned about problems with an Iraqi source just hours before Secretary of State Colin Powell argued the U.S. case against Iraq at the United Nations, using the source's information.

A presidential commission issued a scathing report on Thursday about U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that said the Bush administration relied on unsubstantiated intelligence from an Iraqi chemical engineer code-named "Curveball" that Iraq had mobile biological weapons labs.

Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin issued lengthy statements on Friday saying they were not alerted before the war to concerns about the veracity of the Iraqi source, who was being handled by German authorities.

Powell pointed to the mobile labs as key evidence in his case against Iraq to the United Nations in February 2003, about a month before the U.S.-led invasion.

Despite declarations by the Bush administration about President Saddam Hussein's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq in what has been called a major intelligence failure.

At the center of the dispute is a phone call on the eve of the Powell speech.

A now-retired division chief from the CIA's clandestine unit told the presidential commission that Tenet called him at about midnight on the day before Powell's speech and during the conversation he told the CIA chief that there were problems with some of the foreign intelligence.

"CURVEBALL" INFORMATION

The division chief, who was not named, said Tenet was dismissive, that his reply in effect was "yeah, yeah" and that he was "exhausted," according to the commission report. The division chief said he was surprised when he heard Powell's speech to find the Curveball information was included.

Tenet on Friday said he called the CIA division chief in late afternoon or early evening but the phone call had nothing to do with Iraqi mobile biological weapons labs. "I have absolutely no recollection of the division chief saying anything to me with regard to problems with the foreign reporting," Tenet said.

He said the presidential commission's report was the first time he heard that the CIA division chief was told by a German liaison in September or October 2002 that the Iraqi source was considered "crazy," had a nervous breakdown and may be a fabricator.

"It is both stunning and deeply disturbing that this information, if true, was never brought forward to me by anyone in the course of the following events," Tenet said, listing nine instances including major reports, speeches, and congressional testimony on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

McLaughlin said he and Tenet were not alerted until late 2003 or early 2004 when an e-mail expressing skepticism about Curveball came to light in the course of internal reviews.

"This email was written in February 2003, and anyone wishing earnestly to impress us with doubts about Curveball could have simply laid this on our desks at any time. This did not happen," McLaughlin said.

originally published Apr 1, 7:26 PM ET

Read More...

U.S. Ignored Work of U.N. Arms Inspectors

washingtonpost.com
Panel: U.S. Ignored Work of U.N. Arms Inspectors

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer

Of all the claims U.S. intelligence made about Iraq's arsenal in the fall and winter of 2002, it was a handful of new charges that seemed the most significant: secret purchases of uranium from Africa, biological weapons being made in mobile laboratories, and pilotless planes that could disperse anthrax or sarin gas into the air above U.S. cities.

By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested -- and disproved -- by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the president and released Thursday.

The work of the inspectors -- who had extraordinary access during their three months in Iraq between November 2002 and March 2003 -- was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and the intelligence community in the run-up to the war, according to the commission led by former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) and retired appellate court judge Laurence H. Silberman.

But the commission's findings, including a key judgment that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, are leading to calls for greater reliance on U.N. inspectors to test intelligence where the United States has little or no access.

"U.N. inspectors are boots on the ground," said David Albright, a nuclear specialist who accompanied the International Atomic Energy Agency to Iraq in the mid-1990s. Albright and others think the IAEA should be given greater access in Iran, and returned to North Korea. It would be up to the agency's board, which includes the United States, to authorize increased powers.

The Bush administration tussled with inspectors before the Iraq war and maintains a hostile relationship with the IAEA, whose director, Mohamed ElBaradei, the United States is trying to replace this year. The administration also wants to shut down a U.N. inspection regime led by Hans Blix that was set up to investigate biological, chemical and missile programs in Iraq.

During more than two years of investigations in Iran, the IAEA has "been critical in uncovering their secret activities so we know the scope and the status of the nuclear programs and the problems," said Albright, who has exposed unknown nuclear sites in Iran and has followed the IAEA's work there. "There is a tremendous amount of detail that the intelligence community didn't have prior to the IAEA going in and intensifying the investigation."

The White House has not publicly presented intelligence to support its assertion that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, as it did with Iraq. Instead, it routinely points to the IAEA investigation, Iran's large oil reserves and the secrecy that surrounded Iran's nuclear program for nearly two decades.

The IAEA has not found evidence that Iran is using its nuclear energy program as a cover for bomb building, as the administration claims. But those findings have been dismissed by some members of the administration.

John R. Bolton, nominated to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has called the findings "simply impossible to believe."

Jonathan Tucker, who was a bioweapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq during the 1990s, said inspectors have limited access and rely heavily on intelligence that can be provided by powerful countries such as the United States.

"What they can provide is ground truth and legitimacy. If you hope to persuade countries to impose sanctions or other measures on proliferators, the word of inspectors is valuable."

North Korea kicked out IAEA inspectors in December 2002, a move that deprived the intelligence community of a key avenue of information about the closed country. The lack of access to North Korea, which has been judged to have the capacity to build six to eight nuclear weapons, has been a source of frustration for the international agency.

But at the time of the IAEA's departure from Pyongyang, attention in Washington and in Vienna, where the IAEA is based, was largely focused on Iraq.

Months before U.S. troops attacked Iraq in March 2003, the IAEA challenged every piece of evidence the Bush administration offered to support claims of a nuclear program there, according to the commission.

In January, IAEA inspectors discovered that documents showing Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger were forged. But the CIA chose to stick to the claim for another six months.

Two years earlier, the IAEA disputed CIA claims that Iraq was trying to buy black-market aluminum tubes for a nuclear program. The IAEA assessment, which turned out to be accurate, was first shared with U.S. intelligence in July 2001, according to the authors of the presidential commission report.

Blix's U.N. group tested evidence supplied by an Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball," whose tales of mobile bioweapons laboratories turned out to be fabrications, according to the report. Among Curveball's claims was that an Iraqi facility had been redesigned, with a temporary wall, to allow mobile laboratories to slip in and out undetected.

"When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors visited the site on Feb. 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball's reporting," the commissioners wrote.

"We offered eyes and ears," Blix said in a telephone interview yesterday. "We knew a lot about the country, we examined places, got intelligence tips about where to go and conducted 700 inspections at 500 sites in three months."

UNMOVIC also determined before the war that CIA claims about a fleet of pilotless Iraqi planes were incorrect. The unmanned aerial vehicles did not have the capability to deliver chemical or biological weapons and were probably designed for reconnaissance missions.

The Bush administration has prevented the IAEA from returning to Iraq since the invasion. UNMOVIC will likely be dismantled unless the United States agrees to turn it into an international inspection force for biological weapons and missile programs.

originally published Sunday, April 3, 2005; Page A06

Read More...

Green light for Iraqi prison abuse came right from the top

(Reader warning: some off-color language in this article)

news.independent.co.uk
Green light for Iraqi prison abuse came right from the top
Classified documents show the former US military chief in Iraq personally sanctioned measures banned by the Geneva Conventions. Andrew Buncombe reports from Washington
03 April 2005

America's leading civil liberties group has demanded an investigation into the former US military commander Iraq after a formerly classified memo revealed that he personally sanctioned a series of coercive interrogation techniques outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. The group claims that his directives were directly linked to the sort of abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib.

Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reveal that Lt General Ricardo Sanchez authorised techniques such as the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners, stress positions and disorientation. In the documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Gen Sanchez admits that some of the techniques would not be tolerated by other countries.

When he appeared last year before a Congressional committee, Gen Sanchez denied authorising such techniques. He has now been accused of perjury.

The ACLU says the documents reveal that the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere was the result of an organised and co-ordinated plan for dealing with prisoners captured during the so-called war on terror that originates at the highest levels of the chain of command. It says that far from being isolated incident, the shocking abuse at Abu Ghraib that was revealed last year was part of a pattern.

"We think that the techniques authorised by Gen Sanchez were certainly responsible for putting into play the sort of abuses that we saw at Abu Ghraib," Amirit Singh, an ACLU lawyer, told The Independent on Sunday. "And it does not just stop with Sanchez. It goes to [Defence Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, who wrote memos authorising these sorts of techniques at Guantanamo Bay."

In the September 2003 memo, Gen Sanchez authorised the use of 29 techniques for interrogating prisoners being held by the US. These included stress positions, "yelling, loud music and light control" as well as the use of muzzled military dogs in order to "exploit Arab fear of dogs". Some of the most notorious photographs to emerge from the Abu Ghraib scandal showed hand-cuffed, naked Iraqi prisoners cowering from snarling dogs.

Six weeks after Gen Sanchez issued his memo, a subsequent directive banned the use of dogs and several of the other techniques following concerns raised by military lawyers. The ACLU says that at least 12 of the techniques listed in the memo went beyond the limits for interrogation listed in the US Army's field manual.

"Gen Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards," said Ms Singh. "He and other high-ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."

The Abu Ghraib scandal sent shockwaves around the world and further undermined US credibility in the Arab world. In the immediate aftermath, insurgents who captured and beheaded a US engineer, Nick Berg, said they had done so in retaliation for the abuse at the infamous prison west of Baghdad, where prisoners were sexually humiliated and tortured.

A number of low-ranking reservists have been charged over the abuse. An alleged ringleader, Charles Graner, 36, was convicted last January and sentenced to 10 years in jail. At his trial his lawyer, Guy Womack, claimed his client was being used as a scapegoat. "The government is asking a corporal to take the hit for them," he said. "The chain of command says, 'We didn't know anything about this stuff'. You know that is a lie."

When he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004, Gen Sanchez flatly refused approving such techniques in Iraq, and said that a news article reporting otherwise was false. "I never approved any of those measures to be used ... at any time in the last year," he said under oath. The ACLU accuses him of committing perjury and has asked the Attorney General to investigate. In a letter to Alberto Gonzales, the group said: "Gen Sanchez's testimony, given under oath before the Senate Armed Services committee, is utterly inconsistent with the written record, and deserves serious investigation. This clear breach of the public's trust is also further proof that the American people deserve the appointment of an independent special counsel by the Attorney General."

A number of investigations have been carried out into the abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. While some have referred to a break-down in the chain of command, none have placed responsibility with senior officers or politicians.

Kathy Kelley, a spokeswoman for the anti-war group Voices in the Wilderness, said the new documents obtained by the ACLU showed a pattern of abuse by US forces. "It saddens me but I am not shocked," she said.

Gen Sanchez is currently commanding general of the US V Corps based in Germany. He has yet to comment on the release of the memo. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment.

The Pentagon originally refused to release the memo on national security grounds, but passed it to the ACLU after the group challenged it in court. Mr Rumsfeld last week dismissed suggestions that it had been withheld to save the Pentagon's embarrassment.

But the ACLU said the reason for the delay in delivering the more than 1,200 pages of documents in which the memo was contained was "evident in the contents", which included reports of brutal beatings and sworn statements that soldiers were told to "beat the fuck out of" prisoners.

Read More...

Sunday, April 03, 2005

The Risk Not Taken

NY Times
April 3, 2005

The Risk Not Taken
By RICHARD DOOLING

Omaha

ELIOT SPITZER, the New York attorney general, has made a career out of spanking arrogant fat cats on the front page. We cheered when he busted those shifty stockbrokers for selling us shares of Enron and WorldCom, and we hailed him for exposing those money managers who sold our mutual fund shares on the cheap after 4 p.m. Eastern to influential big boys at our expense.

Then last year Mr. Spitzer went after insurance companies, and everybody applauded again. Of course! Talk about a target-rich environment! For weeks, we opened our newspapers eager to read about insurance companies finally getting put to hammer and tongs for not paying claims, for denying medical coverage to cancer patients because of pre-existing conditions, for issuing policies with 50-page declarations and addenda that carefully spell out all of the losses for which the companies will not pay.

Instead, Mr. Spitzer abruptly lost his common touch and announced that he was investigating something called "contingent commissions" in the commercial insurance business. Huh?

That was our first inkling that this man on horseback might be a Man of La Mancha on a windmill hunt. After all, commercial insurance companies involved in bid-rigging - and even those that aren't - have battalions of litigators on retainer to attack and defend, pillage and plunder one another's coffers, and hang their rivals' fiscal heads on spikes outside their gates. Aren't attorneys general supposed to be lawyers for us lawyerless little guys?

Now, instead of moving back down the insurance food chain where the rest of us suffer - I have some dependent health insurance claims I'd love to see paid - Mr. Spitzer has cast his eyes on the very summit: On April 11, he and other financial regulators will be questioning the Wizard of Omaha, Warren Buffett, about possible financial manipulation at several giant international insurance companies, including American International Group and General Re, a subsidiary of Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. (Disclosure: I sometimes help write skits for the Omaha Press Club show, in which Mr. Buffett has occasionally appeared. His ad libs get bigger laughs than my scripts.)

Granted, a Spitzer-Buffett bout might bump Michael Jackson's trial off the top of the news hour for a day or two, and Mr. Spitzer must think big, because he wants to be governor. But now his reach has officially exceeded his grasp. Investigating insurance companies is one thing, but reinsurance companies? What the heck is reinsurance? And isn't questioning Warren Buffett about the reinsurance industry a bit like asking Stephen Hawking about black holes and white dwarfs?

Let's go to this newspaper's business section for an explanation of the skullduggery that transpired: "The issues under inquiry are whether reinsurance companies controlled by A.I.G. were treated as separate entities in order to help hide A.I.G.'s exposure to risk; whether reinsurance transactions are tantamount to loans that should have been so listed; whether assets and liabilities were swapped to smooth earnings; and, finally, whether A.I.G. used finite reinsurance to smooth earnings."

Uncross your eyes and note the distinct absence of outrage.

I'm certain that Mr. Buffett understands this finite reinsurance lingo, but I fear for Mr. Spitzer if it comes to a contest of reinsurance wits bandying provisos back and forth. My prediction is that the entire scandal will vanish when the regulators get to Page 782 of the provisions governing the reinsurance contracts, where Paragraph LXIXII(A)(4), Clause (iii), colors the word "risk" a murky shade of gray and renders the entire investigation a publicity stunt within the meaning of Paragraph XXXVI(B)(3), Clause (vii). But by the time that document is parsed, Mr. Spitzer will be in his fifth term as governor and thinking about running for president.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for a demagogue, but I'd rather have Mr. Spitzer start small and initiate a full-scale investigation into how an insurance company in St. Paul can issue a policy promising (with a perfectly straight font face) to pay for direct loss to a building resulting from the eruption of a volcano, and then three paragraphs later state that it will absolutely not pay for water damage from a frozen pipe. Just what sort of industry is it that thrives by taking our premiums and promising to pay us money, but only if we die?

If Mr. Spitzer started out by investigating regular old insurance companies first, he could use the experience as a kind of warm-up for the mind-numbing denial and bureaucratic obfuscation that will surely greet his foray into the reinsurance industry. He could still start right here in Omaha, if he liked, but instead of going after Mr. Buffett, Mr. Spitzer could take a look at an insurance situation closer to home: my own.

Here's an actual paragraph from my homeowner's insurance policy (issued by Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Lincoln, Neb.): "If at the time of loss there are no detached structures, the limit of liability shown for Coverage B shall be added to the limit of liability under Coverage A. If the replacement cost of all detached structures totals less than the limit of liability for Coverage B, the excess amount shall be added to Coverage A, and the sum of the two shall be the company's limit of liability under Coverage A. However, this shall not increase the limit of liability for Coverage C or D."

While Mr. Spitzer is busy interrogating Mr. Buffett about finite reinsurance, the author of this infinitely unreadable paragraph is still running around the streets of Lincoln. Will he strike again? And who will protect us from his next inscrutable injustice?

Richard Dooling is the author, most recently, of "Bet Your Life," a novel about insurance fraud.

Read More...

Curveball the Goofball

NY Times
April 3, 2005

Curveball the Goofball
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

I had an editor once whose wife was in the Audubon Society. There were a lot of articles about birds in that newspaper.

I had an editor once who loved fishing. There were a lot of articles about fish in that newspaper.

Organizations organically respond to please the boss. Bosses naturally surround themselves with people who tell them what they want to hear.

When King Lear's favorite daughter spoke frankly to him, and refused to fawn like her sisters, she was instantly banished. Insincerity pays.

It is absurd to have yet another investigation into the chuckleheaded assessments on Saddam's phantom W.M.D. that intentionally skirts how the $40 billion-a-year intelligence was molded and manufactured to fit the ideological schemes of those running the White House and Pentagon.

As the commission's co-chairman, Laurence Silberman, put it: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policy makers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Huh? That's like an investigation into steroids in baseball that looks only at the drug companies, not the players who muscled up.

We don't need a 14-month inquiry producing 601 pages at a cost of $10 million to tell us the data on arms in Iraq was flawed. We know that. When we got over there, we didn't find any.

This is the fourth exhaustive investigation that has not answered the basic question: How did the White House and Pentagon spin the information and why has no one gotten in trouble for it? If your kid lied and hid stuff from you to do something he thought would be great, then wouldn't admit it and blamed someone else, he'd be punished - even if his adventure worked out all right for him.

When the "values" president and his aides do it, they're rewarded. Condoleezza Rice was promoted to secretary of state. Stephen Hadley, Condi's old deputy, was promoted to national security adviser. Bob Joseph, a national security aide who helped shovel the uranium hooey into the State of the Union address, is becoming an under secretary of state. Paul Wolfowitz, who painted the takeover of Iraq as such a cakewalk that our troops went in without the proper armor or backup, will run the World Bank. George Tenet, who ran the C.I.A. when Al Qaeda attacked and when Saddam's mushroom cloud gained credibility, got the Medal of Freedom.

Then the president appoints a compliant Democrat and a complicit conservative judge to head an inquiry set up to let the president off the hook.

Please, no more pantomime investigations. We all know what happened. Dick Cheney and the neocons had a fever to sack Saddam. Mr. Cheney and Rummy persuaded W., "the Man," that it was the manly thing to do. Everybody feigned a 9/11 connection. Ahmad Chalabi conned his neocon pals, thinking he could run Iraq if he gave the Bush administration the smoking gun it needed to sell the war.

Suddenly Curveball appeared, the relative of an aide to Mr. Chalabi, to become the lone C.I.A. source with the news that Iraq was cooking up biological agents in mobile facilities hidden from arms inspectors and Western spies. Curveball's obviously sketchy assertions ended up in Mr. Tenet's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and Colin Powell's U.N. speech in February 2003, laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq.

Curveball's information was used to justify the war even though it was clear Curveball was a goofball. As the commission report notes, a Defense Department employee at the C.I.A. met with him and "was concerned by Curveball's apparent 'hangover' during their meeting" and suspicious that Curveball spoke excellent English, even though the Foreign Service had told U.S. intelligence officials that Curveball did not speak English.

By early 2001, the C.I.A. was receiving messages from our Foreign Service, reporting that Curveball was "out of control" and off the radar. A foreign intelligence service also warned the C.I.A. in April 2002 that it had "doubts about Curveball's reliability" and that elements of the tippling tipster's behavior "strike us as typical of individuals we would normally assess as fabricators."

But Curveball's crazy assertions had traction because they were what the White House wanted to hear.

The report warns the president to watch out for the "headstrong" intelligence agencies. If only the commission had concerned itself with headstrong officials at a higher level. Then its 601 pages would be worth reading.

E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com

Read More...