Life in OUR America, Volume 5, the Livyjr Files Options

[Snuffysmith]

March 9, 2006
Editorial
The Death of the Intelligence Panel
The wrenching debate in the 1970's over the abuse of presidential power produced two groundbreaking reforms aimed at preventing a president from using war or broader claims of national security to trample Americans' rights.

One was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which struck the proper balance between national security and bedrock civil liberties, and the other was the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a symbol of bipartisan leadership. They endured for a quarter of a century — until George W. Bush and Dick Cheney left FISA in tatters and the Senate Select Committee on its deathbed in just five years.

The Senate panel has become so paralyzingly partisan that it could not even manage to do its basic job this week and look into President Bush's warrantless spying on Americans' international e-mail and phone calls. Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman, said Tuesday that there would be no investigation. Instead, the committee's Republicans voted to create a subcommittee that is supposed to get reports from the White House on any future warrantless surveillance.

It's breathtakingly cynical. Faced with a president who is almost certainly breaking the law, the Senate sets up a panel to watch him do it and calls that control. This new Senate plan is being presented as a way to increase the supervision of intelligence gathering while giving the spies needed flexibility. But it does no such thing.

The Republicans' idea of supervision involves saying the White House should get a warrant for spying whenever possible. Currently a warrant is needed, period. And that's the right law. The White House has not offered a scrap of evidence that it interferes with antiterrorist operations. Mr. Bush simply decided the law did not apply to him.

It was no surprise that Mr. Roberts led this retreat. He's been blocking an investigation into the domestic spying operation for weeks, just as he has been stonewalling a promised investigation into how the White House hyped the intelligence on Iraq. But it was disappointing to see a principled Republican like Senator Olympia Snowe go along. The Democrats are not blameless, either. Too often, their positions seem like campaign tactics, and Senator John Rockefeller IV fumbled by not consulting Ms. Snowe, who is up for re-election and under intense White House pressure.

But the Republicans deserve the lion's share of the blame. It was Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney who hyped the intelligence on Iraq — and the Senate Republicans who helped them evade accountability. And it was Mr. Bush who approved the warrantless wiretapping, which is part of Mr. Cheney's crusade to expand presidential powers. (Unlike the rest of us, Mr. Cheney thought the lesson of Watergate was that the president was not strong enough.)

Ms. Snowe said she would still support an investigation if the new panel uncovered more wrongdoing. But that's hardly likely to happen because the Republicans on the panel are Mr. Roberts, Orrin Hatch, Mike DeWine and Christopher Bond, who march in lock step with the White House.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is still looking into the wiretapping. That committee should have plenty of incentive to go forward — its chairman, Senator Arlen Specter, was righteously angry when he received a letter in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales implied that there was more warrantless spying we don't know about. Mr. Gonzales won't even say that Mr. Bush understands it is blatantly illegal to spy on communications within the United States without a warrant. Nevertheless, there's not much cause for hope: Mr. Specter has a sad habit of bowing to the right wing when the chips are down.

There are moments when leaders simply have to take a stand. It seems to us that one of them is when Americans are in danger of the kind of unchecked surveillance that they thought had died with J. Edgar Hoover, Watergate and spying on Vietnam protesters and civil rights leaders.



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[Livyjr]

March 9, 2006

Editorial

"The Death of the Intelligence Panel"

There are moments when leaders simply have to take a stand.

It seems to us that one of them is when Americans are in danger of the kind of unchecked surveillance that they thought had died with J. Edgar Hoover, Watergate and spying on Vietnam protesters and civil rights leaders.

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

And one point that needs to be made in rebuttal, Snuf, is that today ...

WE DO NOT HAVE LEADERS .....

And we really have not had any for quite some time, by my own reckoning, anyway ....

Look at what is in there now, on either side of the aisle .....

And try to pick out someone who you would follow five feet down a smooth dry sidewalk .....

Let alone into times of adversity ...

Which is where those down there in Washington, D.C. have led us to ...

Likely for FINACIAL GAIN ...

For themselves ...

And for their "clientela" .....

And another key point in there is the statement about Dick Cheney back in the Watergate days thinking the president did not have enough power .....

The BIG GRIZ has not just been ruminating on that point all these years, and that is a fact ...

And it is not his idea alone, either, this UNITARY PRESIDENT who is answerable to no one and nothing at all ...

Except what "winds" and "whims" as are running through his or her own head at any given moment in time .....

THAT IS A REPUBLICAN GOAL .....

TO CREATE AND THEN MAINTAIN THAT AUTONOMOUS "POSITION" HERE IN OUR AMERICA ...

And they have succeeded ...

Right out in front of everyone ...

And so ...

What future president is going to "take things back to where they once were"?

It is like asking Augustus who after him was going to restore the Roman Republic .....

[Livyjr]

Not at all, Snuffsmith ....

Not at all ...

Jingoism and racism, I mean ......

Nothing to do with those at all ...

The simple question is .....

SINCE OUR AMERICA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION ...

WITH A CONSTITUTION PUT IN PLACE BY WE, THE PEOPLE .....

TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY .....

WHY ARE WE GIVING CONTROL OF THE OPERATION OF OUR PORTS TO A COMPANY OWNED BY ANOTHER SOVEREIGN NATION .....

No matter what race they might happen to be ...

British or Arab .....

What exactly is wrong with that picture?

Besides everything?

"Republicans fight Bush on ports deal - House GOP unfazed by threat to veto legislation blocking Dubai firm's takeover of facilities"

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press
First published: Wednesday, March 8, 2006

WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders embraced legislation on Tuesday that would block a Dubai-owned company from taking over operations at several U.S. ports, brushing aside a veto threat from President Bush.

"We want to make sure that the security of our ports are in America's hands," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., whose House Appropriations Committee planned to approve the measure today.

The President has yet to veto any legislation, and GOP leaders have been careful to avoid sending him anything that he wouldn't sign.

Now, eight months before an election, they have decided to challenge him.

"We're not going to let the Democrats get to the right of us on national security," Republican Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the House Homeland Security Committee chairman, has said.

The legislation is expected to reach the House floor next week as part of a $91 billion measure for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and aid for Gulf States recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

GOP House leaders informed the White House staff of their intention Tuesday at a House leadership meeting attended by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.

"The President's position is unchanged," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been criticizing the White House for approving DP World's purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which holds contracts at several U.S. ports.

Many lawmakers, fearing security breaches in an era of terrorism, oppose the deal because a foreign government would be managing terminals at American ports.

Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates, controls the company.

"The political reality is, if you have three weeks to explain it, and you can't explain it ... it's time to end it," King, R-N.Y., said Tuesday.

"This has become a very hot political potato," House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

"I have seen it in my district."

"I have seen it every place I have been."

Lewis said only that his legislation would not single out any one country or company but would effectively prevent DP World from assuming control of terminals at six U.S. ports.

He suggested that he would be open to changing the legislation, if needed, to get the Senate on board and reach middle ground with the White House.

However, Lewis said, "we could have a confrontation at the other end."

The administration reluctantly agreed last month to do a broader investigation into potential security risks of DP World's plans.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has pledged to do whatever it takes to block the deal.

Meanwhile, King has suggested that DP World could soften the controversy by subcontracting its U.S. port operations to an American company and, thereby, having no role in work at the ports.

Michael Moore, DP World's senior vice president, said the company has not discussed such a scenario with lawmakers.

[Livyjr]

You know, Snuf ......

While they may rightly call George W. Bush the GREAT UNITER AND ORGANIZER OF ALL THINGS RELATED TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES ON THE FACE OF THIS PLANET OF OURS .......

It is just as true that "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY" DeLay will likely go down in AMERICAN HISTORY as ....

The GREAT CLARIFIER .......

Because what Mr. "TWO-GUN" has done for each and every person living not only here in OUR America, but in the candid world as well, is to SHARPLY DEFINE what a LEFTIST is here in OUR America ...

AND THAT IS SOMEONE WHO IS FOR LAW AND ORDER ...

Which LAW AND ORDER "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY" DeLay, a REPUBLICAN, along with his CONSTITUENTS, whoever exactly they might be, IS OPPOSED TO ....

Which is to say, a REPUBLICAN like "TWO-GUN TOMMY" DeLay IS FOR LAWLESSNESS

FOR HIM ...

And his CONSTITUENTS .....

And so ....

And of course, the very dapper "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY" DeLay, formerly known as "HOT-TUB TOMMY" before he got hisself "BORN AGIN" when that became all the craze down there in SHUG-AH LAND, where the old HOT TUBSTER hangs out with all his CONSTITUENTS who do get it, well ..

The old HOT TUBSTER done got hisself selected one more time to lead those CONSTITUENTS of his ...

Down there in SHUG-AH LAND in the GREAT STATE OF TEXAS .....

Who seem to like the brand of lawlessness that the old HOT TUBSTER brings to OUR law-making body down there in the corrupt nation's capital of Washington, D.C. .....

And it is funny how everytime I hear the words Tommy DeLay and Sugerland in one sentence, what comes to mind instead of SHUG-AH is "candy" .....

"NOSE-CANDY LAND" ......

Where "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY", the "BORN AGIN" indicted Congressman and his idle rich REPUBLICAN pals lounge all day in a splendor that is fueled by corruption in OUR America .....

The LAND OF THE SLEAZY, the HOME OF THE EASY .....

"DeLay wins primary in Texas"

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press
First published: Wednesday, March 8, 2006

SUGAR LAND, Texas -- Rep. Tom DeLay won the GOP nomination to the House on Tuesday, handily beating three challengers in his first election since he was indicted and forced to step aside as majority leader.

DeLay was widely expected to win, but a close race could have foretold a tough contest for the congressman in the fall.

"I have always placed my faith in the voters, and today's vote shows they have placed their full faith in me," DeLay said in a statement.

"Not only did they reject the politics of personal destruction, but they strongly rejected the candidates who used those Democrat tactics as their platform."

With 88 percent of precincts reporting, DeLay had 19,765 votes, or 62 percent.

His closest challenger, environmental attorney Tom Campbell, had 9,637 votes, or 30 percent.

In the other big Texas primary race, a former Democratic congressman from Houston won the right to challenge Republican Gov. Rick Perry in a state where the GOP holds every statewide office.

Chris Bell prevailed over Bob Gammage, a former Texas Supreme Court justice who jumped into the race in December after a decade out of politics.

Perry won his primary easily, collecting 85 percent of the vote against three little-known opponents.

In a third contest Tuesday, Democratic voters in a congressional district stretching from San Antonio to Laredo had to decide a rematch between freshman Rep. Henry Cuellar and Ciro Rodriguez, who served 3 terms on Capitol Hill before losing to Cuellar in 2004.

With no Republican running in the district, the winner will take the seat.

With about 69 percent of precincts reporting, Cuellar had 16,705 votes, or 49 percent, compared with Rodriguez, who had 15,408 votes, or 45 percent.

DeLay, 58, was indicted last year and is awaiting trial on charges he illegally funneled corporate donations to GOP candidates for the Texas House in 2002.

The Republicans won a majority in the Legislature that year, and then pushed through a congressional redistricting plan engineered by DeLay that sent more Republicans to Washington in 2004.

DeLay has also come under scrutiny over his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to fraud in January and is cooperating in an investigation of influence-peddling on Capitol Hill.

The Democratic nominee in the fall will be Nick Lampson, a well-financed former congressman ousted from office in 2004 under the new congressional map engineered by DeLay.

DeLay "gets headlines for all the wrong reasons," Lampson said Tuesday.

"I'm looking forward to that headline on November 8th: 'No Further DeLay.' "

[Livyjr]

And while we are on the subject of Washington, D.C., the corrupt capital of the United States of America ...

Where bottom-feeders predominate .....

And healthy species are hard to find .....

We have ....

Well, what on earth would anyone expect ...

More talk of war, of course ....

Since the BUSHCO cannot handle even one war properly ...

His solution is to get into another ...

So that no one will remember how badly he did in the last one ...

While those in the world who make their money off of us fighting and killing each other will be thanking DOPEY GEORGE profusely .....

As they haul off the contents of OUR national treasury to their off-shore numbered accounts ....

TAX FREE ....

"U.S. hardens stance on Iran"

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press
First published: Wednesday, March 8, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration drew a hard line on Iran Tuesday, warning of "meaningful consequences" if the Islamic government does not back away from an international confrontation over its disputed nuclear program.

Edging toward the United Nations Security Council review it has long sought, Washington rejected any potential compromise that would allow Iran to process nuclear fuel that could be used for weapons.

Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States and other nations are agreed that "we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

He said, "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences."

Speaking to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, Cheney did not specify what the U.S. would do but said it "is keeping all options on the table."

American officials have said the government has no plans for military force but will not rule it out.

The United States, Israel and several Arab nations fear development of an Iranian bomb would put Israel at risk or forever change the balance of power in the Middle East.

Russia, which has played middleman on Iran since the breakdown of talks between Tehran and European nations, reassured U.S. officials that it remains on board as the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency again took up the Iran case in Vienna.

The Security Council could have full purview over the issue by week's end, but there is no timetable for action there.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States is not seeking sanctions against Iran "as a first matter."

Russia has proposed a joint venture in which it would enrich uranium on Iran's behalf, keeping that critical component of the nuclear fuel process from potential misuse in Iran.

The United States supports the plan in principle, but Iran has not signed on.

Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who met with her Tuesday in Washington, rejected the notion of a separate compromise that would see Iran suspend full-scale uranium enrichment for up to two years but retain a small enrichment program.

"The United States has been very clear that enrichment and reprocessing on Iranian soil is not acceptable because of the proliferation risk," Rice said.

A diplomatic source said Iran made the suspension offer during talks in Moscow last week.

The offer reflected Tehran's attempts to escape Security Council action over the enrichment, which can be used to make nuclear arms.

Russia, which has veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council, is Tehran's most important ally and business partner.

[Livyjr]

"An American oligarchy?"

By DAVID A. LOVE
First published: Thursday, March 9, 2006

America must get its priorities straight.

Several recent studies show that the income gap between rich and poor Americans is widening.

The nation's wealth is under the control of fewer and fewer people, and this tide of inequality threatens democracy.

A study released in January by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute found that the gap between the highest-income families and poor and middle-income families is significantly wider than it was 25 years ago.

The states with the largest gap between the top and bottom fifths are New York, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona and Florida.

Last December, a research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University reported that between 1972 and 2001, the income of people in the top 1 percent grew by 87 percent.

For people at the very top -- the 99.99th percentile -- the income gain was 181 percent.

By contrast, the bottom 20 percent grew by only 3 percent.

What's more, an analysis of income-tax data by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1 percent of households owns almost twice as much of the nation's corporate wealth as they did 15 years ago.

These studies come amid a growing push to increase the federal minimum wage.

For the first time in nine years, it has stagnated at $5.15.

In 18 states and 130 cities, groups have successfully lobbied for living wage reforms that would raise the minimum wage based on a particular area's cost-of-living expenses.

(Currently, a person earning minimum wage at a full-time salary makes only $10,700 a year -- barely above the nation's poverty line for a single person.)

Economic equality ought to be a bipartisan issue.

But many Republicans in Congress want to make permanent the President's tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest Americans.

And members of Congress have given themselves a cost-of-living pay raise for the past six years in a row.

If more employers paid their employees a fair living wage, they could gain overall by absorbing the increase through decreased absenteeism, lower recruiting and training costs, higher productivity and increased worker morale.

And because the working poor spend most of what they earn, much of a potential minimum-wage increase would go back into the economy.

In 2004, 23 million people used food stamps, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, up from 17 million in 2000.

And thousands of military families are living in poverty.

No longer can politicians sell the American people on the fallacy of trickle-down economics, which claims that throwing more money to the rich will eventually mean more money in the hands of those at the bottom.

The United States cannot exist as a democracy and an oligarchy at the same time.

David A. Love writes for the Progressive Media Project in Madison, Wis.

[Livyjr]

"Shame on spying - A Senate committee backs away from investigating government surveillance"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Thursday, March 9, 2006

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., is duty bound to examine whether the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

But on Tuesday, Sen. Roberts abdicated his role as lawmaker in order to play the role of partisan loyalist.

So did the other Republican members of the committee.

Because of them, a key question in history -- Did President Bush break the law? -- will likely go unresolved.

Sen. Roberts cloaks his decision in the robe of patriotism by declaring that his committee's intent is "to reject confrontation in favor of accommodation."

But it is not confrontation to seek the truth by asking the White House why it feels it can conduct warrantless surveillance of citizens' international telephone calls, e-mails and other correspondence.

And it is not accommodation to back down from a committee investigation.

It's more like complicity in the White House efforts to evade legal scrutiny.

The Republicans' motives are transparent.

If they had agreed to pursue an investigation, as Democrats on the panel urged, they might have reached the conclusion that Mr. Bush violated the laws of the land.

And that's an impeachable offense.

The White House has long maintained that it has the power to conduct warrantless surveillance under legislation passed by Congress authorizing the President to wage war on terrorists.

But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, signed by President Carter, is carefully constructed to balance the government's power with the need to protect citizens' basic liberties.

It stipulates that the government can initiate a warrantless search if the circumstances require prompt action.

But it also requires the government to seek a warrant within 72 hours.

Those warrants are issued by the secret FISA court, which almost always grants such requests.

What little is known about the program -- as revealed in some public testimony before Congress and aggressive news reporting -- is this:

The Bush administration pursued eavesdropping in many instances without coming back to the court for a warrant, and did so against the advice of some former top Justice Department officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

That alone cries out for a full, public committee inquiry.

And so, in a way, does the attempt by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, a committee member, to rewrite the law and give the government 45 days to seek a retroactive warrant, instead of 72 hours.

The obvious question is why such a revision is deemed necessary if, as the White House contends, it already has legal authority to conduct such surveillance?

Isn't Sen. DeWine implicitly acknowledging that the White House has broken the law?

For the moment, only Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, seems to grasp the need for a more intensive investigation.

He's threatening to try to limit the funding of the spying program unless he gets more responsive answers from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

It's a valiant effort, but a lonely one.

Too many of his Republican colleagues seem to have no stomach for finding the truth.

[Snuffysmith]

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03062006.html

Nation Polarized Between Rich and Poor
America's Bleak Jobs Future
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

On February 20 Forbes.com told its readers with a straight face that "the American job-generation machine rolls on. The economy will create 19 million new payroll jobs in the decade to 2014." Forbes took its information from the 10-year jobs projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, released last December.

If the job growth of the past half-decade is a guide, the forecast of 19 million new jobs is optimistic, to say the least. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics payroll jobs data, from January 2001 - January 2006 the US economy created 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs and 1,039,000 net new government jobs for a total five-year figure of 2,093,000. How does the US Department of Labor get from 2 million jobs in five years to 19 million in ten years?

I cannot answer that question.

However, the jobs record for the past five years tells a clear story. The BLS payroll jobs data contradict the hype from business organizations, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, and from "studies" financed by outsourcing corporations that offshore jobs outsourcing is good for America. Large corporations, which have individually dismissed thousands of their US employees and replaced them with foreigners, claim that jobs outsourcing allows them to save money that can be used to hire more Americans. The corporations and the business organizations are very successful in placing this disinformation in the media. The lie is repeated everywhere and has become a mantra among no-think economists and politicians. However, no sign of these jobs can be found in the payroll jobs data. But there is abundant evidence of the lost American jobs.

Information technology workers and computer software engineers have been especially heavily hit by offshore jobs outsourcing. During the past five years (Jan 01 - Jan 06), the information sector of the US economy lost 645,000 jobs or 17.4% of its work force. Computer systems design and related lost 116,000 jobs or 8.7% of its work force. Clearly, jobs outsourcing is not creating jobs in computer engineering and information technology. Indeed, jobs outsourcing is not even creating jobs in related fields.

For the past five years US job growth was limited to these four areas: education and health services, state and local government, leisure and hospitality, financial services. There was no US job growth outside these four areas of domestic nontradable services.

Oracle, for example, which has been handing out thousands of pink slips, has recently announced two thousand more jobs being moved to India. How is Oracle's move of US jobs to India creating jobs in the US for waitresses and bartenders, hospital orderlies, state and local government and credit agencies, the only areas of job growth?

Engineering jobs in general are in decline, because the manufacturing sectors that employ engineers are in decline. During the last five years, the US work force lost 1.2 million jobs in the manufacture of machinery, computers, electronics, semiconductors, communication equipment, electrical equipment, motor vehicles and transportation equipment. The BLS payroll job numbers show a total of 70,000 jobs created in all fields of architecture and engineering, including clerical personal, over the past five years. That comes to a mere 14,000 jobs per year (including clerical workers). What is the annual graduating class in engineering and architecture? How is there a shortage of engineers when more graduate than can be employed?

Of course, many new graduates take jobs opened by retirements. We would have to know the retirement rates to get a solid handle on the fate of new graduates. But it cannot be very pleasant, with declining employment in the manufacturing sectors that employ engineers and a minimum of 65,000 H-1B visas annually for foreigners plus an indeterminate number of L-1 visas.

It is not only the Bush regime that bases its policies on lies. Not content with outsourcing Americans' jobs, corporations want to fill the remaining jobs in America with foreigners on work visas. Business organizations lie about a shortage of engineers, scientists and even nurses. Business organizations have successfully used pubic relations firms and bought-and-paid-for "economic studies" to convince policymakers that American business cannot function without H-1B visas that permit the importation of indentured employees from abroad who are paid less than the going US salaries. The so-called shortage is, in fact, a replacement of American employees with foreign employees, with the soon-to-be-discharged American employee first required to train his replacement.

It is amazing to see free-market economists rush to the defense of H-1B visas. The visas are nothing but a subsidy to US companies at the expense of US citizens.

Keep in mind this subsidy to US corporations for employing foreign workers in place of Americans as we examine the Labor Department's projections of the ten fastest growing US occupations over the 2004-2014 decade.

All of the occupations with the largest projected employment growth (in terms of the number of jobs) over the next decade are in nontradable domestic services. The top ten sources of the most jobs in "superpower" America are: retail salespersons, registered nurses, postsecondary teachers, customer service representatives, janitors and cleaners, waiters and waitresses, food preparation (includes fast food), home health aides, nursing aides, orderlies and attendants, general and operations managers. Note than none of this projected employment growth will contribute one nickel toward producing goods and services that could be exported to help close the massive US trade deficit. Note, also, that few of these jobs classifications require a college education.

Among the fastest growing occupations (in terms of rate of growth), seven of the ten are in health care and social assistance. The three remaining fields are: network systems and data analysis with 126,000 jobs projected or 12,600 per year; computer software engineering applications with 222,000 jobs projected or 22,200 per year, and computer software engineering systems software with 146,000 jobs projected or 14,600 per year.

Assuming these projections are realized, how many of the computer engineering and network systems jobs will go to Americans? Not many, considering the 65,000 H-1B visas each year (650,000 over the decade) and the loss during the past five years of 761,000 jobs in the information sector and computer systems design and related.

Judging from its ten-year jobs projections, the US Department of Labor does not expect to see any significant high-tech job growth in the US. The knowledge jobs are being outsourced even more rapidly than the manufacturing jobs were. The so-called "new economy" was just another hoax perpetrated on the American people.

If offshore jobs outsourcing is good for US employment, why won't the US Department of Commerce release the 200-page, $335,000 study of the impact of the offshoring of US high-tech jobs? Republican political appointees reduced the 200-page report to 12 pages of public relations hype and refuse to allow the Technology Administration experts who wrote the report to testify before Congress. Democrats on the House Science Committee are unable to pry the study out of the hands of Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. Obviously, the facts don't fit the Bush regime's globalization hype.

The only thing America has left is finance, and now that is moving abroad. On February 22 CNNMoney.com reported that America's large financial institutions are moving "large portions of their investment banking operations abroad." No longer limited to back-office work, offshoring is now killing American jobs in research and analytic operations, foreign exchange trades and highly complicated credit derivatives contracts. Deal-making responsibility itself may eventually move abroad. Deloitte Touche says that the financial services industry will move 20 percent of its total costs base offshore by the end of 2010. As the costs are lower in India, that will represent more than 20 percent of the business. A job on Wall St is a declining option for bright young persons with high stress tolerance.

The BLS payroll data that we have been examining tracks employment by industry classification. This is not the same thing as occupational classification. For example, companies in almost every industry and area of business employ people in computer-related occupations. A recent study from the Association for Computing Machinery claims:
"Despite all the publicity in the United States about jobs being lost to India and China, the size of the IT employment market in the United States today is higher than it was at the height of the dot.com boom. Information technology appears as though it will be a
growth area at least for the coming decade."

We can check this claim by turning to the BLS Occupational Employment Statistics. We will look at "computer and mathematical employment" and "architecture and engineering employment."

Computer and mathematical employment includes such fields as "software engineers applications," "software engineers systems software," "computer programers," "network systems and data communications," and "mathematicians." Has this occupation been a source of job growth?

In November of 2000 this occupation employed 2,932,810 people. In November of 2004 (the latest data available), this occupation employed 2,932,790, or 20 people fewer. Employment in this field has been stagnant for the past four years.

During these four years, there have been employment shifts within the various fields of this occupation. For example, employment of computer programmers declined by 134,630, while employment of software engineers applications rose by 65,080, and employment of software engineers systems software rose by 59,600. (These shifts might merely reflect change in job or occupation title from programmer to software engineer.)

These figures do not tell us whether any gain in software engineering jobs went to Americans. According to Professor Norm Matloff, in 2002 there were 463,000 computer-related H-1B visa holders in the US.
Similarly, the 134,630 lost computer programming jobs (if not merely a job title change) may have been outsourced offshore to foreign affiliates.

Architecture and engineering employment includes all the architecture and engineering fields except software engineering. The total employment of architects and engineers in the US declined by 120,700 between November 1999 and November 2004. Employment declined by 189,940 between November 2000 and November 2004, and by 103,390 between November 2001 and November 2004.

There are variations among fields. Between November 2000 and November 2004, for example, US employment of electrical engineers fell by 15,280. Employment of computer hardware engineers rose by 15,990 (possibly these are job title reclassifications). Overall, however, over 100,000 engineering jobs were lost. We do not know how many of the lost jobs were outsourced offshore to foreign affiliates or how many of any increase in computer hardware jobs went to foreign holders of H-1B or L-1 visas.

Clearly, engineering and computer-related employment in the US has not been growing, whether measured by industry or by occupation.
Moreover, with a half million or more foreigners in the US on work visas, the overall employment numbers do not represent employment of Americans. Perhaps what corporations and "studies" mean when they claim offshore outsourcing increases US employment is that the contacts companies make abroad allow them to bring in more foreigners on work visas to displace their American employees.

American employees have been abandoned by American corporations and by their representatives in Congress. America remains a land of opportunity--but for foreigners--not for the native born. A country whose work force is concentrated in domestic nontradable services has no need for scientists and engineers and no need for universities.
Even the projected jobs in nursing and school teachers can be filled by foreigners on H-1B visas.

In the US the myth has been firmly established that the jobs that the US is outsourcing offshore are being replaced with better jobs.
There is no sign of these jobs in the payroll jobs data or in the occupational statistics. Myself and others have pointed out that when a country loses entry level jobs, it has no one to promote to senior level jobs. We have also pointed out that when manufacturing leaves, so does engineering, design, research and development, and innovation itself.

On February 16 the New York Times reported on a new study presented to the National Academies that concludes that outsourcing is climbing the skills ladder. A survey of 200 multinational corporations representing 15 industries in the US and Europe found that 38 percent planned to change substantially the worldwide distribution of their research and development work, sending it to India and China. According to the New York Times, "More companies in the survey said they planned to decrease research and development employment in the United States and Europe than planned to increase employment."

The study and discussion it provoked came to untenable remedies. Many believe that a primary reason for the shift of R&D to India and China is the erosion of scientific prowess in the US due to lack of math and science proficiency of American students and their reluctance to pursue careers in science and engineering. This belief begs the question why students would chase after careers that are being outsourced abroad.

The main author of the study, Georgia Tech professor Marie Thursby, believes that American science and engineering depend on having "an environment that fosters the development of a high-quality work force and productive collaboration between corporations and universities."
The Dean of Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, thinks the answer is to recruit the top people in China and India and bring them to Berkeley. No one seems to understand that research, development, design, and innovation take place in countries where things are made. The loss of manufacturing means ultimately the loss of engineering and science. The newest plants embody the latest technology. If these plants are abroad, that is where the cutting edge resides.

The United States is the first country in history to destroy the prospects and living standards of its labor force. It is amazing to watch freedom-loving libertarians and free-market economists serve as full time apologists for the dismantling of the ladders of upward mobility that made the America of old an opportunity society.

America has begun a polarization into rich and poor. The resulting political instability and social strife will be terrible.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

[Livyjr]

And here ...

I have just returned from a visit ...

To OUR United States Constitution .....

At http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution ......

Where in the Preamble ....

Our forefathers in liberty said ....

We .....

The People of the United States .....

In Order to form a more perfect Union .....

Establish Justice ....

Insure domestic Tranquillity ....

Provide for the common defense ....

Promote the general Welfare ....

And .....

Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ....

Do ordain and establish this Constitution

For the United States of America ......

Not at all, Snuffysmith ....

Not at all ...

Jingoism and racism, I mean ......

Nothing to do with those at all ...

The simple question is .....

SINCE OUR AMERICA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION ...

WITH A CONSTITUTION PUT IN PLACE BY WE, THE PEOPLE .....

TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY .....

WHY ARE WE GIVING CONTROL OF THE OPERATION OF OUR PORTS TO A COMPANY OWNED BY ANOTHER SOVEREIGN NATION .....

No matter what race they might happen to be ...

British or Arab .....

What exactly is wrong with that picture?

Besides everything?

And so .....

The Democrats, at least right now, in this one issue, are being what I would call AMERICAN about this BUSHCO DEAL to turn control of OUR American ports over to a foreign government ......

And as I read my American history, and my United States Constitution, I would have to say that what they are doing IS WHAT OUR CONGRESS SHOULD BE DOING IN THIS EXACT SITUATION .....

Which is asking BUSHCO WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE .....

Why is control of OUR nation being given over to a foreign government?

THERE IS THE ISSUE ....

And so ...

When people ask me what OUR America should be doing out there on the world stage ...

My answer would be ...

America should be acting like a SOVEREIGN NATION with its own CONSTUTUTION which defines who we are as a nation ...

And more importantly ...

Defines HOW things are to be done here ...

Whether some other peoples or nation on the face of this earth of OURS likes that or not ......

And that goes for Arab nations just as it does British ones .....

Whether people understand it or not, OUR America does happen to be OURS ...

Which is to say, ALL the people who comprise this nation of OURS .....

And so ....

When WE, THE PEOPLE make decisions about who should be operating our port facilities over here in OUR America ...

That decision, like all others affecting us ...

Should be made with an eye towards how that is in keeping with .....

* Establishing Justice ....

* Insuring domestic Tranquillity ....

* Providing for the common defense ....

* Promoting the general Welfare; and ....

* Securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity in this "more perfect union" of OURS ........

And if or when that "showing" cannot be made ...

As with this Dubai "deal" ....

It should simply be scrapped ...

And so ...

"Dubai firm to give up stake in U.S. ports"

By DAVID ESPO and ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:36 p.m., Thursday, March 9, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports.

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," the firm's top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement that capped weeks of controversy.

Relieved Republicans in Congress said the firm had pledged full divestiture, a decision that one senator said had been approved personally by the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.

The announcement appeared to indicate an end to a politically tinged controversy that brought President Bush and Republicans in Congress to the brink of an election-year veto battle on a terrorism-related issue.

The White House expressed satisfaction with the outcome.

"It does provide a way forward and resolve the matter," presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said.

"We have a strong relationship with the UAE and a good partnership in the global war on terrorism and I think their decision reflects the importance of our broader relationship," he said.

A leading congressional critic of the ports deal, Rep. Peter King, applauded the decision but said he and others would wait to see the details.

"It would have to be an American company with no links to DP World, and that would be a tremendous victory and very gratifying," said the New York Republican, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"This should make the issue go away," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

The Tennessee Republican was one of several GOP leaders to tell President Bush earlier in the day that Congress was ready to ignore his veto threat and scuttle the deal.

Several Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Frist and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had been privately urging the firm to give up its plans.

After weeks of controversy -- and White House veto threats that spokesman Scott McClellan renewed at midmorning Thursday -- the end came unexpectedly.

The House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 on Wednesday to block the deal, and GOP congressional leaders privately informed the president Thursday morning that the Senate would inevitably follow suit.

Senate Democrats clamored for a vote, increasing pressure on Senate Republicans to abandon the president.

It was unclear how DP would manage the planned divestiture, and Bilkey's statement said its announcement was "based on an understanding that DP World will not suffer economic loss."

The firm finalized its $6.8 billion purchase Thursday of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm that through a U.S. subsidiary runs important port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

It also plays a lesser role in dockside activities at 16 other American ports.

Despite the furor, the company's U.S. operations were never the most prized part of the global transaction.

DP World valued its rival's American operations at less than 10 percent of the nearly $7 billion total purchase.

But that portion of the deal set off a political chain of events unlike any other in Bush's five years in office.

Republicans denounced the deal, saying they were worried about the effects it would have on efforts to make ports safer from terrorist threats.

Democrats did likewise, and capitalized on the issue as well as a way to narrow the polling gap with the GOP on issues of national security.

Bush defended the deal, calling the United Arab Emirates a strong ally in the war on terror and pledging to cast a veto if Congress voted to interfere.

Senate Republicans initially sought to fend off a vote to block the deal, and the administration agreed to a 45-day review of the transaction.

That strategy collapsed on Wednesday with the vote in the House Appropriations Committee.

Warner, R-Va., provided the first public word of the firm's switch, when he went to the Senate floor and read aloud from its statement.

Warner said that Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, "advised the company ... that this action is the appropriate course to take."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief critic of the deal, reacted cautiously.

"This is obviously a promising development, but the devil's in the details," he said.

"Those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World."

[Livyjr]

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03062006.html

"Nation Polarized Between Rich and Poor - America's Bleak Jobs Future"

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The United States is the first country in history to destroy the prospects and living standards of its labor force.

It is amazing to watch freedom-loving libertarians and free-market economists serve as full time apologists for the dismantling of the ladders of upward mobility that made the America of old an opportunity society.

America has begun a polarization into rich and poor.

The resulting political instability and social strife will be terrible.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

An insightful article, Snuf .....

Some very good points are made in there about why engineering jobs are concentrated around areas where manufacturing is taking place .....

And that has always been true .....

Which makes it surprising that these government types don't know anything about that ....

But more to the point is this "polarization" of wealth ....

Which is reminiscent of economic conditions in Rome ...

Just before civil war ended their REPUBLIC ......

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And here I also want to say that I am glad that you brought this HISTORY in, because people really need to know just how long people like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have been around OUR "HALLS OF GOVERNMENT" .....

And what they have really been involved with in that time ...

Such as Donald Rumsfeld being Ronald Raygun's SPECIAL ENVOY to Baghdad when Saddam Hussein was gassing Persians for Washington, D.C. .....

And Donald Rumsfeld is probably the only living American who can say that he groveled at the feet of Saddam Hussein, and called him "MR. PRESIDENT" ......

And Donald Rumsfeld is also likely the only living American who can say that Tariq Aziz called him a real swell guy, or words to that effect, back in the days when Tariq Aziz was doing all that alleged nasty, dirty stuff that got him condemned to death as a perpetrator of crimes against humanity .....

And here is Donald Rumsfeld now posing as OUR Secretary of Defense ....

General Eric Shinseki had some credibility ...

And he disagreed with George W. Bush .....

Who has none ...

And so ...

Donald Rumsfeld, who also has no credibility, fired him .....

And Donald Rumsfeld gained no credibility when he did that ...

NO ...

All he did was to expose himself to all the candid world for what he really is ...

Which is a foolish old man with no credibility ....

And no military acumen, either .....

Which makes him a real strange choice for Secretary of Defense in OUR America when you think on it ....

"Rumsfeld: Iraqis would deal with civil war"

By ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:46 p.m., Thursday, March 9, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with a civil war in Iraq would be the responsibility of Iraq's own security forces, at least initially, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress on Thursday.

Testifying alongside senior military leaders and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld said he did not believe Iraq would descend into all-out civil war, though he acknowledged that sectarian strife had worsened.

Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, said the situation in Iraq had evolved to the point where Sunni-Shiite violence was more of a threat to U.S. success there than the insurgency, which continues taking a deadly toll on Iraqi and American troops, and to impede efforts to stabilize the country.

Rumsfeld previously had been reluctant to say what the U.S. military would do in the event of civil war, but in an appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee he was pressed on the matter by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.

"The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the -- from a security standpoint -- have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to," Rumsfeld told the committee.

He did not elaborate on the implication of his remark: that at some point the Iraqi security forces might be overwhelmed by a civil conflict and ask the Americans to get involved militarily.

One of Rumsfeld's chief critics in Congress, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., issued a statement after the hearing urging the administration to explain more fully what it would do in case of a civil war.

"Obviously, it's not realistic to depend on the Iraqi security forces, which are not yet able to fight on their own," Kennedy said.

"So, Secretary Rumsfeld is basically saying that if the prevention strategy fails and Iraq plunges into civil war, U.S. troops will inevitably be deeply involved."

Rumsfeld said the key to avoiding civil war is for Iraq's political leaders to form a government of national unity, he said.

Both Abizaid and Rumsfeld cited progress in the training of Iraqi security forces.

Abizaid said more than 100 Iraqi battalions are now conducting counterinsurgency operations, compared with only five in 2004.

He did not mention that the number of Iraqi battalions rated as capable of operating without U.S. military assistance had recently dropped from one to zero.

During an extensive question-and-answer session with committee members, some Democrats including Byrd and Sen. Herbert Kohl of Wisconsin sharply criticized the war but the overall tone of the hearing was not hostile.

Rice's opening statement to the committee was interrupted by a man in the audience who stood and shouted, "How many of you have children in this illegal and immoral war?"

"The blood is on your hands and you cannot wash it away."

As he was escorted from the room by security officers, the man also shouted, "Fire Rumsfeld."

An AP-Ipsos poll released Thursday shows 77 percent of Americans think civil war is likely to break out in Iraq.

They're evenly divided on whether a stable democratic government can survive in Iraq.

More than half of Americans continue to disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.

Abizaid, who frequently visits Iraq and has overall responsibility for U.S. military operations there, cited the dangers of rising sectarian violence.

"There's no doubt that the sectarian tensions are higher than we've seen, and it is of great concern to all of us," he said, adding that he was pleased with the professionalism that Iraq's own security forces have demonstrated in responding to the surge in civil strife since the late-February bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra.

Abizaid described the situation in Iraq as "changing in its nature from insurgency toward sectarian violence."

Asked about that comment after the hearing, Abizaid told a reporter, "The sectarian violence is a greater concern for us security-wise right now than the insurgency."

At a later news conference in the Capitol, Abizaid was asked if Iraqi troops would be expected to handle any outbreak of civil war.

"It's my impression that Iraq is not moving toward civil war," he said, adding that the plan is for Iraqi security forces to "take the lead on most military operations, like they're currently doing, and we'll be in support."

The hearing was called primarily to hear the administration's defense of its request for $91 billion in emergency funds mainly to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rice and Rumsfeld said the money was vital to continuing U.S. efforts on the military, political and economic fronts to establish a stable government.

Asked about the prospects for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, Rumsfeld said it would be counterproductive to set a timetable, stressing that he's confident the Iraqis realize the enormity of the stakes at this stage of the process.

"They have everything to lose," he said.

"If they are not able to put together a government in a relatively short period of time, they are facing a very difficult situation for all of the people involved in governance in that country."

There are now about 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

The U.S. death toll since the start of the war in March 2003 exceeds 2,300, in addition to more than 17,000 wounded.

------

On the Net:

State Department at http://www.state.gov

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

Central Command at http://www.centcom.mil

[Livyjr]

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03062006.html

"Nation Polarized Between Rich and Poor - America's Bleak Jobs Future"

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Large corporations, which have individually dismissed thousands of their US employees and replaced them with foreigners, claim that jobs outsourcing allows them to save money that can be used to hire more Americans.

The corporations and the business organizations are very successful in placing this disinformation in the media.

The lie is repeated everywhere and has become a mantra among no-think economists and politicians.

However, no sign of these jobs can be found in the payroll jobs data.

But there is abundant evidence of the lost American jobs.

Engineering jobs in general are in decline, because the manufacturing sectors that employ engineers are in decline.

The top ten sources of the most jobs in "superpower" America are:

* retail salespersons,

* registered nurses,

* postsecondary teachers,

* customer service representatives,

* janitors and cleaners,

* waiters and waitresses,

* food preparation (includes fast food),

* home health aides,

* nursing aides,

* orderlies and attendants,

* general and operations managers.

Note than none of this projected employment growth will contribute one nickel toward producing goods and services that could be exported to help close the massive US trade deficit.

And speaking of massive trade deficits ....

"U.S. Trade Deficit Reaches Record $68.5B"

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

21 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Rising oil prices and Americans' seemingly insatiable appetite for foreign goods — from Chinese clothing to French wine and Japanese cars — sent the U.S. trade deficit to another record.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the deficit jumped to $68.5 billion in January, 5.3 percent more than in December.

Analysts had expected the trade gap to worsen, given the surge in world oil prices, but the increase caught them by surprise.

"We shopped the world's markets until we dropped," said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors.

"We bought a lot more of everything, including capital and consumer goods, foods and motor vehicles."

Analysts said that unless demand for imported goods slows, the U.S. could produce a record annual deficit for the fifth year in a row, topping last year's imbalance of $723.6 billion.

Critics contended the January deficit showed the failure of President Bush's free trade policy that has contributed to the loss of nearly 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs.

"The American people need a Congress and an administration that will get tough on trade policy to rein in these runaway deficits," said Rep. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means subcommittee on trade.

The Clinton administration filed on average 11 unfair trade cases per year before the World Trade Organization, he said, while the Bush administration has filed only 13 cases in more than five years in office.

The trade report showed that the deficit with China jumped by 9.9 percent, to $17.9 billion, in January.

The increase reflected a big rise in shipments of Chinese cell phones, clothing, textiles and shoes to the United States.

America's $202 billion deficit with China last year was a record for a single country.

Many members of Congress want to penalize Chinese imports unless Beijing stops what the critics believe are violations of global trade rules.

"China has been trading unfairly since it joined the World Trade Organization in 2002 and the administration has done nothing about it," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., on Thursday.

On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 33.46 points to close at 10,972.28 on Thursday.

The overall deficit in January surpassed the record of $67.8 billion set in October.

U.S. exports of goods and services rose 2.5 percent to an all-time high of $114.4 billion.

But this increase was swamped by a 3.5 percent rise in imports, which also set a record at $182.9 billion.

U.S. exports of industrial supplies, capital goods and autos all set records in January as American producers benefited from a rebound in economic growth in Europe and Japan.

Japan on Thursday dropped its five-year policy of keeping interest rates at rock-bottom levels.

The move was seen as dramatic evidence that Japan finally has defeated the deflationary pressures that had severely depressed growth.

The rise in imports to the U.S. reflected a 4.3 percent increase in America's foreign oil bill.

It climbed to $24.6 billion as an increase in crude oil prices to $51.93 per barrel offset a drop in the volume of shipments in January.

Imports of foreign cars and auto parts rose by 5.6 percent to $22.7 billion.

Imports of foreign food products rose by 6.2 percent to $6.4 billion, reflecting increased demand for imported wine and other foods.

Some analysts worried about the sizable and widespread increases in imports of manufactured goods and what that might be saying about America's competitive standing.

"The January trends spotlight the continued decline of national competitiveness in industries of the future such as high-tech," said Alan Tonelson, a research fellow with the U.S. Business and Industry Council, a manufacturing trade group.

America's deficit with Canada, its largest trading partner, jumped 11.1 percent, to a record $8.9 billion.

The deficit with Mexico was up 8.8 percent, to $4.6 billion.

The deficit with the 25-nation European Union declined by 3.8 percent, to $9.7 billion.

America's deficit with India shot up by 61.3 percent in January to $1.26 billion.

Seeking to address growing anxiety about the loss of service sector jobs to India, Bush said on a visit to that country last week that the answer was not new protectionist barriers but better education to train Americans for 21st century jobs.

The administration has continued to pursue free trade agreements as a way of lowering barriers to U.S. exports, announcing this week that it will soon start talks with Malaysia.
___

On the Net:

Trade report: http://www.census.gov/ft900

[Livyjr]

"U.S. Trade Deficit Reaches Record $68.5B"

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

America's deficit with India shot up by 61.3 percent in January to $1.26 billion.

Seeking to address growing anxiety about the loss of service sector jobs to India ....

Bush said on a visit to that country last week that the answer was not new protectionist barriers .....

But better education to train Americans for 21st century jobs.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03062006.html

"Nation Polarized Between Rich and Poor - America's Bleak Jobs Future"

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The top ten sources of the most jobs in "superpower" America are:

* retail salespersons,

* registered nurses,

* postsecondary teachers,

* customer service representatives,

* janitors and cleaners,

* waiters and waitresses,

* food preparation (includes fast food),

* home health aides,

* nursing aides,

* orderlies and attendants,

* general and operations managers.

Note than none of this projected employment growth will contribute one nickel toward producing goods and services that could be exported to help close the massive US trade deficit.

Note, also, that few of these jobs classifications require a college education.

Well, America ...

And the world, too ...

There we have it ...

Right from the lips of the only man on the face of this earth of OURS who can call himself both the president of America ...

And the leader of the "FREE" WORLD .....

And what the LEADER OF THE "FREE" WORLD is telling us is that what we need here in OUR America is not more whining and crying about all the real good jobs being exported from America to these other countries where people will work for less than an American will ...

What we need IS BETTER EDUCATION ...

Says America's George ....

To train Americans for 21st CENTURY jobs ....

Such as janitorial work ...

Which is one of the hot labor markets here in George W. Bush's 21st CENTURY America ...

Or fast food, of course ...

WE NEED A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF EDUCATION HERE IN OUR AMERICA SO AS TO BE ABLE TO TRAIN OUR FAST FOOD INDUSTRY PERSONNEL UP TO A LEVEL OF WHERE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO COMPETE GLOBALLY WITH THE FAST FOOD WORKERS OF THE WORLD .....

There, America, is OUR national problem ....

We just are not competitive in the world of fast food ........

And so .....

[Livyjr]

Well, America ...

And the world, too ...

There we have it ...

Right from the lips of the only man on the face of this earth of OURS who can call himself both the president of America ...

And the leader of the "FREE" WORLD .....

And here we have it back from the PEOPLE of OUR America ....

"Bush's approval rating falls to new low"

By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:35 a.m., Friday, March 10, 2006

WASHINGTON -- More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq -- the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency.

Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

"I'm not happy with how things are going," said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote Republican.

"I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina."

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues -- port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

"You're in the position of this cycle now that is difficult anyway."

"In second term off-year elections, there gets to be a familiarity factor," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a potential presidential candidate.

"People have seen and heard (Bush's) ideas long enough and that enters into their thinking."

"People are kind of, `Well, I wonder what other people can do,'" he said.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job.

The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance.

That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters.

The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism.

His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls.

Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes.

Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

"Obviously, it's the winter of our discontent," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

While the gap worries Republicans, Cole and others said it does not automatically translate into GOP defeats in November, when voters will face a choice between local candidates rather than considering Congress as a whole.

In addition, strategists in both parties agree that a divided and undisciplined Democratic Party has failed to seize full advantage of Republican troubles.

"While I don't dispute the fact that we have challenges in the current environment politically, I also believe 2006 as a choice election offers Republicans an opportunity if we make sure the election is framed in a way that will keep our majorities in the House and the Senate," said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush's approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush's.

The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him -- and them -- politically.

"When issues like the internal Republican debate over the ports dominates the news it puts us another day away from all of us figuring out what policies we need to win," said Terry Nelson, a Republican consultant and political director for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004.

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports.

Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.

All this has Republican voters like Walter Wright of Fairfax Station, Va., worried for their party.

"We've gotten so carried away I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats take it because of discontent," he said.

"People vote for change and hope for the best."

------

Associated Press writer Will Lester and AP Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson contributed to this report.

------

On the Net:

Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com

[Livyjr]

Well, America ...

And the world, too ...

There we have it ...

Right from the lips of the only man on the face of this earth of OURS who can call himself both the president of America ...

And the leader of the "FREE" WORLD .....

And what the LEADER OF THE "FREE" WORLD is telling us is that what we need here in OUR America is not more whining and crying about all the real good jobs being exported from America to these other countries where people will work for less than an American will ...

What we need IS BETTER EDUCATION ...

Says America's George ....

To train Americans for 21st CENTURY jobs ....

Such as janitorial work ...

Which is one of the hot labor markets here in George W. Bush's 21st CENTURY America ...

Or fast food, of course ...

WE NEED A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF EDUCATION HERE IN OUR AMERICA SO AS TO BE ABLE TO TRAIN OUR FAST FOOD INDUSTRY PERSONNEL UP TO A LEVEL OF WHERE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO COMPETE GLOBALLY WITH THE FAST FOOD WORKERS OF THE WORLD .....

There, America, is OUR national problem ....

We just are not competitive in the world of fast food ........

And so .....

"U.S. consumer confidence drops, poll shows"

By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:05 a.m., Friday, March 10, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Consumer confidence dropped in early March as people fretted about the economy's performance and their own financial fate in the months ahead.

The RBC CASH Index, based on results from the international polling firm Ipsos, showed confidence at 86.2 in early March.

That was down considerably from February's reading of 96.1 -- a 16-month high.

But it was in the ballpark with consumers' feelings about economic conditions in March of last year, when the index stood at 84.2.

"Consumers aren't knocking the cover off the ball."

"Their confidence isn't a grand slam, but they aren't striking out, either," said Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus Research.

Even with the drop, analysts believe consumers are in a generally good frame of mind about the economy, although they are growing more anxious about the future.

Analysts believe that angst is tied to consumer concerns about whether the housing market this year will slow gradually, as most economists predict, or whether it might crash.

Other things also may be coloring consumers' perception about the future, including rising interest rates and energy bills, economists said.

"It is the litany of uncertainty this year -- the housing market moderation, worry about energy prices-- that may be factoring into peoples' views about the future," said Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at LaSalle Bank.

A measure looking at consumers' expectations over the next six months, including conditions where they live or work and their own financial positions, showed the most deterioration in March from February.

That expectations gauge fell to 40.7 in March, compared with 59.4 in February.

A year ago, the expectations measure stood at 52.6.

Economists track consumer confidence for clues about consumers' willingness to spend, an important force shaping overall economic activity.

Analysts believe economic growth will clock in at 4.5 percent pace or possibly higher in the January-to-March period.

That would mark a rebound from the 1.6 percent growth rate in the final quarter of 2005.

Belt tightening by consumers was a factor in that weak performance.

Economic growth in the April-to-June quarter is also expected to be solid, analysts said.

"It is a little surprising given the strength of the economy that there is a perception -- at least among some of the public -- that the economy is not very good," said Edward Lazear, chairman of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers.

When it comes to the economy, what really counts is what consumers do, rather than what they say.

"Are people behaving as if they believe this is a weak economy?"

"I see no indication of that."

"In fact, I see the contrary," Lazear said.

President Bush, however, continues to cope with sagging job-approval ratings.

Just 37 percent approve of his overall performance, the lowest level of his presidency, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

On the consumer confidence front, attitudes about current economic conditions dipped to 103.9 in March, a still good showing, economists said.

That was down from 111.6 in February but better than the reading of 92.9 in March of last year.

Another index tracking consumers' feelings about making a purchase, saving and other investment decisions was 98.6 in March, down from 101.5 in February.

A year ago, this measure stood at 88.5.

For nearly two years, the Federal Reserve has been boosting short-term interest rates to keep the economy and inflation on an even keel.

Rates are expected to go up again on March 28.

Borrowers do not like rising rates.

Nor do homeowners with short-term adjustable rate mortgages, which have been climbing.

But for savers higher interest rates means better returns.

A measure on consumers sentiments about the jobs climate slipped to 118.5 in March, from 119.3 in February.

In March of last year, the jobs index was 119.2.

The overall confidence index is benchmarked to a reading of 100 on January 2002, when Ipsos started the gauge.

The RBC consumer confidence index and the AP-Ipsos poll for March were based on results of 1,000 adults surveyed Monday through Wednesday about their attitudes on politics, personal finance and the economy.

Results of the survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[Livyjr]

"Bush's approval rating falls to new low" 
 
By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:35 a.m., Friday, March 10, 2006

WASHINGTON -- More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq -- the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency.

Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues -- port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

And as is my habit in here from time to time ...

I like to "connect the dots", as it were ....

Which I will do right now by going back in time to the very beginnings of this thread just after the conclusion of the November 2004 presidential elections ....

Where we have .....

Nov 6 2004, 06:47 PM Post #11

Presidential Elections - AP

"Bush, Kerry Voters Differ on View of U.S."

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The nation is emerging from the 2004 presidential election with two very different portraits of itself sketched by two very different halves of its population.

George Bush's voters go to church more often than John Kerry's and are more likely to oppose gay marriage and abortion.

They are more likely to own guns and to feel better-off financially than they did four years ago.

Sure, they are concerned about terrorism.

But they are more concerned about "moral values".

Most think things are going well for the United States in Iraq, and that the war has made America more secure.

They are satisfied with the Republican Bush administration; many are enthusiastic.

Voters who supported the Democratic nominee, by contrast, are more worried about the economy.

They view "moral values" and terrorism as lesser concerns.

They go to church, but less frequently.

Few see any improvement in their financial situation over the past four years.

They gave their votes to the Massachusetts senator because they thought he represented hope for change.

They are far more worried about events in Iraq and the job situation at home.

Almost half feel angry at the administration.

It all adds up to two different mindsets, reinforcing the idea of a schism in the political landscape.

Bush's victory left Emma Starr, a writer from New York, feeling devastated and more than a bit disconnected from the other half of America.

"We should have two distinct nations," she said after getting word of Kerry's concession as she left a Brooklyn food co-op.

"Why should we be forced to live together under the rule of an evil dictator?"

For every voter like Starr, there was at least one like Clifford Barneman, a psychologist from Little Egg Harbor Township in New Jersey.

He voted for Bush as a "man of his word" who had strong values.

The profiles of Bush and Kerry voters are drawn in part from Associated Press exit polls of voters as they left polling places.

But they also take into account voters' harder-to-capture feelings about the country's direction and the men who fought so hard to lead it for the next four years.

Much has been made, for example, of the role of evangelical Christians in the election.

Some 44 percent of Bush voters described themselves this way, compared with a still sizable 25 percent of Kerry's voters.

Analyst Steven Waldman, who follows religion and politics as editor in chief of the Web site www.Beliefnet.com said the evangelicals' lopsided support for Bush is "both more vague and deeper" than shared views on specific issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

"Many evangelical Christians believe that they are held in contempt by the mainstream media and much of America," Waldman said.

"With Bush, they have someone in the White House who they feel is one of them and stands up for their own faith, makes them feel like they don't have to be embarrassed about being Christian."

The thought is echoed by GOP pollster Whit Ayres.

"Taken together, values create a Rorschach test that 'this guy thinks like I do,'" he said.

The idea clearly resonated for Bush in the South.

While Kerry's voters came about evenly from all parts of the country, more than one-third of Bush's voters were Southerners.

Tom Morris, a political scientist and president of Emory & Henry College in rural Emory, Va., said Democrats make a mistake in trying to lure Southerners strictly with policy proposals.

"While policies are important, cultural values are the bedrock of the South," Morris said.

"Southerners have to believe that you embrace those values, that they are part of who you are."

If Bush's voters were more likely to be frequent churchgoers, Kerry's were more likely to be worried about pocketbook issues such as the cost of health care.

They make less money and are twice as likely to have lost a job in the past four years.

They are less likely to draw a connection between Iraq and the war on terrorism.

In rural central Iowa, voters in the Edwards family weighed in on both sides of the equation.

Scott Edwards, who voted in Huxley, cast a ballot for Bush out of "gut instinct."

"It's more of a trust issue," he said.

His parents, Ron and Sue Edwards, voted for Kerry at a small church about 15 miles south of where their son voted for Bush, citing their concern about the economy and the invasion of Iraq.

"I don't think the president has the right to make a move like that without United Nations backing," said Ron Edwards.

"This has cost the taxpayers a lot of money."

"And lives," Sue Edwards added.

During the fall campaign, much was made of the potential impact of security moms — white women with young children whose votes were thought to be tied to their concerns about terrorism.

It turns out these women did not report any more concern about terrorism than did other women.

But they did attach a higher priority to "moral values."

One-third of white moms with kids picked values as their top concern, compared with about 22 percent of all white women.

And more than three-fourths of values voters gave their ballots to Bush.

"Moral values" was one of seven items — with taxes, education, Iraq, terrorism, economy/jobs, and health care — on an exit poll question that asked, "Which one issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president."
___

Associated Press writers Will Lester in Washington, Michael Weissenstein in New York and Bob Lewis in Richmond, Va., contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

Nov 6 2004, 06:47 PM Post #11 

Presidential Elections - AP

"Bush, Kerry Voters Differ on View of U.S."

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The nation is emerging from the 2004 presidential election with two very different portraits of itself sketched by two very different halves of its population.

George Bush's voters go to church more often than John Kerry's and are more likely to oppose gay marriage and abortion.

They are more likely to own guns and to feel better-off financially than they did four years ago.

Sure, they are concerned about terrorism.

But they are more concerned about "moral values".

Most think things are going well for the United States in Iraq, and that the war has made America more secure.

They are satisfied with the Republican Bush administration; many are enthusiastic.

Voters who supported the Democratic nominee, by contrast, are more worried about the economy.

They view "moral values" and terrorism as lesser concerns.

They go to church, but less frequently.

Few see any improvement in their financial situation over the past four years.

They gave their votes to the Massachusetts senator because they thought he represented hope for change.

They are far more worried about events in Iraq and the job situation at home.

Almost half feel angry at the administration.

It all adds up to two different mindsets, reinforcing the idea of a schism in the political landscape.

"Republicans Looking Beyond Bush to 2008:

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

1 hour, 43 minutes ago

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - Republicans are already looking beyond the embattled Bush presidency to the 2008 campaign.

Nearly 2,000 GOP activists are attending a weekend conference to hear from presidential prospects and share strategies on a conservative agenda many believe Washington has forsaken.

One highlight will be a straw poll to test the popularity of White House hopefuls including those in attendance — Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Sen. George Allen of Virginia, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

But the straw poll is unlikely to have a lasting impact unless Frist, who has packed the Southern Republican Leadership Conference with supporters, hurts his presidential aspirations with a poor showing.

The dynamic to watch is how far the speakers and conference attendees distance themselves from President Bush and the Republican-led Congress while urging the party to return to its conservative values.

Despite controlling the White House and Congress for most of the past five years, many Republicans feel both have fallen short on a number of issues including tax reform, fiscal responsibility, immigration, Social Security and family values.

"A big problem with our base is our spending," said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is sometimes mentioned as a presidential prospect.

"My time at this convention will be spent talking about a Republican Party that (GOP activists) are familiar with — a party of controlling the size of government and reforming the government."

"If we don't have a program that reforms taxes and controls spending different from the Democrats, a lot of people will sit out the next election as Republicans," he warned.

"We're dangerously close ... to having a deflated base."

Brownback, a favorite of social conservatives, said runaway spending is a problem for Republicans but so is a failure to produce innovative plans on health care, energy, the environment and rebuilding the American family.

"I think people are searching for new ideas on serious problems that move us together rather than apart," he said of GOP activists.

"I think they want somebody who can put forward ideas that have a reasonable chance of broad-based support."

That doesn't speak well for Bush or the GOP leaders in Congress.

"People are kind of, `Well, I wonder what other people can do,'" Brownback said.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said such talk is part of the natural cycle of politics.

Second-term presidents always compete for attention with a gaggle of would-be successors.

"We're beginning the process of that separation that goes on when we're trying to pass the baton from one administration to the next," said Cole, a former political strategist.

"There's always a painful sorting out period, but the Republican Party has to look for new leaders."

The restlessness is also fueled by polls.

An AP-Ipsos survey shows that just 37 percent of people approve of Bush's performance and a mere 31 percent give the GOP-led Congress high marks.

Underscoring Graham's point about a deflated base, the president's job approval among Republicans has dropped 8 percentage points to 74 percent since February, the poll showed.

More than half of Republicans disapprove of Congress' performance.

"It's the winter of our discontent," Cole said.

Huckabee said he's not too worried about the polls — "Nowhere to go but up," he joked.

But the Arkansas governor hopes to lift the spirits of activists with his Saturday address.

"It's an opportunity to rally the party to a very important midterm election," he said.

Republicans stand to lose their majority in the nation's governorships in November.

While losing control of the House and Senate are less likely, the prospect is no longer out of the question because of the war in Iraq and a growing anti-Washington sentiment among voters.

As for the straw poll this weekend, Frist's team has worked feverishly to drum up votes.

Perhaps half of the attendees are from Tennessee.

"If he loses, there's a bigger problem because he should win," said Frist adviser Jim Dyke.

In March of 1998, the equivalent point in the 2000 presidential campaign cycle, then-Texas Gov. George Bush narrowly won the SRLC's straw poll despite his absence from the event.

McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the most popular potential GOP candidates for 2008, according to most polls.

Giuliani is not attending this conference.

McCain and Romney were speaking Friday.

Allen, Brownback, Huckabee and Frist speak Saturday, the day of the straw poll.

"I think straw polls would be left for the year of the election and for people who need to emerge," said McCain adviser Rick Davis.

"John McCain emerged a long time ago."

[Livyjr]

There was quite a good photo this morning accompanying this following story of Dick Cheney and the famous "BIG GRIZ" snarling look that he cultivated up there in the tourist bars and boutiques of trendy Jackson Hole, Wyoming ....

It is something how that man can peel his lips back just so, and look so much like a big, rampant grizzly bear ....

They say that at one time, old Dick was quite a tourist attraction himself up there ....

Every now and then, with the right prodding they say, old Dick would all of a sudden rear up to his full height, peel his lips back in that rictus he still sports to this day, and then he would let out his now-famous "BIG GRIZ" roar ....

And the tourists would take pictures ....

And clap their hands ...

And exclaim how very rustic it all was ....

And look where that got Dick Cheney ...

Just goes to show ...

If you got the right act, well, you can go just about anywhere ...

Right, SCOOTER ....

"Libby: White House 'Superiors' OK'd Leaks"

By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal grand jury that his superiors authorized him to give secret information to reporters as part of the Bush administration's defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq, according to court papers.

Hey, kids ...

SCOOTER'S back ....

SO ....

Let's go see what SCOOTER'S been doing ...

OH ....

SCOOTER'S been a bad boy .....

SCOOTER might get a spanking ....

Or maybe he will give George W. Bush and Dick Cheney one instead ....

And so ....

"Judge says Libby can see Bush briefings"

By TONI LOCY, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:16 p.m., Friday, March 10, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge ordered the CIA on Friday to turn over highly classified intelligence briefings to Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide to use in preparing the aide's defense against perjury charges.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected CIA warnings that the nation's security would be imperiled if the presidential-level documents were disclosed to lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff.

The judge said the CIA can either delete highly classified portions from the briefing material and provide what amounts to a "table of contents" of what Libby and Cheney received six days a week.

Or, Walton said, the CIA can produce "topic overviews" of the matters covered in the briefings.

The judge also ordered the CIA to give Libby an index of the topics covered in follow-up questions that the former White House aide asked intelligence officers who conducted the briefings.

"The court has painstakingly endeavored to ensure that the defendant is provided with information he truly needs to prepare his defense," Walton wrote in a 25-page ruling.

In seeking CIA input late last month, Walton appeared to have been trying to broker a compromise between defense attorneys and prosecutors to avoid a lengthy court battle with the Bush administration over the briefing material.

The judge's order indicates he is ready for such a fight.

He set a schedule for the Bush administration to file any objections by March 24.

The ruling is a partial victory for Libby, who is charged with lying in the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

But Walton noted in his ruling that most of what he ordered Libby to receive probably won't be revealed to a jury.

Any classified evidence that Libby wants to use must be approved by the judge after a secret vetting process established by Congress to ensure protection of government secrets.

Libby, 55, was charged last October with lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about how he learned and when he subsequently told reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame.

He faces trial in January 2007 on five counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.

Plame's identity as a CIA operative was published in July 2003 by columnist Robert Novak after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of twisting intelligence about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium "yellowcake" in Niger.

The year before, the CIA had sent Wilson to Niger to determine the accuracy of the uranium reports.

Libby's lawyers originally wanted nearly a year of the President's Daily Brief, a summary of some of the government's most sensitive intelligence gathered on threats to the United States.

The lawyers want to use the briefings as the cornerstone of Libby's defense: to show that the former top White House aide had more important matters on his mind and could have easily forgotten or remembered incorrectly "snippets" of conversations he had about CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald opposed giving Libby any of the briefings and accused the defense of trying to derail the case by "greymail," a process where former government officials have forced dismissals of their cases because they threatened to reveal the nation's secrets at their trials.

"Neither party has it exactly right," Walton wrote.

Libby needs to know the gist of the intelligence briefings to put on a "preoccupation defense," the judge said.

But, he said, the former White House aide should be able to refresh his memory by reviewing generalized versions of the intelligence briefings.

"It is inconceivable that the defendant's memory of matters of significance to him have totally vanished," Walton wrote.

The judge also rejected Fitzgerald's arguments that the intelligence briefings belong to the vice president's office and the CIA, two agencies that were not part of the investigation.

Walton said "there can be little doubt" that when Fitzgerald has asked either agency for help in his probe, there has been "a rather free flow" of information.

"These entities have contributed significantly to the investigation and without their contribution it is unlikely that the indictment in this case could have been secured," the judge wrote.

[Livyjr]

When people ask me what OUR America should be doing out there on the world stage ...

My answer would be ...

America should be acting like a SOVEREIGN NATION with its own CONSTUTUTION which defines who we are as a nation ...

And more importantly ...

Defines HOW things are to be done here ...

Whether some other peoples or nation on the face of this earth of OURS likes that or not ......

And that goes for Arab nations just as it does British ones .....

Whether people understand it or not, OUR America does happen to be OURS ...

Which is to say, ALL the people who comprise this nation of OURS .....

And so ....

When WE, THE PEOPLE make decisions about who should be operating our port facilities over here in OUR America ...

That decision, like all others affecting us ...

Should be made with an eye towards how that is in keeping with .....

* Establishing Justice ....

* Insuring domestic Tranquillity ....

* Providing for the common defense ....

* Promoting the general Welfare; and ....

* Securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity in this "more perfect union" of OURS ........

And if or when that "showing" cannot be made ...

As with this Dubai "deal" ....

It should simply be scrapped ...

And so ...

"Dubai firm to give up stake in U.S. ports" 
 
By DAVID ESPO and ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:36 p.m., Thursday, March 9, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports.

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," the firm's top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement that capped weeks of controversy.

The announcement appeared to indicate an end to a politically tinged controversy that brought President Bush and Republicans in Congress to the brink of an election-year veto battle on a terrorism-related issue.

Bush defended the deal, calling the United Arab Emirates a strong ally in the war on terror and pledging to cast a veto if Congress voted to interfere.

"Bush's approval rating falls to new low" 
 
By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:35 a.m., Friday, March 10, 2006

WASHINGTON -- More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job.

The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance.

That is the lowest of his presidency.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

"Republicans Looking Beyond Bush to 2008:

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - Republicans are already looking beyond the embattled Bush presidency to the 2008 campaign.

Nearly 2,000 GOP activists are attending a weekend conference to hear from presidential prospects and share strategies on a conservative agenda many believe Washington has forsaken.

One highlight will be a straw poll to test the popularity of White House hopefuls including those in attendance — Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Sen. George Allen of Virginia, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

But the straw poll is unlikely to have a lasting impact unless Frist, who has packed the Southern Republican Leadership Conference with supporters, hurts his presidential aspirations with a poor showing.

The dynamic to watch is how far the speakers and conference attendees distance themselves from President Bush and the Republican-led Congress while urging the party to return to its conservative values.

Poor old dopey George .....

He is simply in over his head ......

That's all ......

He's just not quite cut out to be a leader of the free world ...

Nor is he much of a president, when you get right on down to it .....

"Bush: Port deal collapse sends bad message"

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press
Last updated: 4:56 p.m., Friday, March 10, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Friday he was troubled by the political storm that forced the reversal of a deal allowing a company in Dubai to take over take over operations of six American ports, saying it sent a bad message to U.S. allies in the Middle East.

Bush said the United States needs moderate allies in the Arab world, like the United Arab Emirates, to win the global war on terrorism.

The president said he had been satisfied that security would be sound at the ports if the Dubai deal had taken effect.

"Nevertheless, Congress was still very much opposed to it," Bush said.

He made his remarks to a conference of the National Newspaper Association, which represents owners, publishers and editors of community newspapers.

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," the president said.

"In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East."

"UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror," Bush added.

"They are a key partner for our military in a critical region, and outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military, military ships, than any country in the world."

"They're sharing intelligence so we can hunt down the terrorists," Bush added.

"They helped us shut down a world wide proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan" -- the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, he said.

"UAE is a valued and strategic partner," he said.

"I'm committed to strengthening our relationship with the UAE."

After a storm of protest in the Republican-controlled Congress, DP World announced Thursday that it would transfer six U.S. port operations to a U.S. entity.

The moved spared Bush from a veto showdown with GOP lawmakers.

Yet the larger issue highlighted by the DP world controversy -- U.S. port security -- shows no signs of going away.

Shortly after Bush's appearance, the administration announced a postponement in the next round negotiations aimed at reaching a free trade agreement with the UAE, but wouldn't say whether it was related to the fallen ports deal.

The office of U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said merely that the next round of talks were put off to allow both sides more time to prepare.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said of the controversy: "The problem of the political moment has passed, but the problem of adequate port security still looms large."

Republicans and Democrats alike welcomed DP World's decision to give up its aspirations to manage significant operations at the six ports, but they warned that the move doesn't negate the urgent need for broad legislation aimed at protecting America's ports.

"I'm sure that the decision by DP World was a difficult decision to hand over port operations that they had purchased from another company," Bush said.

"There are gaping holes in cargo and port security that need to be plugged," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said.

Legislation on the issue has piled up in both the House and the Senate in the weeks since the flap over DP World erupted and divided Bush from the GOP-led Congress.

"Make no mistake, we are going to scrutinize this deal with a fine tooth comb," Schumer said.

And the Democratic Party planned a mobile billboard in Memphis, Tenn., where GOP activists were gathering for a weekend conference, accusing Republicans of standing in the way of providing enough funding for port security.

"Republicans owe the American people answers as to where they really stand," said party spokesman Luis Miranda.

Republicans, too, have said the deal's end does nothing to address the nation's continuing vulnerability at its ports, where the vast majority of shipping containers are not inspected.

In fact, work continued on Capitol Hill on two fronts: reworking the process under which the government approves foreign investment and boosting port security.

Senate Homeland Security Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, promised a committee vote by the end of April on legislation to strengthen cargo inspections and port security.

Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., was readying a nearly identical measure for the House.

Both bills have Democratic co-sponsors.

There were some signs the president's worries about the impact abroad were warranted.

Analysts said the developments could make cash-rich investors in the Persian Gulf, where there is the widespread belief that the furor was rooted in anti-Arab bias, wary of high-profile investments in the United States.

And the latest round of negotiations on a new free-trade arrangement between the U.S. and the UAE, scheduled for Monday in the United Arab Emirates, was postponed.

Both sides hastened to dispel speculation that the delay was the result of the ports controversy.

Neena Moorjani, spokeswoman for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, would not directly address that question, but said it's not unusual for delegations to need more time to prepare.

A UAE official said there was no connection, and that working groups would continue discussions by phone.

[Livyjr]

Poor old dopey George .....

He is simply in over his head ......

That's all ......

He's just not quite cut out to be a leader of the free world ...

Nor is he much of a president, when you get right on down to it .....

But he sure has caused a lot of death and destruction in this world of OURS ......

Which his BASE loves him for ...

And so .....

HOW MUCH DEATH AND DESTRUCTION HAS GEORGE W. BUSH CAUSED?

Well, like everything else here in OUR America that is related to George W. Bush's "government" ...

It is a secret ....

"Exact Death Toll of Iraqis Remains Murky"

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

Fri Mar 10, 12:53 PM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Three years into the war, one grim measure of its impact on Iraqis can be seen at Baghdad's morgue: There, the staff has photographed and catalogued more than 24,000 bodies from the Baghdad area alone since 2003, almost all killed in violence.

Despite such snapshots, the overall number of Iraqi civilians and soldiers killed since the U.S.-led invasion in spring 2003 remains murky.

Bloodshed has worsened each year, pushing the Iraqi death toll into the tens of thousands.

But no one knows the exact toll.

President Bush has said he thinks violence claimed at least 30,000 Iraqi dead as of December, while some researchers have cited numbers of 50,000, 75,000 or beyond.

The Pentagon has carefully counted the number of American military dead — now more than 2,300 — but declines to release its tally of Iraqi civilian or insurgent deaths.

The health ministry estimates 1,093 civilians died in the first two months of this year, nearly a quarter of the deaths government ministries reported in all of 2005.

The Iraqi government, however, has swung wildly in its casualty estimates, leading many to view its figures with skepticism.

At the Baghdad morgue, more than 10,000 corpses were delivered in 2005, up from more than 8,000 in 2004 and about 6,000 in 2003, said the morgue's director Dr. Faik Baker.

All were corpses from either suspicious deaths or violent or war-related deaths — things like car bombs and gunshot wounds, tribal reprisals or crime — and not from natural causes.

By contrast, the morgue recorded fewer than 3,000 violent or suspicious deaths in 2002, before the war, Baker said.

The tally at the Baghdad morgue alone — one of several mortuaries in Iraq — thus exceeds figures from Iraqi government ministries that say 7,429 Iraqis were killed across all of Iraq in 2005.

"The violence keeps getting worse," the morgue director said Feb. 28 by phone from Jordan, where he said he had fled recently for his own safety after he said he was under pressure to not report deaths.

Freezers built to hold six bodies are sometimes crammed with 20 unclaimed corpses.

"You can imagine what a mess it is," he said.

Baghdad, which has a fifth of Iraq's 25 million inhabitants, has been a main center of the violence, with insurgent attacks and sectarian tensions both high here.

Many of the Baghdad morgue's bodies arrive from the emergency room at Yarmouk Hospital, where Dr. Osama Abdul Wahab said his staff occasionally had to deal with groups of two or three trauma patients before the invasion.

Now they must cope with dozens of casualties at a time, he said.

"All of a sudden the doors of hell open and 40 injured patients arrive and you are alone," said Abdul Wahab, a 31-year-old neurologist.

Regardless of the lack of a precise figure on deaths, virtually all studies agree that among Iraqi government security forces, the police are at greater risk than the army.

But it is Iraqi civilians who bear the brunt of the deaths.

According to the government's own count, twice as many Iraqi civilians — 4,024 — died last year in insurgency-related violence than police and soldiers.

Part of the reason for the high civilian death toll is that insurgents prefer to strike in the cities, especially Baghdad.

There is no way to verify the Iraqi government death figures independently, as is the case with most statistics in Iraq.

In a dangerous country as large as California, journalists and academics rely on figures provided by police, hospitals, the U.S. military and the Interior Ministry.

But reports on casualties from major attacks often vary widely.

Further muddling the issue, some outside estimates of the dead include Iraqi insurgents, while others do not.

Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution who has closely followed the war's casualties, estimates 45,000 to 75,000 Iraqis have been killed, including insurgents and Iraqi soldiers.

O'Hanlon, who teaches a Columbia University course on estimating war casualties, called Bush's figure of 30,000 "on the lower end of the plausible range."

Iraq Body Count, a British anti-war group, put its tally of war dead at between 28,864 and 32,506 as of Feb. 26, but that doesn't include Iraqi soldiers or insurgents.

It compiles its estimate of civilian deaths from news stories, corroborating each death through at least two reports.

But if Iraqi officials standardize tallies days later, news organizations have moved on to reporting other violence and may be unaware that early figures have been adjusted.

A United Nations survey conducted almost two years ago — before the deadliest guerrilla warfare began — said 24,000 Iraqi civilians and troops had been killed from the war's beginning in March 2003 through May 2004.

In late 2004, a study published in the Lancet medical journal estimated the war had caused some 98,000 civilian deaths.

But the British government and others were skeptical of that finding, which was based on extrapolations from a small sample.

The question of who is to blame for the Iraqi deaths has long been controversial.

Some critics argue that with the United States and its allies unable to maintain order, Iraq has become a deadlier place for civilians than it was under Saddam Hussein.

Johnson, the military spokesman, acknowledged that possibility, but said future generations would enjoy better lives because of Iraq's current hardships.

Rand Corp. military analyst James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan, is among those who believe the United States bears some responsibility for the Iraqi dead, even if insurgents actually cause most of the deaths.

"The U.S. has never been able to protect the population, and has thus never won its confidence and secured its support," Dobbins said.

The Middle East Institute's Wayne White, who headed the State Department's Iraq intelligence team until last year, adds that regardless of whether Americans believe they should be blamed for these casualties, "many, many Iraqis hold the U.S. responsible for all of them."

Sarmad Ahmad al-Azami, a 35-year-old engineer, is an example.

His father died of a heart attack suffered during the U.S. bombing of a government palace next to his home in Baghdad.

A year later, al-Azami's mother, 59, was killed in a car bombing.

"Our family has been devastated," al-Azami said.

"Iraqis were living hard lives before this, but now things are much worse."
___

Associated Press writers Omar Sinan in Cairo, Egypt, and Jalal Mudhar in Baghdad contributed to this report.
___

On the Net:

Brookings Institution Iraq Index: http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

Iraq Body Count: http://www.iraqbodycount.net

Multi-National Force-Iraq: http://www.mnf-iraq.com

Pentagon (click Casualty Reports on right): http://www.defenselink.mil