Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

And on a more serious note:

Middle East - AP

"Iraqi Leaders May Recruit Ex-Saddam Agents"

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Iraqi leaders trying to rebuild the country's government are struggling over whether to enlist some of Iraq's most experienced intelligence operatives.

The problem is that the officers' training comes from working at the fear-inspiring agencies once run by Saddam Hussein's ruling party.

Factions involved in the painstaking process of building the democratic government are voicing their reluctance to let former members of the Baath Party into the fledgling intelligence and security services.

"There is a fear among some Iraqis that I talk to that ex-Baathists are burrowing into these organizations with the express purpose of waiting for the opportune moment, such as when the U.S. leaves, to use these security organizations to make a big move," said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert with the Congressional Research Service, which provides analysis to lawmakers.

He said he believes the fears are well founded.

After forming a new intelligence service last year, outgoing interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi decided to recall some of Saddam's former intelligence operatives, including individuals working in Iran, Syria and Russia, to help staff the new service.

American intelligence veterans say the U.S. supported the move, seen as an effort to bring trained people into the government and give them jobs.

U.S. officials, on the alert for a sudden — or even gradual — purge, are watching closely for any number of changes in the intelligence service, including whether ex-Baathists or Iraqis deemed too close to the United States are put out of work.

Well, here we are in Iraq, all right, and well, who ever really knows, but me, well, what I think is that if we have a president who does either stupid or ill-thought-out things, that that makes all of us over here look weak and stupid, for having such a person as OUR president, and I don't think that is good in the long run, for either OUR America, or us!

BUT ....

Well, here we are!

And so .......

[Livyjr]

Well, here we are!

And so .......

And here we are indeed, and rising up from some bunker somewhere deep in the very bowels of the earth itself once more again to do battle with the forces of evil in the world is OUR VERY OWN Richard "Halliburton Dick" Cheney!

And who, prey tell, is his target today, now that Saddam Hussein is no longer over there for OUR Dick to kick around?

Let's look and see:

Politics - U. S. Congress

"Cheney Warns Dems on Judicial Filibusters"

19 minutes ago

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said Friday he would vote in the Senate to stop filibusters of judicial nominees if given the chance.

That means President Bush is breaking his word to stay out of the fight over Senate rules, Democratic leader Harry Reid responded.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., wants to change Senate rules by banning judicial filibusters — a tactic in which opponents can prevent a vote on a nomination with just 41 votes in the 100-member body.

Minority Democrats have used the tactic to block confirmation votes on 10 of Bush's appeals court choices.

Republicans hold 55 seats in the 100-member Senate, but a vote on changing the rules is expected to be close.

Cheney would be able to vote only if there is a tie.

"Let me emphasize, the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate," Cheney said in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association at the National Press Club.

"But if the Senate majority decides to move forward and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up-or-down vote."

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said the White House was "shattering the checks and balances in our government in order to put radical judges on the bench."

He said Bush was making it clear he no longer wanted to work with Democrats.

"Last week, I met with the president and was encouraged when he told me he would not become involved in Republican efforts to break the Senate rules," Reid said.

"Now, it appears he was not being honest, and that the White House is encouraging this raw abuse of power."

Cheney said a minority of senators are using the filibuster to, in effect, establish a 60-vote requirement for judicial confirmation "in an astounding departure from historical precedent."

"There is no justification for allowing the blocking of nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported," Cheney said.

"The tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable, particularly when you are dealing with men and women of the caliber of those nominated by George W. Bush."

"By any standard of judicial merit, they are fully qualified to serve and by any standard of fairness, they deserve a vote in the United States Senate."

Democrats say it is Cheney who is trying to reinvent Senate history by changing the filibuster rules.

"The White House has always wanted to reduce the Senate's power and the fact that Vice President Cheney is encouraging this abuse of power should strengthen the Senate's resolve to resist," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Cheney recognized in his audience one of the judges who has been filibustered, Charles Pickering of Mississippi.

Bush used a recess appointment last year to install Pickering to an appeals court.

Pickering announced in December that he would not seek the nomination for a permanent seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Republicans want to resolve the matter before a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court because they worry that having to get support from 60 senators would affect who Bush picks for that seat.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, is fighting thyroid cancer.

The Family Research Council, a conservative organization, has arranged a rally for this weekend in Tennessee to build support for the GOP plan.

It accuses Democrats of waging filibusters based on faith.

Frist is scheduled to appear by videotape.

Democrats have condemned those attacks and countered that their opposition is based solely on the conservative views of the nominees.
___

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

[Livyjr]

And here we are indeed, and rising up from some bunker somewhere deep in the very bowels of the earth itself once more again to do battle with the forces of evil in the world is OUR VERY OWN Richard "Halliburton Dick" Cheney!

And who, prey tell, is his target today, now that Saddam Hussein is no longer over there for OUR Dick to kick around?

Let's look and see:

Politics - U. S. Congress

"Cheney Warns Dems on Judicial Filibusters"

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said Friday he would vote in the Senate to stop filibusters of judicial nominees if given the chance.

That means President Bush is breaking his word to stay out of the fight over Senate rules, Democratic leader Harry Reid responded.

"Let me emphasize, the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate," Cheney said in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association at the National Press Club.

Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA)

As the principal national organization of lawyers affiliated with the Republican Party, the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) strives to advance professionalism, election integrity, republican ideals, and career opportunities for the... Copyright © 2003 Republican National Lawyers Association. All rights reserved ...

http://www.rnla.org


Find a Republican Lawyer

... by members is greater than the quality of other lawyers. Neither RNLA nor its officers or employees ... Copyright © 2003 Republican National Lawyers Association. All rights reserved ...

http://www.rnla.org/bio/BioDetail.asp?MemberID=67

[Livyjr]

Politics - U. S. Congress

"Cheney Warns Dems on Judicial Filibusters"

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said Friday he would vote in the Senate to stop filibusters of judicial nominees if given the chance.

That means President Bush is breaking his word to stay out of the fight over Senate rules, Democratic leader Harry Reid responded.

"Let me emphasize, the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate," Cheney said in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association at the National Press Club.

Missions of the Republican National Lawyers Association

As the principal national organization of Republican lawyers, the Association has a targeted set of missions - all complementary, and none of which duplicate missions accomplished elsewhere.

Each member of the Association and every local chapter must ascribe to the accomplishment of these missions, which include:

Advancing Republican Ideals.

The RNLA further builds the Republican Party goals and ideals through a nationwide network of supportive lawyers who understand and directly support Republican policy, agendas and candidates.

[Livyjr]

Missions of the Republican National Lawyers Association

As the principal national organization of Republican lawyers, the Association has a targeted set of missions - all complementary, and none of which duplicate missions accomplished elsewhere.

Each member of the Association and every local chapter must ascribe to the accomplishment of these missions, which include:

Advancing Republican Ideals.

The RNLA further builds the Republican Party goals and ideals through a nationwide network of supportive lawyers who understand and directly support Republican policy, agendas and candidates.

Don't have the bad luck to go up against a bunch of REPUBLICAN lawyers when challenging alleged REPUBLICAN corruption in a REPUBLICAN-controlled county in the State of New York when you are standing before a REPUBLICAN judge in Federal Court, eh, Mr. A.B.!

Just might not be your day if you do, is my thought on the matter, anyway!

[Livyjr]

"Senate moves closer to filibuster showdown"

By Edward Alden and Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
Financial Times
Published: April 22 2005 18:19 | Last updated: April 22 2005 19:12

US business groups are urging the Senate Republican leadership to avoid the “nuclear option” for pushing through controversial judicial nominations, fearing it will bring to a standstill work on a range of business-friendly legislation.

Thomas Donohue, chief executive of the US Chamber of Commerce, told reporters on Friday at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor that use of the tactic to block Democratic filibusters would indefinitely tie up numerous pieces of legislation important for business interests.

“If we do that, then all else is going to stop,” he said.

The comments by Mr Donohue, who represents the largest business lobby in Washington, underscored tensions in the Republican party over whether it should use its control of the White House and Congress to push a pro-business agenda or a social agenda favoured by religious conservatives.

Bill Frist, the Senate Republican leader who has presidential aspirations for 2008, will speak in a taped telecast to be broadcast in many churches on Saturday in an effort to build grassroots support for ending the filibusters.

The determination of social conservatives in the Republican party to appoint more sympathetic judges was reinforced by the courts' refusal to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, who died last month after her feeding tube was removed at the request of her husband.

On Friday, Dick Cheney, vice president, said he would back changes to Senate’s filibuster rules.

“[I]f the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor” for a vote, Cheney said in a speech.

On Thursday the Senate voted to move forward with two of President George W. Bush's controversial judicial nominees, Janice Rogers Brown of California and Priscilla Richman Owen of Texas, who were blocked by Democrats during Mr Bush's first term.

Both are nominated for federal appeals courts, one level below the US Supreme Court.

The move could set up a confrontation in the next month.

Mr Frist has threatened to use new procedural tactics to push through the nominees on a straight majority vote.

Under normal Senate rules, 60 out of 100 votes are required to end a filibuster, and the Republicans control just 55 seats.

But Democrats have made clear they will use every procedural tactic at hand to tie up all Senate business if the Republicans adopt what has been dubbed the nuclear option to push those judges through.

Mr Donohue said on Friday this would probably block several pieces of legislation that business interests care about deeply.

These include an energy bill, reform of medical liability and asbestos lawsuits, and a trade pact with Central America.

Mr Donohue used cautious language in opposing the nuclear option, reflecting fears among some business lobbyists that strident opposition could anger Republican leaders.

In addition, business groups have been active on the issue of judicial nominations, hoping to put more business-friendly judges on the bench.

[Livyjr]

"Senate moves closer to filibuster showdown"

By Edward Alden and Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
Financial Times
Published: April 22 2005 18:19 | Last updated: April 22 2005 19:12

US business groups are urging the Senate Republican leadership to avoid the “nuclear option” for pushing through controversial judicial nominations, fearing it will bring to a standstill work on a range of business-friendly legislation.

In addition, business groups have been active on the issue of judicial nominations, hoping to put more business-friendly judges on the bench.

"3 Justices Respond Personally to Criticism of U.S. Judiciary"

By DAVID STOUT, NY Times

Published: April 22, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 21 - Three Supreme Court justices gave rare, personal reactions on Thursday evening to criticism of the federal judiciary and agreed, not quite unanimously, that it does not bother them very much.

"This isn't new," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said when asked to comment on remarks that America is suffering from a judiciary "run amok," as Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican majority leader, put it recently, although he was not mentioned by name.

Across the decades, she said, there have been many instances of lawmakers, or presidents, savaging one court or another in moments of political passion.

(Mr. DeLay's annoyance with the Supreme Court and the "inferior courts," as the Constitution describes the lesser federal tribunals, has to do with a recent landmark ruling on capital punishment and the way the courts handled the Terri Schiavo case.)

Justice Stephen G. Breyer was similarly unruffled by what Tim Russert of NBC, the moderator of the justices' discussion at the National Archives, termed "a rising tide" of criticism against judges.

"Our job," Justice Breyer said, "is to decide the case in front of us."

He said he understood that occasionally "emotions run very high" in cases not just before the Supreme Court but the lower tribunals.

Besides, Justice Breyer said, high emotions notwithstanding, "there's no talk of needing the paratroopers" to keep order in the streets.

"I dissent," Justice Antonin Scalia said, apparently not referring to the possibility of paratroopers but to whether the courts, and ultimately the American people, are being damaged by the intersection of law, politics and what some people characterize as an "evolving Constitution," a description that Justice Scalia generally does not endorse.

Justice Scalia recalled that he was confirmed by the Senate, 98 to 0, two decades ago, even though senators of all persuasions knew he was a conservative.

He wondered aloud, in the discussion before several hundred people, whether he would get a similar vote today.

But a moment later, he laughed.

"I don't worry about my legacy," he said.

"Just do your job right, and who cares?"

The appearance of the three justices, sponsored by the National Constitution Center, the National Archives and the Aspen Institute, came as court-watchers are increasingly wondering when there will be a change among the nine members.

The current lineup has been the same since Justice Breyer took his seat on Aug. 3, 1994.

The period without a change is one of the longest in the Supreme Court's history, but there has been speculation that President Bush may soon have an opportunity to nominate a justice, or even two.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is 80 and battling throat cancer, and Justice John Paul Stevens just turned 85.

The free-wheeling discussion, among three justices who are not always intellectual soulmates, seemed to reveal personal affection for one another and for the institution on which they serve "during good behavior," as the Constitution puts it.

Mr. DeLay has gone so far as to suggest that lawmakers explore exactly what the Constitution means by that phrase.

His criticism of the judiciary has escalated since federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court, ultimately refused to intervene in the case of Ms. Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who was the focus of a battle between her estranged husband and parents over whether she should be kept alive by a feeding tube.

Mr. DeLay also criticized Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for citing international law in writing the court's ruling in March barring the execution of juveniles.

"That's just outrageous," Mr. DeLay said on Tuesday.

And on that point, at least, he got some support from Justice Scalia.

Justice Scalia said Thursday evening, as he did in dissenting from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, that the feelings and practices in other countries were irrelevant in deciding what to do about the death penalty in the United States.

And Justice Scalia repeated his oft-noted wariness of the notion of an "evolving Constitution."

Justice Breyer did not quite agree.

"It's appropriate in some instances" to look at what goes on in other countries, he said.

"They do not bind us by any means."

In the capital punishment decision that Mr. DeLay found so offensive, Justice Breyer was in the 5-to-4 majority.

All three justices said Thursday that young people need to know more about their Constitution.

They laughed ruefully when Mr. Russert recalled an interview with young people waiting to get into "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno."

What did they think of the Fifth Amendment, the young people were asked.

"Is that the one that says you have to be 21 to drink?" one replied.

[Livyjr]

WEB EXCLUSIVE | JOAN VENNOCHI

"GOP bullying on Bolton"
By Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe Columnist | April 22, 2005

What kind of moral value is this?

Faced with a Republican with a conscience, President Bush attributes GOP concern over the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations to partisan bickering.

‘‘Sometimes politics gets in the way of doing the people’s business,’’ Bush said yesterday in a speech to the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America convention in Washington.

He urged senators to ‘‘put aside politics’’ and confirm Bolton.

That is an overt presidential mischaracterization of what is happening to his nominee, a mischaracterization that a morals class might even consider a falsehood.

Democrats surely can be accused of partisanship in trying to block Bolton’s nomination.

But how does that charge apply to Republicans who are feeling queasy about the nominee and want more information from him?

"My conscience got me,’’ said Republican Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, explaining on Tuesday why he changed his mind about supporting Bolton as UN ambassador.

‘‘I wanted more information about this individual and I didn’t feel comfortable voting for him.’’

As a result, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was forced to postpone a vote on Bolton’s nomination.

Since then, other Republicans are wavering as well.

Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, who earlier was inclined to support Bolton, said he wanted to consult with colleagues.

And Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, is also expressing concern about some of the accusations against Bolton.

‘‘I think these charges are serious enough to demand they cry out for further explanation,’’ he said.

Voinovich got a conscience after hearing Senators Joseph R. Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, make the case against Bolton.

Part of the case submitted by the Democrats involved a statement from Melody Townsel of Dallas, a former contract worker for the Agency for International Development.

In an open letter to the committee, Townsel wrote that Bolton, as a private lawyer, routinely visited her hotel room in Moscow ‘‘to pound on the door and shout threats’’ because she complained about inefficiencies by one of Bolton’s clients, a contractor in a foreign aid program.

‘‘Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel, throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and genuinely behaving like a madman,’’ Townsel wrote.

She also said Bolton falsely told US Foreign Service officials that she was under investigation for misuse of funds.

One co-worker has corroborated some of the charges, while the president of the company has challenged some.

Bolton has not responded to the charge.

Bolton’s critics also accuse him of trying to intimidate intelligence analysts and have them fired when they did not agree with him.

At an earlier hearing, he defended his treatment of two analysts, saying he only meant to signal his lost confidence in them, not retaliate against them for their views.

The charges make temperment, not just ideology, an issue for Bolton.

And temperment is fair game for a man nominated as ambassador to the UN, even one committed to ‘‘reforming’’ it.

In a fitting tribute to Bolton’s bullying style, the Wall Street Journal editorial page yesterday waded in with its own journalistic door-pounding and threat-shouting, belittling Voinovich and Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The pressure is now on Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Will they fold in the face of the onslaught from Bolton’s supporters, or do the right thing and ask Bolton to come back and address the charges?

Lugar has not set a date for new hearing, but said his committee’s plans ‘‘would include the possibility that Secretary Bolton might be asked to come back for additional testimony.’’

Clearly, Bolton’s supporters do not want that to happen.

They know that Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, is correct in assessing the potential for the nominee to die a ‘‘death of a thousand cuts.’’

But how does the GOP, the self-proclaimed party of moral purpose, overlook a Republican senator’s freely expressed conscience?

Democrats did not beat that out of Voinovich; they did not pound at his door, shout threats, chase him down hallways, or throw things at him.

They merely presented information that gave him and other Republicans pause, making them desire more information from the nominee.

That is not stopping the people’s business, as Bush charges.

That is that is doing the people’s business, as high a moral purpose as there is in Washington.

Joan Vennochi’s e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.

[Livyjr]

"GOP bullying on Bolton"
By Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe Columnist  |  April 22, 2005

What kind of moral value is this?

Faced with a Republican with a conscience, President Bush attributes GOP concern over the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations to partisan bickering.

But how does that charge apply to Republicans who are feeling queasy about the nominee and want more information from him?

"My conscience got me,’’ said Republican Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, explaining on Tuesday why he changed his mind about supporting Bolton as UN ambassador.

‘‘I wanted more information about this individual and I didn’t feel comfortable voting for him.’’

As a result, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was forced to postpone a vote on Bolton’s nomination.

Since then, other Republicans are wavering as well.

Lugar has not set a date for new hearing, but said his committee’s plans ‘‘would include the possibility that Secretary Bolton might be asked to come back for additional testimony.’’

Clearly, Bolton’s supporters do not want that to happen.

They know that Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, is correct in assessing the potential for the nominee to die a ‘‘death of a thousand cuts.’’

But how does the GOP, the self-proclaimed party of moral purpose, overlook a Republican senator’s freely expressed conscience?

Democrats did not beat that out of Voinovich; they did not pound at his door, shout threats, chase him down hallways, or throw things at him.

They merely presented information that gave him and other Republicans pause, making them desire more information from the nominee.

That is not stopping the people’s business, as Bush charges.

That is that is doing the people’s business, as high a moral purpose as there is in Washington.

Joan Vennochi’s e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.

Politics - U. S. Congress

"Presidential Nominees Usually Get Approved"

Fri Apr 22,10:42 AM ET Politics - U. S. Congress

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Beyond the sound and fury of the Senate fight over U.N. ambassador-nominee John R. Bolton is the reality that presidents typically get their man — or woman — and President Bush boasts one of the better records on high-level appointments.

The stunning turn of events in the Bolton case — the Senate Foreign Relations Committee postponed a widely expected affirmative vote on the nomination to investigate new charges of abusive personal behavior and misuse of government power — highlights the history of the venerable advice and consent that the Senate gives presidential appointments.

Senators traditionally have saved their fights for judicial nominees, particularly Supreme Court choices, and let presidents have their picks for the Cabinet and other senior executive branch jobs.

"These are relatively rare events for the Senate to scrutinize and not give the president deference for appointments," said Sarah Binder, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University.

Few nominations have faltered over whether the candidate is a bully, and some point out that Congress itself has more than its share of hard-driving bosses.

"That's a standard a lot of senators might not be able to pass," said John J. Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College who, paraphrasing the line from the movie "Apocalypse Now," said denying a nomination over boorish behavior is like "handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500."

Since 1789, presidents have made hundreds of Cabinet appointments, and the Senate failed to confirm just 15 — nine rejections, four withdrawals, two died in committee, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The last failed Cabinet nominee is one Bush would remember — his father's choice of former Texas Sen. John G. Tower to be defense secretary.

In January 1989, Tower seemed headed to confirmation despite allegations of a drinking problem and womanizing.

Then conservative activist Paul Weyrich testified about Tower's personal behavior and the Senate Armed Services Committee rushed into closed session, stalling the nomination.

Amid the delay, the committee received fresh allegations about Tower, giving new life to the opposition.

The committee eventually gave the nomination an unfavorable recommendation, on an 11-9 vote, as partisan rancor rose.

The Democratic-controlled Senate had the final say, rejecting the Republican president's pick of Tower, 53-47, on March 9.

Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University, sees similarities between the Bolton nomination and the Tower fight.

"Anybody who has an overbearing boss, tyrannical, hopes there's a day of reckoning," said Baker, who argued that the problems arise when there is a significant postponement in the vote, giving "time for people who might have been tempted to come forward."

Said Pitney: "It's payback time for anyone he's mistreated."

"And it sounds like it could be a very long list."

Bush offered a strong defense of Bolton on Thursday, calling him "the right man at the right time for this important assignment" and urging the Senate to confirm him.

Like his father with Tower, he is bound to see the nomination through to the end.

But it was a Republican, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, whose reservations about Bolton prompted the committee to delay the vote.

William Binning, a political science professor at Youngstown State University, said once Voinovich makes up his mind, the White House should forget about trying to change it.

"He's a bulldog, he doesn't yield," Binning said.

Said former Sen. John Breaux, D-La., of Voinovich:

"He's independent."

"He calls them as he sees them."

In the face of strong opposition, many a nominee has either jumped or been quietly pushed by the White House before a vote.

Some realized their problems would surely scuttle their selection and abandoned the fight before the gavel sounded on their confirmation hearing.

Two of Bush's picks — Linda Chavez for Labor secretary in 2001 and Bernard Kerik for Homeland Security in 2004 — withdrew their names due to potential problems involving hired help.

Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, had picks for attorney general (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) falter over nanny problems and his choice to head the Justice Department's civil rights division (Lani Guinier) undone by her legal writings on racial issues and strong Republican opposition.

William Weld, a liberal Republican and Clinton's pick to be U.S. ambassador to Mexico, couldn't get past the determined effort of former Republican Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, the conservative chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Donna Cassata covered the Tower nomination for The Associated Press in 1989.

[Livyjr]

By Melissa Rogers
Originally published April 22, 2005
Baltimore Sun

I AM A CHURCHGOING, Bible-believing Baptist, but I recently learned that I'm not a Christian.

Indeed, I've not only learned that I'm not a Christian, I've also learned that I'm anti-Christian and hostile to religion.

Why?

Because I dare to disagree with a certain political and legal agenda.

That's the message that is scheduled to be preached in a Kentucky church Sunday, at an event sponsored by the Family Research Council and joined by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

The event is titled "Justice Sunday: Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith."

The press release for the event states that certain judicial nominees are being opposed "because they are people of faith and moral conviction."

It labels a broad range of court decisions as "liberal, anti-Christian dogma," claiming that "activist courts ... have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

In sum, the release says that "we must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith."

Thus, according to supporters of this agenda, including one of the foremost leaders in Congress, anyone who has a different view of the Constitution is an advocate of "liberal, anti-Christian dogma."

Anyone who takes a contrary position on Senate rules of procedure is hostile to faith.

End of story.

It's time to tell the truth.

There is no "filibuster against people of faith."

Religious people are on both sides of the debate about the filibuster and certain Bush-nominated judges.

And it's wrong for one of the country's foremost political leaders to lend legitimacy to a contrary notion.

Just as no one should have to pass a religious test in order to hold political office, no one should have to pass a political test in order to claim religion or morality.

Further, the Senate has already confirmed the overwhelming majority of President Bush's judicial nominees, and there is every reason to assume that most of these judges are religious people.

Many of these judges presumably share the president's views on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Of course, it would be improper to oppose judges because of their faith, but it is legitimate for senators to inquire about a judge's constitutional philosophy and ability to follow settled law, whatever his or her personal opinion.

And surely reasonable minds can agree that something is seriously awry when a non-Catholic senator, Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, lectures Catholic senators about Catholic doctrine during a hearing on judicial nominations.

Moreover, contrary to the Family Research Council's claims, court decisions have not resulted in the "banning of school prayer" and "the expulsion of the Ten Commandments from public spaces."

As courts have repeatedly recognized, students have every right to pray in public schools, as long as the school does not sponsor the prayer.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that if public parks are generally open for community group rallies and signs, religious rallies and signs must be welcome, too, so long as it's clear that the government itself isn't promoting religion.

Indeed, many deeply religious people support these principles precisely because they don't want the government secularizing the sacred and otherwise meddling in religion.

Just as the government always perverts the faith it promotes, politicians cheapen the religion they seek to embrace when they push partisan politics in churches.

When Jesus cast the moneychangers out of the temple, He said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer."

Houses of worship are holy places, not political precincts.

Dr. Frist is wrong to seek political advantage through this event, and his error is compounded by his tacit approval of these illegitimate claims of persecution and the smearing of others as "anti-religious" simply because they differ on certain political and legal issues.

When I hear attempts to manipulate people in the pews, I always think of one of my grandmother's favorite Bible verses:

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7).

May people of all faiths and political stripes reject a spirit of fear and speak the truth, with power and with love.

Melissa Rogers is a visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School.

[jeffmoskin]

Houses of worship are holy places, not political precincts.

Amen.

Dr. Frist is wrong to seek political advantage through this event, and his error is compounded by his tacit approval of these illegitimate claims of persecution and the smearing of others as "anti-religious" simply because they differ on certain political and legal issues.

Dr. Frist is no doctor. The Hippocratic Oath states, "First, do no harm."

"Dr." Frist rates an "F" here.

This post has been edited by jeffmoskin: Apr 22 2005, 06:39 PM

[Morambar in TX]

Actually, there have been instances where "technicians" have filed a few teeth off the wheels, but in so doing they leave EVIDENCE. Of course, if nobody checks, then they get away with it.

In Ohio, my guess is that the "phantom software patch" that transferred a Kerry vote to a Bush vote "mysteriously" erased itself without a trace at, say 0300 November 3.

The only way we will ever be able to prove the existance of such a patch is for the programmer to come forth.

And doing so risks sleeping with the fishes.

If that is not already where he sleeps.

Just one of the tons of ways it can be done. I repeat,

My simple solution: Voting machines with printers. You mark all your choices, verify them, and the machine spits out a ballot that you place upside down in the box. BEFORE you do that, you check the printout to make sure it's right and if it's not, you do it again til you get one that is; you put ONE piece of paper in the box, and leave. Is that too complicated? Or is democracy no longer within the means of our Bush-whacked country?

Meanwhile, bear in mind: The first instance of which I am aware where e-voting machines were used was a tight Senate race in Nebraska. They went with a system provided by Diebold. The winner: former Diebold CEO Chuck Hagel. And the rest, as they say, is history.

This post has been edited by Morambar in TX: Apr 22 2005, 09:42 PM

[Morambar in TX]

And on a more serious note:

Middle East - AP

"Iraqi Leaders May Recruit Ex-Saddam Agents"

59 minutes ago   

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

Could be worse; remember Operation Paper Clip? End result was a bunch of Nazis running the burgeoning CIA. Didn't much like it when JFK beat their un-official boss in '60, but they took care of that, huh? And the Commander-In-Thief was there in Dallas to shake his hand the day he was shot. Of course, most folks let their minor children travel 200 miles unescorted all the time, so I'm sure his CIA daddy was nowhere in the area. Then '68 rolls around and a Kennedy was gonna run against Nixon again, 'til he won Nixons home state in the primary. So how ticked was 41 when REAGAN gets the nomination in '80? Ask John Hinkley. Or ask Niel Bush; they did have dinner together the day before he shot Reagan.

I could go on and on like this, lowering my life expectancy more and more by the minute, but the bottom line is: Operation Paper Clip was a horrible mistake; I see no reason to do it again in Iraq.

[Morambar in TX]

Politics - U. S. Congress
 
"Presidential Nominees Usually Get Approved"

The last failed Cabinet nominee is one Bush would remember — his father's choice of former Texas Sen. John G. Tower to be defense secretary.

In January 1989, Tower seemed headed to confirmation despite allegations of a drinking problem and womanizing.

Then conservative activist Paul Weyrich testified about Tower's personal behavior and the Senate Armed Services Committee rushed into closed session, stalling the nomination.

Amid the delay, the committee received fresh allegations about Tower, giving new life to the opposition.

The committee eventually gave the nomination an unfavorable recommendation, on an 11-9 vote, as partisan rancor rose.

The Democratic-controlled Senate had the final say, rejecting the Republican president's pick of Tower, 53-47, on March 9.

Supposedly, Tower had a lot of Iran-Contra dirt on 41, and this nomination was an attempt to buy him off. When it failed it was all gonna hit the press. Unfortunately, the pilot of John Towers plain somehow failed to notice an entire mountain with which he collided as a direct result, killing all aboard, including the Texas Senator.

[Morambar in TX]

By Melissa Rogers
Originally published April 22, 2005
Baltimore Sun

I AM A CHURCHGOING, Bible-believing Baptist, but I recently learned that I'm not a Christian.

Just as the government always perverts the faith it promotes, politicians cheapen the religion they seek to embrace when they push partisan politics in churches.

When Jesus cast the moneychangers out of the temple, He said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer."

Houses of worship are holy places, not political precincts.

Dr. Frist is wrong to seek political advantage through this event, and his error is compounded by his tacit approval of these illegitimate claims of persecution and the smearing of others as "anti-religious" simply because they differ on certain political and legal issues.

When I hear attempts to manipulate people in the pews, I always think of one of my grandmother's favorite Bible verses:

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7).

May people of all faiths and political stripes reject a spirit of fear and speak the truth, with power and with love.

Melissa Rogers is a visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School.

All comes full circle. ANYONE WITH ANY INFO ON WHICH CHURCHES WILL BE RECEIVING THE BROADCAST, PARTICULARLY THOSE ON AUSTIN, PLEASE EMAIL THEM TO ME. ALL SUCH DATA WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

"Do not Love the world or the things in the world. If anyone Loves the world, the Love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world -- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life -- is not of the Father but is of the world." (I John 2:15, 16) In other words, the obsession with wealth and power, and subservience to the thiefs and murders also obsessed with it, is NOT Godly or Christian.

"There is no fear in Love; but perfect Love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in Love. We Love Him because He first Loved us. [B]If someone says, 'I Love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not Love his brother whom he has seen, how can he Love God Whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who Loves God must Love his brother also."[B] (I John 4:18-21)

Christians don't bully people. Any Christian politician should remember not to be intimidated by fear, certainly not from psuedo-Christians; have faith in God and no fear of liars. Meanwhile, those calling themselves Christians while professing and practicing hatred have clearly identified their TRUE master and loyalty.

Perhaps the Oath should've read "Frist, do no harm."

This post has been edited by Morambar in TX: Apr 22 2005, 10:16 PM

[Livyjr]

Well, I'm in and out of here in a hurry this morning, and so, I won't respond to any posts above til later.

In the meantime, I'll leave this, and one other, for the record!

And Morambar, if you get a moment and want to take a look at what passes for justice up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, I have a thread running on that subject over in "JUDICIAL", entitled "Death Blow to Dissent!"

Science - AFP

"Climate change: Hundreds of Antarctic glaciers in retreat, says study"

Thu Apr 21, 4:11 PM ET

PARIS (AFP) - Scientists have issued a fresh warning about the effect of climate change on Antarctica, saying that more than 200 coastal glaciers are in retreat because of higher temperatures.

Of the 244 marine glaciers that drain inland ice on the Antarctic peninsula, a region previously identified as vulnerable to global warming, 87 percent have fallen back over the last half century, according to research by British experts.

Using 2,000 aerial photos dating back to the late 1940s and 100 satellite pictures, experts from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) compiled a record of glacier-ice shelves and tidewater glaciers along the peninsula -- the tongue of land that juts 800 kilometers (500 miles) northwards out of continental Antarctica.

Glacier-ice shelves are floating glaciers on the shoreline that are still connected to the land glaciers from which they flowed.

Tidewater glaciers rest on rock and break off into the ocean when they reach the water's edge.

Over the last half century, during which time regional temperatures have risen by around 2 C (3.6 F), these glacier fronts have reversed direction, the authors note in a study published on Friday in the US weekly journal Science.

Until the mid-1950s, most of the glaciers advanced.

For the next decade after that, they were roughly stable.

Since then, though, most have been shrinking.

In the past five years, the retreat has accelerated, and the pattern of retreat is widening.

It started in the warmer northern tip of the peninsula and is heading progressively to the colder south as atmospheric temperatures rise.

"Fifty years ago, 62 percent of the glaciers that flowed down from the mountains to the sea we looked at were slowly growing in length, but since then this pattern has reversed," said lead author Alison Cook.

The average retreat of the 212 shrinking glaciers has been 600 metres (yards) over 50 years.

But this does not take into account a dramatic acceleration in recent years, exposing numerous islands that were once ice-smothered.

Sjogren Glacier, at the northern tip of the peninsula has fallen back eight kilometers (8.5 miles) since 1993, while Widdowson Glacier, on the west coast of the peninsula, has been retreated at 1.1 kms (0.6 miles) per year over the past five year.

As for the cause, the BAS team caution against a leap to judgement.

At present, it is unclear that the man-made "greenhouse effect" -- the burning of fossil fuels which disgorged carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, trapping solar heat -- is entirely to blame, they say.

They note that over the past 50 years, a minority (32) of glaciers has grown, by an average of 300 metres (yards), and that key data on local ocean temperatures and circulation remain scarce.

Antarctica's geology is split into three main regions: East Antarctica, which comprises the bulk of the continent; West Antarctica, which has two huge ice shelves on either side; and the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out of West Antarctica.

Previous research had already identified the peninsula as a vulnerable "hot spot" for global warming, although the reasons for this are debatable.

In February, BAS researcher Chris Rapley presented evidence that ice flows into the Southern Ocean from three big inland glaciers were accelerating, spurred by the loss of the vital shelves of floating glacial ice at the coast.

Like a cork released from a bottle, the lost shelves let the icy river flow swiftly into the sea, causing sea levels to rise by some 1.8 mm (0.07 inches) per year.

The new study repeats that warning, although without giving figures.

It says the erosion of floating glacier ice could spur glacier flow from inland and "make a substantial contribution" to rising sea levels.

Antarctica, the fifth largest continent in the world, contains more than 90 percent of the world's ice, most of it above sea level.

If even a small part of this cap melts, rising sea levels could drown low-lying island states, cities and deltas.

[Livyjr]

And speaking of having no confidence whatsoever in George W. Bush:
 
Top Stories - The Christian Science Monitor

"War mistake tests Italy's patience"

Thu Mar 10, 9:33 AM ET 

Italy and the US have agreed to a joint investigation of the death of an Italian agent who rescued a hostage.

By Sophie Arie, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

ROME - They've had the tears, the tributes, and the angry accusations.

Now, Italians want answers.

In an effort to solder their strained relations, the United States and Italy have agreed that they will join forces to investigate how an Italian intelligence agent was shot dead by American troops as he accompanied a rescued hostage, journalist Giulia Sgrena, to the Baghdad Airport last week.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi hopes the joint effort will soothe his country's raw emotions.

"We can be satisfied," Mr. Berlusconi said, according to La Repubblica newspaper.

"Because in this way [President] Bush has assumed responsibility for his friendship with me."

Hhhhmmmm.

March 10, 2005!

Anyone ever hear anything more about this?

NO?

Me, neither!

Anyone surprised?

No, me, neither!

Europe - AP

"Italy's Berlusconi Forms New Government"

45 minutes ago

ROME - Conservative leader Silvio Berlusconi formed a new government on Saturday, presenting a list of ministers to Italy's president.

He was to be sworn in later in the day.

Berlusconi received a mandate to govern during a meeting Friday with President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, only two days after he quit as prime minister in a power struggle with his coalition allies.

With his reconstituted government, the Italian media magnate hopes to improve his sagging popularity and remain in power until the next election, due in mid-2006.

After a meeting at the presidential palace on Saturday, Berlusconi presented his Cabinet, saying he would keep Gianfranco Fini, head of the right-wing National Alliance party, as his foreign minister, and that he had chosen former Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti as deputy premier.

The government was to be sworn in at 6 p.m. (noon EDT), said Gaetano Gifuni, an official at the president's Quirinale Palace.

end quotes

Isn't it something how much can disappear from our minds with the simple passage of time.

A blessing perhaps, especially for politicians!

[Livyjr]

Could be worse; remember Operation Paper Clip? 

End result was a bunch of Nazis running the burgeoning CIA. 

I saw your comment earlier, Morambar, but did not have an opportunity to address it at that time, and one of my thoughts is that your comment says much about you, if you know about this thing, and its impact on us today, if there might be one!

I am just coming back here right now from Mr. A.B.'s "FDR v. George W. Bush" thread, and earlier today, I was thinking that the Bush's and FDR have in essence been at war themselves since WWII, and that war is ideological, where FDR had one distinct point of view about the activities of George Herbert Walker and Prescott "Cottie" Bush in alleged connection with the National Socialists of Germany in the 1930's, and they had another.

SO!

There is no real surprise in the minds of many that these Nazis were brought over here, by OUR government, after WWII, and FDR's death.

But many people today do not even know of what you are talking about here, and I would be very surprised if any young people do, and so!

Operation Paperclip
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Project paperclip)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_papercl

Originally called Operation Overcast, Operation Paperclip was the codename for the operation by the US intelligence services and military to extract scientists specialising in rocketry (e.g. V-1, V-2), chemical weapons (e.g. Zyklon-B) and medicine from Germany after the collapse of the Nazi government during World War II.

These scientists and their families were secretly brought to the United States, without State Department review and approval.

None of them qualified for visas because they had all served to further the cause of Hitler's Third Reich in World War II.

Scientists were deployed at White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico, Fort Bliss, Texas and Huntsville, Alabama to work on guided missile and ballistic missile technology, and led to the foundation of NASA and the US ICBM program.

Over 700 members of the Nazi scientific community were brought to the US as a direct result of Operation Paperclip, many of whom were still ardent Nazi supporters.

Although President Harry S. Truman gave explicit orders not to allow any scientists who were thought to have strong Nazi leanings to enter the US under Operation Paperclip, many dossiers were re-written to "clean-up" the histories of many of the scientists involved, to prevent them and their expertise falling into the hands of the Soviet Union.

Much of the information surrounding Operation Paperclip is still classified.

Separate from Paperclip was an even-more-secret effort to capture German nuclear secrets, equipment and personnel.

See Operation Alsos.

Another American project (TICOM) gathered German experts in cryptography.

Key figures:

Wernher von Braun
Bernhard Tessmann
Arthur Rudolph
Kurt Blome
Major General Walter Schreiber
Reinhard Gehlen
Allen Dulles (Op architect)
Alexander Lippisch
Hans von Ohain

Key Locations:

Nordhausen
Mittelwerk/Dora Concentration Camp
Peenemünde
White Sands Missile Range

See also:

war crimes
ODESSA
Nazi medical experiments

External links

http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/FactSheets/V2/v-2.htm

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip"

[Livyjr]

"How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler Rise to Power"

by BEN ARIS & DUNCAN CAMPBELL (THE GUARDIAN - U.K.)

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time.

There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair.

But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power.

It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him.

But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade.

The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

TANTALISING

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars.

One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands.

More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border.

During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz.

The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement.

All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets.

What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director.

Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation.

By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".

Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself.

Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society.

He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.

One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC.

Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany's first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering.

After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand.

He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, 'I Paid Hitler,' when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party.

He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party.

The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad.

According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.

There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery.

However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939.

Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled "Hitler's Angel Has $3m in US Bank".

UBC's huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a "secret nest egg" hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs.

The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act.

What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC's business.

The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel.

Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC's president.

May wrote in his report of August 16 1941:

"Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands."

"My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank."

"Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest."

May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.

By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen's Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen's steel and coal mine empire in Germany.

Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets.

Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush's name, and wrote:

"Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary."

"The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC," according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.

RED-HANDED

Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war.

Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim.

No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.

The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.

Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

Flick's plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland.

According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while "American interests" held the rest.

The US National Archive documents show that BBH's involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s.

Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant.

"The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight.

"After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have."

"You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors."

But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

"SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC."

"All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939," says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.

Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country.

Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The Nazis bought some out, but not others.

The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.

Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".

Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said:

"President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton's signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family."

Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions.

He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.

In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.

The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case.

A ruling is expected within a month.

The petition to The Hague states:

"From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz."

"The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented."

The case is built around a January 22, 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews.

The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.

Lissmann said: "If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation."

The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.

In addition to Eva Schweitzer's book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush's business history.

The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s.

Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush.

Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus.

"At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back."

"Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit."

"They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus.

"As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

"They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time.

"My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to."

"Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement.

His supporters suggest that he had one token share.

Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement.

There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.

The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay.

Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline "Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush's Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor".

He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.

In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that "the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes".

Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him.

The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth".

Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned.

Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings.

The charges were dropped last month.

BIOGRAPHY

Buchanan said he regretted his behaviour had damaged his credibility but his main aim was to secure publicity for the story.

Both Loftus and Schweitzer say Buchanan has come up with previously undisclosed documentation.

The Bush family have largely responded with no comment to any reference to Prescott Bush.

Brown Brothers Harriman also declined to comment.

The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz.

The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would "deal honestly with Prescott Bush's alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations".

In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages.

The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that "a person of less established ethics would have panicked ... Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was 'an unpaid courtesy for a client' ... Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised."

"He made available all records and all documents."

"Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill."

The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president.

It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.

However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile.

He added that Harriman's "performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends".

The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family.

In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years."

"These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

However, one of the country's oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.

More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

http://WWW.GUARDIAN.CO.UK/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

[Morambar in TX]

"How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler Rise to Power"

by BEN ARIS & DUNCAN CAMPBELL (THE GUARDIAN - U.K.)

Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant.

"The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight.

"After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have."

"You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

http://WWW.GUARDIAN.CO.UK/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

Snoopy ties it together again, thanks. Should I post my JFK/RFK/MLK theory here, so they can get two patriots with one shot?

John Foster Dulles had a brother, name of Allan. Used to run this thing called the Central Intelligence Agency, which was literally built on the Naval OSS. During WWII the OSS had a member who would himself later rise to prominence, largely on the basis of his wartime service, fella named Nixon. In between the war and Nixons inauguration as Vice President several things happened: John Foster Dulles became Secy. of State, the health of General Eisenhower deteriorated rapidly (but not his affection for Kay Summersby,) and Operation Paper Clip transported a number of Nazi war criminals to the US with full pardon because we couldn't risk the Russians getting them (after all, if it wasn't for the Germans the Japanese probably beat us to the bomb and the world is a VERY different place.)

So the US has this ultra-secret, brand new intelligence agency developed from Naval Intelligence. In 1952 one of their former members begins an eight year reign of the country while the nominal leader plays bridge and golf, runs around on Mamie with Kay, and has two heart attacks and a stroke, during all of which time, guess who's making tuff decisions like whether we should intervene in Vietnam? Everythings going along swimmingly; who knows more about running a shadow government than the Nazis?

Then something unfortunate happens. The Vice President loses his bid to become President outright by a little over a hundred thousand votes. A few years later, a young man who would one day become President shakes the hand of the victor on the day he is shot, despite being a teen-age resident of a city 200 miles away, leading us to at least consider the possibility he was accompanied by a parent, possibly his father, a CIA agent. A commission is quickly convened to get to the bottom of the event, whose members include a young and unremarkable Congressman from Michigan named Ford and the director of the CIA, a fella named Dulles. They conclude there was no conspiracy, just a lone nutter.

Meanwhile the body count mounts in Southeast Asia, on both sides, and the man we wouldn't have to kick around anymore comes in to save the day on a platform of ending the war (a platform on which he campaigned TWICE.) All is going well, and then something unfortunate happens. The President is so crushed by a war the Intelligence community won't let him end, and the consequences of that war for the Great Society that was to be phase two of the New Deal, that he announces he will not run, nor even accept the nomination if it is thrust upon him. Suddenly, the young Senator from New York decides that maybe he wants to be President after all. As the popular brother of the martyred former President, a champion of blacks, latinos, and all the poor, AND A DOVE he can't lose. And then he went to CA. Who do we know from CA? Oh, gee, a couple people huh? (Including the Chief Justice appointed by "Eisenhower" who presided over the Warren Commission.)

So how p----d was that guy who took his kid to see JFK when Reagan got the nomination? Don't ask me. Ask John Hinkley. Or maybe his brothers dinner partner the day before Reagan was shot. This is a secure line, right?

This post has been edited by Morambar in TX: Apr 23 2005, 09:34 PM