http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/na...y-top-headlines


Republicans defeat measure for Iraq timetable

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

November 15, 2005, 12:14 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled Senate on Tuesday easily defeated a Democratic effort to pressure President Bush to outline a timetable for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It then overwhelmingly endorsed a weaker statement of U.S. policy in Iraq.

By 58-40, senators rejected a Democratic plan that the minority party's leadership advanced in the wake of declining public support for a conflict that has claimed more than 2,000 U.S. lives and cost more than $200 billion. The non-binding measure called for Bush to outline a plan for gradually withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Republicans countered with their own non-binding alternative. It urged that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security, a step Republicans said would create the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces.

On a 79-19 vote, the Senate approved that GOP-sponsored proposal, which did not call for the president to put forth a withdrawal timetable.

Tuesday's fast-paced developments underscored the political significance of the war as the U.S. death toll climbs, public support plummets, the insurgency continues and the price tag soars with no end in sight.

"They want an exit strategy, a cut-and-run exit strategy. What we are for is a successful strategy," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said: "We want to change the course. We can't stay the course."

The Senate added the GOP Iraq policy to a defense bill the Senate is hoping to complete work on as early as Tuesday.

Overall, the bill includes provisions that, taken together, mark an effort by the Senate to rein in some of the wide authority lawmakers gave the president following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The measure includes White House-opposed language that would prohibit the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees and standardize interrogation procedures used by U.S. troops. The Bush administration has threatened to veto any bill that includes language about the treatment of detainees, arguing it would limit the president's ability to prevent terrorist attacks.

Later Tuesday, the Senate was expected to add to the bill a proposal that would, in effect, endorse the Bush administration's military tribunals for prosecuting suspected foreign terrorists held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Under a compromise reached by a bipartisan group of senators, those detainees would be able to appeal their status as "enemy combatants" and the rulings of U.S. military tribunals to a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. That avenue would take the place of the one tool the Supreme Court gave detainees in 2004 to fight the legality of their detentions -- the right to file habeas corpus petitions in any federal court.

Reflecting senators' anger over recent leaks of classified information to the public, the bill also includes provisions requiring the Bush administration to provide Congress with details on purportedly secret CIA prisons overseas and stripping of security clearances of any federal government official who knowingly discloses national security secrets.

The House version of the defense bill doesn't include those provisions, nor does it include the language on the detention, interrogation or prosecution of detainees. And House Republicans who would be part of negotiations over a final defense bill tend to stand with the president.

As a result, it's unclear whether any of those provisions will survive House and Senate negotiations and actually end up in the final defense bill. Also uncertain is whether there will even be a final defense bill that makes it to the president's desk, given that the bill is not a must-pass measure. It sets Pentagon policy and authorizes spending but doesn't actually provide the dollars.

However, House GOP leaders will be under pressure to adopt parts of the Senate bill, particularly the statement of U.S. policy in Iraq. That's because public support for the war has fallen and lawmakers are feeling the heat from frustrated constituents heading into a congressional election year in which a third of the Senate and all House members are up for re-election.

The Senate-approved Iraq policy proposal calls for -- but does not require -- the Bush administration to "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq" and to provide reports on U.S. foreign policy and military operations in Iraq every three months until all U.S. combat brigades have been withdrawn.

The proposal calls 2006 a transition year in which Iraqi forces take over security of their country from U.S. forces to a far greater extent so the Americans can begin returning home.

Republicans largely adopted the Democratic proposal as their own, but they omitted one paragraph calling for the president to offer a plan for a phased withdrawal of the roughly 160,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq. The administration has refused to set a timetable for withdrawal, saying insurgents simply would wait to strike until after U.S. forces departed.

On the Net: Senate: http://www.senate.gov
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

Senate Votes to Demand Regular Iraq Updates From White House

By CARL HULSE
Published: November 15, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 - The Senate signaled its growing unease with the war in Iraq today, voting overwhelmingly to demand regular reports from the White House on the course of the conflict and on the progress that Iraqi forces are making in securing their own country.

The vote, on an amendment to a spending bill, was 79 to 19. The bipartisan support for the measure sponsored by Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, reflected anxiety among Republicans as well as Democrats.

Mr. Warner said afterward that he was "very grateful" for the wide backing of his amendment, which he called "forward looking" and distinctly different from a Democratic alternative that many Republicans said would signal that the United States was ready to "cut and run" from the battlefield.

The message that Iraqis should take from the Senate action, Mr. Warner said, is that "we have stood with you, we have done our part," and now it is time for them to do theirs. He said 2006 would be a pivotal year for the campaign in Iraq.

Minutes before endorsing Mr. Warner's amendment, the Senate voted, 58 to 40, against a measure offered by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, to demand that President Bush set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

"We need to have 2006 be a year of transition," Mr. Levin said as he declared that with his own amendment defeated, he would back the one offered by his Republican colleague. "I support the Warner amendment as the second-best approach," he said.

Despite the overwhelming vote on Mr. Warner's measure, it is by no means certain that it will emerge from Congress. For that to happen, it would have to be endorsed by the House as well, and there is stronger sentiment in that chamber to let the Bush administration have its way in Iraq.

Nevertheless, the Senate action was significant, since a number of lawmakers in Mr. Bush's own party have backed away from wholehearted support for the president's Iraq policy.

The Senate was also voting today on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.

The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader as well as Mr. Warner, would require the administration to provide extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. Although the Warner plan stops short of the Levin proposal, it is built upon the Democratic approach and makes it clear that senators of both parties are increasingly eager for Iraqis to take control of their country in coming months and open the door to removing American troops.

Mr. Warner said on Monday the underlying message was, "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." The senator, an influential party voice on military issues, said he did not interpret the wording of his plan as critical of the administration, describing it as a "forward-looking" approach.

"It is not a question of satisfaction or dissatisfaction," he said. "This reflects what has to be done."

Democrats said the plan represented a shift in Republican sentiment on Iraq and was an acknowledgment of growing public unrest with the course of the war and the administration's frequent call for patience. "I think it signals the fact that the American people are demanding change, and the Republicans see that that's something that they have to follow," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.
Mr. Frist said an important reason for the Republican proposal was to offer an alternative to the Democratic call for a withdrawal timetable. "The real objective was to get out of this timeline of cutting and running that the Democrats have in their amendment," he said.


Mr. Warner said he decided to take the Democratic proposal and edit it to his satisfaction in an effort to find common ground between the parties on the issue.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said he saw the proposal as a potential "turning point" in Congressional deliberation over Iraq and related issues.

The competing amendments include some of the most specific and expansive Congressional statements on the war in months and are being proposed for inclusion in a measure that also wrestles with the issues of treatment of terror detainees and their rights in American courts.

In announcing the compromise on the rights of detainees, Senator Graham said, "We have brought legal certainty to legal confusion." He said detainees would still be barred from mounting a wide array of court challenges regarding their treatment or the conditions of their confinement.

Senator Levin said the compromise had eased some of his previous objections to the restrictions on the detainees.

On the Iraq resolutions, the Democratic and Republican proposals say that "2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

The plan also seeks to put pressure on the Iraqis to find ways to resolve their internal political turmoil, saying the "administration should tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency."

The White House is also directed "to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq." Democrats have complained persistently that the administration has failed to outline a plan.

Lawmakers also seek much more specific regular reports from the administration covering "the current military mission and the diplomatic, political, economic and military measures, if any, that are being or have been undertaken to successfully complete or support that mission."

"The president needs to report to the American people and leaders in Congress as this war develops," said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. "It shouldn't be a matter of haphazard Congressional committee hearings."

The primary differences between the party approaches regards fixing dates for a withdrawal. The Democratic plan called for the administration to provide "estimated dates" for redeployment of American troops once a series of conditions was met, with the caveat that "unexpected contingencies may arise."

But Republicans said that provision was cutting too close to setting a schedule for withdrawal. "We are not going to have any timetable," Mr. Warner said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/politics...ml?pagewanted=2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1501450_pf.html

Hagel Defends Criticisms of Iraq Policy
Administration Calls Statements by Democrats Harmful to War Effort, Troops

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; A06



Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

With President Bush leading the charge, administration officials have lashed out at Democrats who have accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Bush has suggested that critics are hurting the war effort, telling U.S. troops in Alaska on Monday that critics "are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible."

Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and a potential presidential candidate in 2008, countered in a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that the Vietnam War "was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late."

"To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

Hagel said Democrats have an obligation to be constructive in their criticism, but he accused the administration of "dividing the country" with its rhetorical tactics.

Hagel supported the 2002 resolution to authorize military action in Iraq, but he has emerged as a strong skeptic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. In his speech, he called for a regional security conference to help invest Iraq's neighbors in the effort to stabilize the country.

At one point, while answering a question from the audience about Syria, Hagel suggested that the Middle East is worse off after the invasion because the administration failed to anticipate the consequences of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "You could probably argue it is worse in many ways in the Middle East because of consequences and ripple effects," he said.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld joined other administration officials yesterday in attacking critics of the Iraq war for attempting to "rewrite" history, warning that setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops could "give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, that they can outlast us."

At the same time, Rumsfeld acknowledged what he called honest mistakes in the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. "There's no doubt in my mind that people made honest mistakes in . . . the pieces of that intelligence that were presented at the United Nations," he said at a news briefing.

Rumsfeld described an evolution of U.S. policy toward Iraq embraced by Democrats and Republicans. He read several quotes from 1998 from then-President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger. They predicted that Hussein, if unchecked, would again use weapons of mass destruction.

However, many of the comments cited by Rumsfeld were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it. Moreover, the Clinton administration officials did not cite the problematic intelligence that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion, such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program.

Rumsfeld also pointed to congressional actions in 1998 and 2002 calling for Hussein's removal. But the 1998 law, signed by Clinton, said "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to use of United States Armed Forces" to implement it.

Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this report.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051116/...egrity_test.php
The Moderates' Integrity Test
Gary Bass
November 16, 2005


Gary Bass is the founder and executive director of OMB Watch , a nonprofit research and advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., promoting government accountability and citizen participation in public policy decisions.

The upcoming vote in the House over "mandatory spending" cuts is being hailed as one of the most important votes this year—as it rightly should be. The vote will indicate as much about the direction our country is headed as it will about Congress' spending priorities. And the outcome is likely to be shaped by the courage and integrity of moderate Republicans.

Until recently, with the Bush administration commanding high public approval ratings, conservatives quietly complained as Congress accelerated spending for defense, homeland security, and new entitlements. Behind closed doors, however, they grew bitter that deep cuts to domestic spending had not been accomplished, despite Republican control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. At the same time, conservatives pursued reckless tax cuts, largely benefiting corporate elites and wealthy individuals. Their "have your cake and eat it too" fiscal policies have exacerbated a ballooning deficit and created an unsustainable long-term structural problem in the federal budget.

Now, with Bush's popularity tanking and the House leadership in disarray, conservatives have stood up and taken the gloves off. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, the House Republican Study Committee, a group of roughly 100 Republican conservatives, launched "Operation Offset"—a potpourri of proposals to de-fund the federal government by slashing budgets or completely removing programs.

This conservative assault came at a time when many believed Congress, faced with glaring domestic need, would suspend yet another set of new tax cuts, particularly those to the wealthy, in order to retain revenues and pay for Gulf Coast reconstruction. As public calls for an end to unrestrained tax and budget cuts increased, the moderate Republicans who hold real sway in Congress appeared poised to assert themselves.

These moderates certainly have public support. Various polls have repeatedly shown that the public believes hurricane recovery costs should be paid for by rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy. In one poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the Democracy Corps, 75 percent of respondents wanted planned tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 per year to be cancelled. The American people are clearly expressing their recognition of the current need for more government, not less.

It's not just polls where this message comes through loud and clear. In Colorado two weeks ago, the "starve the beast" coalition was soundly defeated by an alliance forged between a Republican governor and a Democratic House speaker. Fifty-three percent of Colorado voters supported Referendum C and agreed to give up $3.7 billion in automatic tax refunds over the next five years in order to ease strict limits on state spending on education, health care and transportation.

The voters in Colorado implicitly acknowledged the importance of government services and the need for an adequate revenue base to support these services. This notion of shared sacrifice, a long-standing American value, has been all but absent from this Congress and the current administration. This absence is particularly glaring when considering the realities of our “tax relief” policies: households earning more than $1 million will receive $103,000 in tax break windfalls this year, according to the Tax Policy Center; and, starting Jan. 1, they will get an extra $20,000 from two more tax breaks that benefit only the top 4 percent of wage-earners. Incredibly, the House and Senate are now debating an additional $70 billion tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthy, leaving many to wonder how Congress and the president can be so woefully out of touch with the desires of the American people.

Last Thursday, moderates in the House and Senate stepped up and exercised the power newly at their command. In the House, the vote on harsh spending cuts collapsed as the Republican leadership could not rally enough votes to pass the bill. This spending bill was one of two under the reconciliation process, making $35 billion in mandatory spending cuts, while the other cuts $70 billion in taxes. Despite purporting to be a deficit reduction tool, the reconciliation package will increase deficits by at least $35 billion.

It was assumed that, in light of Hurricane Katrina, Congress might choose to suspend these reconciliation bills. Yet when Majority Leader Tom DeLay was indicted and forced to give up his leadership post, the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) saw an opportunity and leaped.

Instead of canceling reconciliation, RSC members decided to up the ante, calling for a 58 percent increase in spending cuts. At first it appeared that their plan was to enact spending cuts across the board, including for defense and homeland security. But quickly the conservative agenda shifted even farther away from shared sacrifice: the cuts would target programs serving low- and moderate-income families, with about one-third of the spending cuts coming from poverty programs. The moderates were troubled by these cuts along with riders attached to the bill, including authorization of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)—and their lack of support threatened the bill.

These conflicting pressures began to squeeze the options available to the House leadership team, and the action last week revealed the ugly inner workings of the lengths a desperate leadership will go to ram through misguided, unpopular policies. The GOP was willing to give up ANWR drilling to win moderate votes, but conservatives threatened to vote against a bill without ANWR drilling. Then the Republican leadership agreed—with a wink and a nod to conservatives—that ANWR drilling would be removed for now, but reinserted later in conference. But the moderates continued to withhold their support for the bill because of the cuts to Medicaid, student loans, food stamps and other low-income supports. With members anxious to return home for Veteran's Day, the Republican leadership gave up and withdrew the bill. Voting on the bill has been rescheduled for this Thursday.

In the Senate, a similar principled stand by a moderate Republican derailed efforts to pass more tax cuts for the wealthy—but an equally sneaky bait-and-switch may be in the works here as well. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, rejected extending the tax cuts on capital gains and stock dividends at a time when Congress is already enacting spending cuts affecting poor Americans. Senate Finance Committee Chair Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, accommodated Snowe’s concerns in order to move the tax cut bill out of committee, but the other Republicans reportedly went "ballistic" over dropping capital gains and dividends cuts. After postponing the markup a few days, it appears Grassley has executed a similar “wink and nod” maneuver with conservatives on the Finance Committee. The tax cut bill was approved yesterday without the capital gains and dividend cuts—but not so subtle assurances were given that they would be reinserted at a later time.

Fierce negotiations are underway in the House right now and enormous pressure is being applied to the moderates to cave. According to columnist Robert Novak, conservatives are "outraged" by the "coddling" of the moderates. "[W]istful Republicans [are] longing for the strong arm of suspended majority leader Tom DeLay." Conservatives have already made implicit threats of holding a vote for new House leadership in January or supporting more conservative Republicans against these moderates in the 2006 elections if spending cuts are not enacted this year.

With conservative Republicans increasingly advancing policies outside the mainstream, moderate Republicans are left with the burden of tempering the direction of future policy. It is clear that some combination of tax and spending cuts will continue to be pushed this year. The hope among those observing from the middle is that the moderates will stick with common sense and the will of the public and reject the radical minority's push to institute an ideological agenda of shrinking government.

Moderate Republicans in the House obviously have the power now to make an important statement about the immediate needs and proper priorities of the country by defeating the budget reconciliation bill this week. It remains to be seen, however, if they will have the integrity or the courage to stand up to their far-right colleagues.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1117/p01s01-uspo.html
On war, Senate flexes muscle

From detainee policy to war strategy, it's asserting itself more in White House dealings.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – Spurred by President Bush's slumping approval ratings, the Republican-controlled Senate - for the first time - is drawing lines in the sand over war, pushing the White House on issues ranging from treatment of detainees to strategy in Iraq.
Last month, senators broke with the White House by voting to ban torture. Last week, they demanded accountability on secret overseas detention centers. This week, 76 senators voted to require the White House to deliver quarterly, unclassified reports on progress of the war in Iraq.

Democrats called Tuesday's resolution a symbolic vote of "no confidence" in Mr. Bush. Republicans deny a big rift with his administration and point out that they consulted with National Security Council staff in advance of the vote. But both sides acknowledge a tipping point in relations between Capitol Hill and the executive branch. "It's a big day for Congress - the institution is rearing up and asserting itself," says Sen. Lindsey Graham ® of South Carolina.

In Japan, Bush said the resolution was "consistent with our strategy," and he called the rejection of the Democratic version a positive step.

It's normal for Congress to cede authority to the White House in times of war. But analysts say that the high visibility of the Iraq war and this president's rapid drop in the polls have forced a re- adjustment faster than in the nation's previous wars.

"This period recalls the early 1970s between Congress and Nixon and the war in Vietnam. The president pushed presidential war powers as far as he could take it, and Congress is now trying to reassert its power in this war," says Julian Zelizer, a professor of US political history at Boston University.

"Not only are Democrats more open to curbing the president's war, but more Republicans no longer see their fate as tied up with the president," he adds.

In a recent CNN poll, fewer than 1 in 10 Americans said they would be inclined to support a Republican who agrees with Bush "on almost every major issue." One in three said they would be most likely to support a Republican who has had both agreements and disagreements with Bush.

In a weekend Gallup poll, a majority of Americans called for withdrawing all troops from Iraq, either immediately (19 percent), or within a year (33 percent)..

Had Senate Republicans wanted to appear in lock step with the White House on the war, they had the votes to simply defeat a Democratic resolution calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, they tweaked the Democratic version in a bid for bipartisan support.

"A big, bipartisan vote sends a message to the Iraqis and the White House. It's very, very significant," says Stephen Hess, a public policy professor at George Washington University.

Both resolutions called for calendar year 2006 to be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty ... thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." They also require the president to report to Congress every three months on issues ranging from the current military mission to "whether the Iraqis have made the compromises necessary for a broad-based and sustainable political settlement."

Denying any rift with the White House on past conduct of the war, Sen. John Warner ® of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said, "This is a forward looking amendment."

While Pentagon and White House officials say they are constantly reporting to Capitol Hill, this is the first time that lawmakers have specified terms and a timetable for such reports, including the call that they be unclassified.

Another amendment, sponsored by Senator Graham, clarifies the legal rights of detainees. This, along with a provision barring torture, which the White House has threatened to veto, must now be negotiated with the House.

"We are not going to simply allow the administration to do what it wants on detainees, because it is not consistent with our values," says Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17691279.htm

Leading U.S. House Democrat urges Iraq pullout
17 Nov 2005 17:33:34 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON, Nov 17 (Reuters) - A Democratic congressional leader on defense called on Thursday for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, increasing pressure for a change in Bush administration policy just days after the Senate asked for a plan to end the war.

"The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees military spending and one of his party's top spokesmen on defense.

Murtha's remarks followed a string of attacks by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney against critics of the administration's Iraq war policy and its handling of intelligence that led to the war.

Murtha, who has a hawkish voting record and supported the Iraq war but criticized Bush's handling of it, urged the administration to "immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

Murtha is a Vietnam War veteran and a retired Marine colonel who has served as a trusted defense adviser to presidents of both parties. He said he will introduce a resolution calling for the return of U.S. forces in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date."

He called the war "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion" and noted a shift in public sentiment against the war.

"The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress," he said. "It's time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk," he said.

Just a handful of Democrats who had opposed the war from the start have called for a quick withdrawal. Most have called on the administration to provide a plan for withdrawal, based on conditions on the ground.

The administration has vehemently opposed any mention of withdrawal timetables, which is calls a "cut and run" strategy that would only fuel the insurgency. It is trying to build up Iraq's military so that U.S. troops can eventually leave.

INSURGENT TARGETS

But Murtha argued that U.S. troops have become the targets who have united the insurgency, and that continued deployments are breaking the military.

He said he believed U.S. troops could be withdrawn within six months. There are 153,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, increased from the usual 138,000 to tighten security for elections in October and December. Another 22,000 troops from U.S. allies are also serving in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, asked about Murtha's proposal, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top U.S. military officials had "outlined, I think, adequately ... what the strategy is for the U.S. military there and the conditions that will need to be met in order to be able to start reducing the size of the military force there."

Murtha said a "quick reaction force" should be kept to deal with emergencies in the region, but not with a possible civil war in Iraq. Iraq's stability should be pursued diplomatically, not militarily, he said.

"We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," Murtha said.

The Republican-controlled Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly backed a resolution saying the Iraqis should start taking the lead in their own security next year to allow a phased withdrawal, but it rejected a Democratic resolution demanding that Bush provide an estimated timetable.

(additional reporting by Charles Aldinger)

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Hagel_blasts...g_war_1115.html

GOP senator hits Bush for attacking war critics; Hints Congress endorsing another Vietnam by staying silent
RAW STORY


Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran and critic of Bush policy on Iraq, excoriated the Administration Tuesday in a speech to Council on Foreign Relations Tuesday, RAW STORY has learned.

Hagel blasted the Administration for going after Iraq war critics and turning the war into a political cause.

"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform," the Nebraska senator remarked. "This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies."

Advertisement



He also suggested the members of Congress who failed to question the war could be responsible for another Vietnam.

"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late," he added. "Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

Hagel emphasized the role of international cooperation.

"The international community must now recognize the changed circumstances of a constitutionally-based Iraqi government and join Iraq’s neighbors by investing in Iraq’s future success," he said.

"The role for international institutions will grow in importance as Iraq becomes more self-assured and able to govern. The World Bank, the United Nations and NATO all need to be more actively engaged in Iraq. The Oil-for-Food debacle is a stain on the UN’s reputation in Iraq. But that is not the UN’s role in Iraq today. The United Nations can help provide Iraq both a broader political umbrella, and greater support and expertise to help build and coordinate government institutions, programs and structures. Last weekend’s visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Iraq – his first visit since the war – should help lead to this expanded role for the UN."


http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseActi...th=11&Year=2005


"U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East"
by U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel

November 15th, 2005 - Delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC - Last year, I wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine that "a wise foreign policy recognizes that U.S. leadership is determined as much by our commitment to principle as by our exercise of power." For decades, the strength of U.S. leadership has brought together allies in common cause, addressing common challenges with common action. In February 2003, three weeks before the U.S. invaded Iraq, I said in a speech at Kansas State University:

"America must approach the world with a sense of purpose in world affairs that is anchored by our ideals, a principled realism that seeks not to re-make the world in our image, but to help make a better world.

We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that come with great power. Our foreign policy should reflect the hope and promise of America tempered with a mature wisdom that is the mark of our national character. In this new era of possibilities and responsibilities, America will require a wider lens view of how the world sees us, so that we can better understand the world, and our role in it."

Trust and confidence in America is about more than our military might or economic power. Power alone will not build coalitions, will not inspire trust, will not demonstrate confident leadership, will not resolve complicated problems, and will not defeat the threats that the United States will confront in the 21st century.

After World War II, America used its leadership and power to help forge a consensus on vital international issues. We built relationships, alliances and international organizations. By doing so, we enhanced our power, our ability to influence, and our ability to protect our national interests.

These institutions are as vital today as when they were formed. They need constant adjustment to reflect the realities of today and tomorrow...but what remains unchanged is the critical importance of these alliances to achieve global stability. America’s past leaders recognized that the United States, alone, was incapable of confronting global threats and challenges.

We must maintain a clear-eyed focus on our vital interests and understand regional complexities and dynamics as we pursue our strategic objectives. The recent violence during President Bush’s trip to South America and the reluctance of some of our regional neighbors to pursue a regional free trade agreement underscore this point.

Nowhere is this perspective more important than in the Middle East. Ethnic currents, nationalist and religious ideologies, historical tensions, and long-running conflicts intersect to create a complex regional dynamic. For there to be any hope of peace and stability in the Middle East, American policies must be based on regional perspectives and relationships.

A close friend and ally, Israel, remains threatened by some of its neighbors. Violent Islamic extremism finds refuge in Iraq, Iran, and Syria and seeks to make inroads elsewhere in the region. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a threat. Political and economic reform is limited and incomplete. And, the United States has nearly 160,000 soldiers in Iraq in support of Iraq’s uncertain future.

As President George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor, General Brent Scowcroft, wrote in November 2004 in the Washington Post,

"...we no longer have the luxury of treating Middle East policy as a series of unrelated events running on separate calendars. We face the need for simultaneous actions to avoid failed states while reducing the incentives to violence and instability that threaten American and friendly states throughout the region. Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Iran and terrorism are parts of a whole and can only be satisfactorily engaged as such. To cut through this Gordian knot will require not only a new approach but the deep, sustained commitment of the United States and a significant investment of the President’s attention."

The challenges that we face in the Middle East are more real today than a year ago. The unity of Iraq is not assured and its insurgency risks further destabilization of its neighbors. The shakiness of the Assad regime in Syria, the recent terrorist bombings in Jordan, and Islamic extremism in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region continue to pose dangerous threats to regional stability. Many Arab states are concerned that Iran is emerging as the big regional winner.

Trust and confidence in the United States has been seriously eroded. We are seen by many in the Middle East as an obstacle to peace, an aggressor and an occupier. Our policies are a source of significant friction not only in the region but in the wider international community. Our purpose and power are questioned. We are at the same time both a stabilizing and a destabilizing force in the Middle East.

We face the possibility of a much more dangerous and destabilized Middle East, with consequences that would extend far beyond the region’s borders.

There have been positive, recent developments in Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. To maximize the potential of these developments, the United States must demonstrate diplomatic agility to adjust and respond to the uncertainties, nuances and uncontrollables that the region will continue to face.

Iraq held a successful constitutional referendum on October 15. Iraqi political parties are now preparing for parliamentary elections on December 15 leading to the formation of a constitutionally-based, freely-elected government.

As Iraq moves toward achieving a formal political transition, the United States should recognize that we must act to help build an international consensus on Iraq and address the regional complexities of the Middle East. We have few good options.

Our strategic goal should be to get out of Iraq under conditions that offer Iraq the best possible opportunity for success – Iraqi success being defined as a free and self-governing country. This is not about setting a timeline. This is about pursuing policies designed to gradually pull the United States further away from the day to day responsibilities of defending Iraq and de facto governance of Iraq, and encouraging and demanding more responsibility from the Iraqis.

The future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people and its leaders. The new Iraqi government will have the potential for a wider vision and a longer horizon, establishing more stability and more confidence to engage the challenges that lie ahead. The recent decision by the UN Security Council to extend the mandate for the multinational forces in Iraq until the end of 2006 helps the next Iraqi government develop its capabilities to govern, defend and support itself, while continuing to limit America’s role as the only real "enforcer" in Iraq.

As the Iraqi government assumes more responsibility for governing Iraq, so too must Iraq’s forces continue to take on more responsibility to defend their country. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, underscored this point on October 25 when he told Gwen Ifill on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer that he believes that the United States is, "on the right track to start significant reductions [of U.S. military forces] in the coming year." I believe the United States should begin drawing down forces in Iraq next year.

U.S. military power is not a surrogate force upon which Iraq can indefinitely depend. The current Iraqi government’s announcement on November 2 to accept the return of junior officers of the former Iraqi army – reversing U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer’s decision to disband Hussein’s armed forces – was a critically important development. Political confidence and military capability will reinforce and strengthen Iraq’s ability to govern and defend itself and sustain that confidence. We should not obstruct this development. The United States must encourage and expect demonstrations of new Iraqi independence and decision-making.

Secretary Rice acknowledged before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 19, "there is no doubt the international community needs to be more involved with the Iraqis – there’s no doubt about it – especially the neighbors." But, today there is no standing mechanism for regional partners, with support from the international community, to develop consensus on building relationships around common security, political and economic interests.

Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post in August 2005 that we need:

"a political initiative inviting an international framework for Iraq’s future. Some of our allies may prefer to act as bystanders, but reality will not permit this for their own safety. Their cooperation is needed, not so much for the military as for the political task, which will test, above all, the West’s statesmanship in shaping a global system relevant to its necessities."

Once the newly elected Iraqi government is in place after the December 15 elections, the United States, along with its allies, should propose a ministerial-level regional security conference on Iraq. This conference should be held in the region – perhaps with Egypt as the host – and should be endorsed by a new UN Security Council resolution. The conference would bring together Iraq and its regional neighbors – Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The G-8 countries and international institutions – the UN, the EU, NATO and the World Bank – should also be involved in this effort.

The conference agenda should focus on the three pillars for Mideast stability – security, political, and economic. The conference would be broader, both in its agenda and participation, than the upcoming meeting in Cairo on Iraqi reconciliation that the Arab League has proposed. Unlike last weekend’s "Forum for the Future" meeting in Bahrain, which emphasized reform and economic growth, this conference would be focused on building regional cohesion based, at least initially, on Iraq. And, unlike past international conferences on Iraq – Sharm el-Sheikh in November 2004 and Brussels in June 2005 – this conference would not be a one-time event. The conference must produce agreement to maintain and regularly convene a sub-ministerial forum structured to effectively address Iraq’s ongoing challenges. Most important, it cannot be seen as a U.S.-imposed event to further U.S. interests and influence in the Middle East.

Creating a formalized regional mechanism is vital for security in the Middle East. Iraq’s neighbors will be the countries most impacted by the outcome there. Although a regional mechanism does not assure Iraq’s success, the active involvement of the countries in the region allows a more promising future of stability for Iraq and lessens the chances for civil war and sectarian violence. It also lessens the possibilities that further instability and violence in Iraq will spread like a raging inferno throughout the region.

Establishing a regional and international umbrella for Iraq would mean that the United States take a shared role in a regional security conference in Iraq. This does not mean that America would withdraw abruptly from Iraq. The United States should continue to leverage its influence, urging all Iraqi parties to use the political process to address the deep fractures of their society. We must also remain focused on the mission of standing up capable Iraqi Security Forces.

The international community must now recognize the changed circumstances of a constitutionally-based Iraqi government and join Iraq’s neighbors by investing in Iraq’s future success.

The role for international institutions will grow in importance as Iraq becomes more self-assured and able to govern. The World Bank, the United Nations and NATO all need to be more actively engaged in Iraq. The Oil-for-Food debacle is a stain on the UN’s reputation in Iraq. But that is not the UN’s role in Iraq today. The United Nations can help provide Iraq both a broader political umbrella, and greater support and expertise to help build and coordinate government institutions, programs and structures. Last weekend’s visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Iraq – his first visit since the war – should help lead to this expanded role for the UN.

The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies.

Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late. Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices.

Today, the Senate engaged in a legitimate debate over exit strategy in Iraq as the Senate considered and voted on two Senate resolutions. This is a significant step toward the Congress exercising its Constitutional responsibilities over matters of war.

As we consider the regional context of stability and security in Iraq, there is another issue that we must deal with – a relationship between the United States and Iran. The fact that our two governments cannot – or will not – sit down to exchange views must end.

Iran is a regional power; it has major influence in Iraq and throughout the Gulf region. Its support of terrorist organizations and the threat it poses to Israel is all the more reason that the U.S. must engage Iran. Any lasting solution to Iran’s nuclear weapons program will also require the United States’ direct discussions with Iran. The United States is capable of engaging Iran in direct dialogue without sacrificing any of its interests or objectives. As a start, we should have direct discussions with Iran on the margins of any regional security conference on Iraq, as we did with Iran in the case of Afghanistan.

As Abbas Milani, Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford, Co-Director of the Hoover Institution’s Iran Democracy Project, and former professor at Tehran University, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on October 31:

"The time for a new grand bargain with Iran’s people has arrived. Instead of saber-rattling, the U.S. must encourage the unfolding discussions in Iran...Every element of this new bargain – ending the embargo and replacing it with smart sanctions; lifting the bans on airplane spare parts and offering earthquake warning systems; and even direct discussions with the regime – must be seen as part of a grand strategy to help the Iranian people achieve their dream of democracy."

America and the West need to pursue a wise course in considering the impact of our actions on those in Iran who would welcome a new openness in their country. Engagement, backed by confident and strong U.S. leadership, would re-frame our relationship. More unilateral U.S. sanctions – particularly third country sanctions – are exactly the wrong approach. Why would the United States want to give the Iranian regime more reasons to point to a foreign threat and alienate our friends and allies who share our concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, its threat to Israel, and its support for terrorism? That course is dangerous and self-defeating.

Central to peace in the Middle East is resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Earlier this year, we witnessed the election of a new Palestinian President and Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. The President’s announcement on October 20 to extend former World Bank President Jim Wolfensohn’s economic mission in the region and Secretary Rice’s announcement last night to appoint Major General Keith Dayton to succeed Lieutenant General William "Kip" Ward as the U.S. security coordinator are very important and need more attention and support.

Developments since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, however, risk dragging us back into cycles of despair and violence. Palestinian terrorists have struck Israel. Israel continues to expand settlements in the West Bank. Gazans have not yet seen a difference in their lives as borders remain closed with only a trickle of goods and people from Gaza to either Israel or Egypt. These uncertain conditions in Gaza create a disastrous investment climate. Gaza cannot remain a prison to its own citizens.

Last night, Secretary Rice, Mr. Wolfensohn, and General Ward helped Israelis and Palestinians reach an agreement that begins to re-open Gaza, in particular the Rafah crossing with Egypt that is Gaza’s primary link to the world. As Secretary Rice has noted, this significant development will help create "patterns of cooperation" that will be critical to achieve greater progress toward peace in the Middle East. Secretary Rice, Mr. Wolfensohn, and General Ward deserve credit for this achievement.

But as all three clearly understand, major challenges remain. Both Israelis and Palestinians have unmet obligations, neither side can justify further inaction. American leadership can push and prod but we cannot force Israelis or Palestinians to negotiate.

We must also be prepared to identify and act on strategic regional opportunities to help achieve broader Arab-Israeli peace. The progress in ending Syria’s corrosive influence in Lebanon should help create opportunities to undermine Syrian-backed Palestinian terrorist groups that have operated out of Lebanon, and thereby help to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The course of diplomatic events on Syria may also eventually help create opportunities to reinvigorate Israeli-Syrian negotiations, including the future status of the Golan Heights.

The United States should be very cautious about supporting the collapse of the Assad regime. That would be a dangerous event, with the potential to trigger wider regional instability at a time when our capacity to help shape a desired regional outcome is very limited. Our objective should be a strategic shift in Syria’s perspective and actions that would open the way to greater common interests for the countries of the region.

Terrorism is a real threat and a present danger that we must confront and defeat. But we must not sacrifice the strengths and ideals of America that the world has come to respect and trust, and that define us. That is why I co-sponsored Senator McCain’s amendment to prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment of any detainee under the custody of any branch of the U.S. Government. I strongly oppose any exception to this prohibition. As General Colin Powell wrote to Senator McCain in support of this amendment,

"Our troops need to hear from the Congress, which has an obligation to speak to such matters under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution."

The recent media reports of a worldwide American system of secret, black-hole jails, run by the Central Intelligence Agency, and developed explicitly to circumvent our obligations under the Geneva Convention, sullies everything that America represents. It further erodes the world’s confidence in America’s word and our purpose.

As columnist Jim Hoagland wrote last weekend in the Washington Post:

"Policies and attitudes have to change, too. Lifting the legal fog that intentionally envelops Guantanamo detainees is an urgent need, to reaffirm Americans’ commitment to the rule of law as well as to stabilize the country’s standing abroad. So is establishing with Congress accountability and some form of transparency for prisoners held abroad for U.S. purposes."

The Constitution also establishes Congress’ authority and responsibility regarding decisions to go to war. The course of events in Iraq has laid bare the failure to prepare for, plan for, and understand the broad consequences and implications of the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq. Where is the accountability? In the November 8 Washington Post, Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, wrote,

"Our Founding Fathers wanted the declaration of war to concentrate the minds. Returning to the Constitution’s text and making it work through legislation requiring joint deliberate action may be the only way to give the decision to make war the care it deserves."

The American people should demand that the President request a Declaration of War and the Congress formally declare war, if and when the President believes that committing American troops is in the vital national security interests of this country. This would make the President and Congress, together, accountable for their actions – just as the Founders of our country intended.

One of America’s greatest 21st century challenges is not to lose the next generation of the world...especially the next generation of Muslims. This is a generation that yearns for the opportunity and possibilities of globalization and reform. This is a generation that is prepared to embrace the politics of change and reform. We cannot afford to lose this generation – in the Middle East and around the world.

If we do, my children and your children will inherit a very dangerous and complicated world. The choices that America makes today; the policies we pursue; the actions we take; the friends and allies we make; and our preparation for the future will define the global frame of reference, and our role in the world, for decades to come.

I have spoken today about the regional interconnects of the Middle East and the need for new strategic U.S. thinking. This is not unique to this region. Regional dynamics infuse the challenges we face around the world...Asia, Africa, the Eurasian landmass, the Western Hemisphere. What the United States must help prevent is the possibility of several destabilizing events across regions. The complexities of the 21st century demand strategic, over-the-horizon American thinking, diplomacy and leadership. That will require creative diplomacy and a recognition of the varied perspectives and values of other countries. We can help countries reach their destination but it must be on their terms and their way, or it will fail and create a deep and dangerous anti-Americanism throughout the world.

A few weeks ago, I was looking through some old photographs and letters that my father wrote to his parents and sister when he was in the South Pacific during World War II. I found a picture of my father when he was the Commander of American Legion Post 84 in Ainsworth, Nebraska and my mother when she was President of the Legion Auxiliary back in the early 50's. I started thinking about how my family’s life revolved around the American Legion and this country...what it meant to my family. That spirit of helping others, service, patriotism, is who we are as Americans.

When America’s actions abroad have reflected these core values, we have inspired trust and confidence in the world. Demonstrating America’s purpose is at the heart of America’s strength. Nations, like individuals, must earn respect, confidence and the right to lead.

As I said at Kansas State three weeks before we invaded Iraq:

"What distinguishes America is not our power, for the world has known great power. It is America’s purpose and our commitment to making a better life for all people. That is the America the world needs to see. A wise, thoughtful and steady nation, worthy of its power, generous of spirit, and humble in its purpose."

Murtha: 'U.S. Cannot Accomplish Anything Further in Iraq Militarily; It is Time to Bring the Troops Home'

11/17/2005 1:52:00 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Cindy Abram, 814-535-2642

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, Ranking Member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, decorated Vietnam veteran, and expert on military issues, spoke at a news conference this morning calling for immediate redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Below are Murtha's remarks, followed by a resolution he is introducing he is introducing in the House today:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

"General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy."

"For 2 1/2 years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait -- the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction -- but the U.S. forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

"We spend more money on Intelligence that all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

"The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

"Much of our ground transportation is worn out and in need of either serous overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

"I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the condition on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included to Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have not received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45 percent of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.

"My plan calls:

-- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

-- To create a quick reaction force in the region.

-- To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.

-- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

"This war needs to be personalized. As I said before, I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

---

Murtha Resolution to Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq:

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

MR. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80 percent of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it

1) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

2) Congress assembled,

3) That:

4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is

5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable

6) date.

7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the- horizon presence of U.S Marines

8) shall be deployed in the region.

9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq

10) through diplomacy.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

--------------------
House Democrat Calls for Fast Withdrawal From Iraq
--------------------

By James Gerstenzang
Times Staff Writer

November 17 2005, 11:58 AM PST

WASHINGTON -- Signaling heightened opposition to the war in Iraq from a corner of long-standing support for the military, Rep. John Murtha, a conservative Pennsylvania Democrat, said today the United States should immediately begin to bring its troops home.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1322716

Senators Threaten to Hold Up Patriot Act
Bipartisan Group of Senators Threatens to Hold Up Patriot Act Reauthorization Over Surveillance Protections
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Nov 17, 2005 — A bipartisan group of senators told congressional leaders Thursday they will try to block reauthorization of the Patriot Act to protest the elimination Senate-mandated protections against "unnecessary and intrusive government surveillance" in a House-Senate compromise.

"If further changes are not made, we will work to stop this bill from becoming law," GOP Sens. Larry Craig, John Sununu and Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold and Ken Salazar said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees.

This came a day after House-Senate negotiators crafted a tentative compromise to make most provisions of the existing law permanent, and set new seven-year sunsets for rules on wiretapping, obtaining business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and new standards for monitoring "lone wolf" terrorists who may be operating independent of a foreign agent or power.

Congress is facing two deadlines: lawmakers want to leave before the end of the week for Thanksgiving, and more than a dozen provisions of the Patriot Act expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't renew them.

The Republican-controlled House hopes to approve the compromise on Friday, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told senators Thursday they will have to address the legislation "before we leave."


Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Intel Chair Wants to Declassify Iraq Docs

By KATHERINE SHRADER
The Associated Press
Friday, November 18, 2005; 8:42 AM



WASHINGTON -- House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra wants to declassify millions of pages of untranslated documents from Iraq collected by the U.S. government over more than a decade.

The Michigan Republican says it's a way to learn what's inside more than 35,000 boxes that haven't been translated because the government doesn't have enough Arabic linguists with security clearances.

"Most people have acknowledged that we are never going to get through them," he said of the boxes. He's hoping to work with the new Iraqi government to put the documents online so journalists, academics and other researchers can sift through them.

Hoekstra has discussed the proposal with senior intelligence officials and on Friday will call on the intelligence community to issue the sweeping declassification.

Most of the documents were grabbed during the 2003 Iraq invasion and quickly classified, even though they were not a product of the U.S. government. Some date back to the first Persian Gulf War in 1991.

It would be unprecedented to declassify volumes of information without first scrubbing them for secrets the U.S. may not want revealed.

"There are always excuses not to do this, but I think the benefits of going through all of these documents far outweigh any risks," Hoekstra said in an interview.

He said one document came to his attention with information about the fallen regime's links to terror groups and chemical and biological weapons, although he doesn't know if the document is authentic.

Such claims have largely been rejected, and the Bush administration has come under fire for leading the nation to war with flawed intelligence about the threat posed by then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"I am not asserting that this will prove one thing or another," Hoekstra said. "One thing it will surely do is give us a much clearer insight into what was going on in the former Iraqi regime than we have today."

The documents, now located in Qatar, were gathered from a number of Iraqi sources, including the military, health ministries, political organizations and Saddam's personal collection.

Hoekstra said those from the intelligence agency weren't likely to be released because they may contain sensitive information, such as the names of agents working for the former Iraqi regime.

Hoekstra was making his request in a letter to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq who became the nation's spy chief in April.

Through his intelligence panel, Hoekstra is leading a congressional inquiry into the leaking of classified information. Yet he has stressed his belief that too much government information is needlessly classified _ a trend he wants to reverse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1800374_pf.html

November 18, 2005
Extension of Patriot Act Faces Threat of Filibuster
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - A tentative deal to extend the government's antiterrorism powers under the law known as the USA Patriot Act appeared in some jeopardy Thursday, as Senate Democrats threatened to mount a filibuster in an effort to block the legislation.

"This is worth the fight," Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who serves on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview.

"I've cleared my schedule right up to Thanksgiving," Mr. Feingold said, adding that he was making plans to read aloud from the Bill of Rights as part of a filibuster if necessary.

The political maneuvering came even before negotiators for the House and Senate had agreed on a final deal to extend the government's counterterrorism powers under the act.

With a tentative deal in place on Wednesday, Congressional negotiators had been expected to reach a final, printed agreement by early Thursday for the full House and Senate to consider. But despite minute-by-minute updates about a possible conclusion, the day passed on with no final agreement, causing no shortage of nervousness among Bush administration officials and Republican supporters of the tentative deal.

By Thursday evening, officials said negotiators had reached what amounted to an impasse for the day, as those from the Senate pushed for further civil rights safeguards that were seen as unacceptable to House leaders. Talks are expected to pick up again on Friday, officials said.

The tentative deal reached by negotiators would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions of the law that are set to expire at the end of the year. The remaining two provisions - related to government demands for records from businesses and libraries and its use of roving wiretaps - would have to be reconsidered in seven years, as would a separate provision on taking aim at people suspected of being "lone wolf" terrorists.

But in the eleventh-hour negotiations to complete the deal, Congressional leaders discussed changing some crucial elements of the agreement in response to concerns from lawmakers, officials said. One proposal would have lowered the "sunset" on the three investigative provisions from seven years to something closer to the four years approved by the Senate in its version of the bill earlier this year.

In a letter Thursday, a bipartisan group of six senators said the tentative deal had caused them "deep concern" because it did not go far enough in "making reasonable changes to the original law to protect innocent people from unnecessary and intrusive government surveillance."

Reflecting the political breadth of concerns about the law, the letter was signed by three Republicans - Senators Larry E. Craig, John E. Sununu and Lisa Murkowksi - and three Democrats - Senators Richard J. Durbin and Ken Salazar and Mr. Feingold.

The group called for tighter restrictions on the government's ability to demand records and its use of so-called "sneak and peak" warrants to conduct secret searches without immediately informing the target, among other measures.

"We have worked too long and too hard to allow this conference report to eliminate the modest protections for civil liberties that were agreed to unanimously in the Senate," Ms. Murkowski, of Alaska, said in a separate statement.

"There is still time for the conference committee to step back and agree to the Senate's bipartisan approach. If the conference committee doesn't do that, we will fight to stop this bill from becoming law."

Republican leaders said they remained confident that a deal would be worked out that would accommodate the newly raised concerns from members of both parties. But the late maneuvering could thwart the leaders' hopes to have a deal in place before Congress breaks for Thanksgiving next week.

The Bush administration, which saw the negotiators' tentative agreement as a strong endorsement of its demand for tough antiterror tools, has made the reauthorization of the act one of its top legislative priorities, and officials have been pushing for a quick resolution to avoid hitting a deadline at the end of December, when several major surveillance and investigative powers in the law would expire.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/national...?pagewanted=all

November 18, 2005
House Passes Sweeping Budget Cut Bill
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:13 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans sweated out a victory on a major budget cut bill in the wee hours Friday, salvaging a major pillar of their agenda despite divisions within the party and nervousness among moderates that the vote could cost them in next year's elections.

The bill, passed 217-215 after a 25-minute-long roll call, makes modest but politically painful cuts across an array of programs for the poor, students and farmers.

The victory on the deficit-control bill came hours after an embarrassing and rare defeat on a $602 billion spending bill for education, health care and job training programs this year. The earlier 224-209 vote halted what had been a steady drive to complete annual appropriations bills freezing many agency budgets.

The broader budget bill would slice almost $50 billion from the deficit by the end of the decade by curbing rapidly growing benefit programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies. Republicans said reining in such programs whose costs spiral upward each year automatically s the first step to restoring fiscal discipline.

''This unchecked spending is growing faster than our economy, faster than inflation, and far beyond our means to sustain it,'' said Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa.

Both bills are part of a campaign by Republican leaders to burnish their party's budget-cutting credentials as they try to reduce a deficit swelled by spending on the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina.

The budget plan squeaked through after an all-day search by Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., to round up votes from reluctant moderates and other lawmakers uneasy with the bill.

House leaders now face arduous talks with the Senate, which passed a much more modest plan earlier this month. Negotiators face difficult negotiations over Arctic drilling, Medicaid and student loans, among other issues

Fourteen Republicans voted ''no,'' including several who had harshly condemned the bill in the days leading up to the vote. Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn. -- who faces a challenging Senate race -- cast the decisive vote. Then, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, only reluctantly followed with the final ''aye'' vote. He was upset over a decision by Hastert to drop a long-sought provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as ANWR, to oil drilling and sent a clear signal he would not vote for a final bill without the drilling plan.

To win House approval, Hastert ordered modest concessions on plans to limit eligibility for food stamps and require the poorest Medicaid patients to pay more for their care. He ordered killed a provision to deny free school lunches to about 40,000 children whose parents would lose their food stamps.

Those changes and other promises won the votes of lawmakers who had earlier registered opposition to the bill, including James Walsh, R-N.Y., Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., and Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.

The biggest concession came Thursday evening when Walsh won language permitting food stamp recipients making the transition to work to continue to be able to receive non-cash benefits for child care, transportation and housing without losing their nutrition benefits.

An earlier 224-209 vote against a $602 billion spending bill for health, education and labor programs disrupted plans by the Republican leaders to complete work on freezing many agency budgets through next September.

The afternoon vote was the first time in 10 years the House has rejected a final House-Senate compromise on a spending bill and the episode exposed weaknesses in the GOP leadership team after former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was forced to step down from his leadership post after his indictment on money laundering and conspiracy charges.

Democrats were unanimous in opposing the one-year appropriations bill.

The companion deficit-reduction bill also drew unanimous opposition from Democrats, who objected to both cuts in programs for the poor and the fact that the deficit-reduction bill would increase the deficit when combined with a tax slated for a vote later that would extend tax cuts on capital gains and dividend income due to expire at the end of 2008.

''Name just one religion in the world that preaches the value of asking the most of those who have the least and asking nothing of those who have the most,'' said Chet Edwards, D-Texas. ''Sadly, that is what this budget does.''

Republicans who voted ''no'' included Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, Tim Johnson of Illinois and Nancy Johnson, Christopher Shays and Rob Simmons of Connecticut.

That overall bill would cut the deficit through a combination of new revenues from auctioning television airwaves to wireless companies and myriad cuts to entitlement programs like Medicaid.

The earlier concession to moderates involved leaving co-payments for the poorest Medicaid beneficiaries at $3 instead of raising them to $5. A provision denying Medicaid nursing home benefits to people with home equity of $500,000 was modified by raising the cap to $750,000.

Those changes came on top of concessions last week when Republican leaders, to appease moderates in their party, dropped provisions to open ANWR to oil drilling and to allow states to lift a moratorium on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

Despite the changes, the core of the five year, $50 billion deficit-reduction bill remains intact. The most recent changes only chipped away at more than $800 million in cuts realized through cutting 300,000 working families from the food stamp program.

On Medicaid, the bill would generate almost $12 billion in savings through new cost-sharing burdens on beneficiaries and by letting states scale back coverage. It also would tighten rules designed to limit the ability of elderly people to shed assets to qualify for nursing home care. The bill also reduces pharmacy profit margins and encourage pharmacies to issue generic drugs.

On student loans, provision to increase interest rates and fees paid by student and parent borrowers would contribute to $14.3 billion in savings.

The deficit-reduction bill is the first effort in eight years to take on the automatic growth of mandatory programs like Medicaid, which make up about 55 percent of the budget. By comparison, the annual appropriations bills fund about one-third of the budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/A...agewanted=print

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Support_grow...allow_1117.html


Support Grows in Congress to allow testimony from 'Able Danger' on pre-9/11 intelligence
Larisa Alexandrovna


Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) expects to secure a majority of House signatures in support of a letter calling upon Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to allow members of the former intelligence program “Able Danger” to testify publicly before Congress, RAW STORY has learned.

“Able Danger” was a Defense Department program that purportedly identified Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, over a year before the attack.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Captain Scott Phillpot, the officers that led the program, have been ordered by the Pentagon not to discuss any information regarding their work. The program operated under the aegis of the United States Army Special Operations Command.

Advertisement


Shaffer’s security clearances have allegedly been revoked by the Pentagon in what some say is retaliation after he came forward about the Able Danger program. The Pentagon, among other things, accused him of stealing pens.

Background

Able Danger, an open-source data-mining operation charged with identifying and targeting members of Al-Qaeda, was created in October 1999 upon the request of then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton.

The program made front page news and generated controversy in August in the wake of claims made by former members of the group that they had successfully identified Atta over a year prior to the attack. The operation also identified Marwan Al-Sheehi, the man believed to be the pilot of United Flight 175, which crashed into the South Tower; Nawaf Al-Hazmi, the man believed to be one of the hijackers of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, believed to have been involved in hijacking the same flight.

Charts, data and documentation from the program were destroyed in 2000 and 2004. The program itself was reportedly terminated in early 2001 after Able Danger liaison Lt. Col. Shaffer briefed General Shelton at one meeting and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Admiral Wilson, General Counsel Richard L. Shiffrin and then-Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense, Stephen Cambone, at another. Cambone was later appointed by Douglas Feith to serve as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.

During the final months of the Clinton administration, the officers say Able Danger made three attempts to present their findings to the FBI, each aborted by Pentagon lawyers. They also claim they raised alarm two weeks prior to the October 12, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and that their warning never reached the ship.

On Sept. 25, 2001, just two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Weldon, Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) and Chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Emerging Threats Christopher Shays (R-CT) met at the White House with then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Weldon initially said he showed Hadley a copy of one of the charts generated by Able Danger, and left it for Hadley to show to the President.

When asked about the meeting this past September, Hadley spokesman Frederick L. Jones II said, "Mr. Hadley does not recall any chart bearing the name or photo of Mohamed Atta."

Former 9/11 Commissioners, responding to a series of reports in the New York Times and elsewhere, varied their recollection of events a number of times before releasing a formal written statement saying that the program was "historically insignificant" and that they could find no evidence that the program had identified Atta.

There is no mention of Able Danger in the 9/11 Report.

Weldon expressed outrage at the Commission's failure to examine Able Danger at a press conference last Friday insisting that "there was a deliberate attempt to not have their story told to the American people. There has been nothing but denial and spin since the story broke in the first week of August. The Commission has no credibility on this issue whatsoever."

Shays told CQ Weekly Aug. 12, "If this wasn't reported by the Commission, what else wasn't reported?"

Pentagon identifies, gags 'witnesses'

An informal inquiry by the Pentagon identified several additional witnesses who confirmed that in fact the program had identified Atta and three other eventual 9/11 hijackers. Fully a third (5 of 15) core team members including the team's leader, Captain Scott Phillpott (set to take command of a Navy Destroyer in January,) have corrorobated the claims of Lt. Col Shaffer, insisting publicly and in interviews with Pentagon investigators that their data mining efforts yielded the names and photos of four of the 19 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta.

Just prior to their scheduled testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Sept. 21, Phillpott and Shaffer were given gag orders by Department of Defense.

Despite the loss of key witnesses, Sen. Specter held the hearing and heard from Weldon, Able Danger's legal counsel and a representative from the Department of Defense as well as senators expressing frustration and outrage over what they called a cover-up. A follow-up hearing was scheduled when it appeared the Pentagon had relented and would allow public testimony from Able Danger members. It was later canceled, with Specter citing a miscommunication between his office and the DoD. A source at Specter's office told RAW STORY the hearing will not be rescheduled before the close of the Senate session in December.

Mounting pressure on Secretary Rumsfeld

Pressure continues to mount for the Pentagon allow the Able Danger witnesses to testify. Last Friday, Weldon told CNN's Lou Dobbs he had secured 100 signatures from members of Congress calling upon Secretary Rumsfeld to allow the testimony of Able Danger team members. By Wednesday afternoon there were a total 150 signatories, including 90 Republicans and 60 Democrats. By 7 p.m., a press release posted on Congressman Weldon's website asserted that 202 members had signed.

Signatories include Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Inteliigence Jane Harmon (D-CA) and Katherine Harris (R-FL).

RAW STORY is told Weldon’s office expects to announce that they have secured the signatures of a majority of House members soon.

The letter follows.

#
The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary
Department of Defense
Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:

We the undersigned are formally requesting that you allow former participants in the intelligence program known as ABLE DANGER to testify in an open hearing before the United States Congress. Until this point, congressional efforts to investigate ABLE DANGER have been obstructed by Department of Defense insistence that certain individuals with knowledge of ABLE DANGER be prevented from freely and frankly testifying in an open hearing. We realize that you do not question Congress's authority to maintain effective oversight of executive branch agencies, including your department. It is our understanding that your objection instead derives from concern that classified information could be improperly exposed in an open hearing. We of course would never support any activity that might compromise sensitive information involving national security. However, we firmly believe that testimony from the appropriate individuals in an open hearing on ABLE DANGER would not only fail to jeopardize national security, but would in fact enhance it over the long term. This is due to our abiding belief that America can only better prepare itself against future attacks if it understands the full scope of its past failures to do so.

On September 21, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary conducted a hearing on ABLE DANGER which Bill Dugan, Acting Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight, certified did not reveal any classified information. Congressman Curt Weldon's testimony at that hearing was largely based on the information that has been given to him by ABLE DANGER participants barred from open testimony by DOD. Their testimony would therefore closely mirror that of Congressman Weldon, who did not reveal classified information. Therefore we are at a loss as to how the testimony of ABLE DANGER participants would jeopardize classified information. Much of what they would present has already been revealed. Further refusal to allow ABLE DANGER participants to testify in an open congressional hearing can only lead us to conclude that the Department of Defense is uncomfortable with the prospect of Members of Congress questioning these individuals about the circumstances surrounding ABLE DANGER. This would suggest not a concern for national security, but rather an attempt to prevent potentially embarrassing facts from coming to light. Such a consideration would of course be an unacceptable justification for the refusal of a congressional request.

Sincerely,

/s

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/18/con...q.ap/index.html

Republicans seek vote on Iraq withdrawal proposal

Friday, November 18, 2005; Posted: 3:29 p.m. EST (20:29 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans sought a showdown Friday with Democrats on a proposal by one of their most senior members to force an end to the U.S. deployment of troops in Iraq.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, offered the resolution demanding a pullout. The GOP-run House was expected to reject it -- and make a prominent statement about where Congress stands on Iraq -- as the chamber scurried toward a Thanksgiving break.

"We'll let the members debate it and then let them vote on it," said Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, the acting majority leader.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's office had no immediate comment.

Murtha, a well-respected Vietnam veteran who voted for the Iraq war, called for the immediate withdrawal of troops Thursday, intensifying the already red-hot debate on Capitol Hill over President Bush's war policies. (Full Story)

Murtha's resolution would force the president to withdrawal the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest predictable date."

Most Republicans oppose Murtha's plan, and even some Democrats have been reluctant to back his position. Republicans were seeking to force Democrats to stand with the respected 30-year congressman or go on the record against his proposal.

Some members of the House and Senate, looking ahead to off-year elections next November, are publicly worrying about a quagmire there. They have been staking out new positions on the war that has grown increasingly unpopular with the American public, resulted in more than 2,000 U.S. military deaths and cost more than $200 billion.

The House move comes just days after the GOP-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push for Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Spotlighting mushrooming questions from both parties about the war, though, the chamber then approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha, a longtime hawk on foreign and military affairs issues, said Thursday. "They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

A day after his comments, a U.S. field commander in Iraq countered the position of the usually pro-military congressman.

"Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about Murtha's comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders routinely give to Pentagon reporters.

Speaking from a U.S. logistics base at Balad, north of Baghdad, two days before his scheduled return to Texas, Brown said: "We have to finish the job that we began here. It's important for the security of this nation."

Republicans pounced, chastising Murtha for advocating what they called a strategy of surrender and abandonment, and Democrats defended Murtha as a patriot, even as they declined to back his view.

"I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha," Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, responded Friday. Also a Vietnam veteran, Kerry was dogged during the campaign by a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that challenged his war record.

"There is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience," Kerry said.

For his part, Kerry has proposed a phased exit from Iraq, starting with the withdrawal of 20,000 troops after December elections in Iraq. A Kerry spokesman said "he has his own plan" when asked if Kerry agreed with immediate withdrawal.

As a Vietnam veteran and top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee with close ties to many military officers, Murtha carries more credibility with his colleagues on the issue than a number of other Democrats who have opposed the war from the start.

Bush administration officials have been cautious in responding to Murtha.

"We have nothing but respect for Congressman Murtha's service to his country," White House communications director Nicolle Wallace told NBC's "Today" show Friday. "And I think he spoke from the heart yesterday. We happen to have a real serious policy disagreement with him."

Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a 29-year Air Force veteran who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for nearly seven years, called Murtha's position unconscionable and irresponsible. "We've got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through," he said.

With a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, Murtha retired from the Marine Corps reserves as a colonel in 1990 after 37 years as a Marine, only a few years longer than he's been in Congress. Elected in 1974, Murtha has become known as an authority on national security whose advice was sought out by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

House GOP Seeks Quick Vote on Iraq Pullout
- By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Friday, November 18, 2005


(11-18) 13:22 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --


House Republicans, seeing an opportunity, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.


"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."


House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California had no immediate reaction to the idea of a quick vote before Congress leaves Washington for two weeks.


GOP leaders decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. John Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops.


By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position — whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.


Murtha offered a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region.


House Republicans planned to put to a vote — and reject — their own resolution that simply says: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."


Most Republicans oppose Murtha's plan, and some Democrats also have been reluctant to back his position.


Some members of the House and Senate, looking ahead to off-year elections next November, are publicly worrying about a quagmire in Iraq. They have been staking out new positions on a war that has grown increasingly unpopular with the American public, resulted in more than 2,000 U.S. military deaths and cost more than $200 billion.


The House move comes just days after the GOP-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push for Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Spotlighting questions from both parties about the war, though, the chamber then approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.


"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha said Thursday. "They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."


A day after his comments, a U.S. field commander in Iraq countered the position of the congressman who usually backs the Pentagon.


"Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about Murtha's comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders give to Pentagon reporters.


Speaking from a U.S. logistics base at Balad, north of Baghdad, two days before his scheduled return to Texas, Brown said: "We have to finish the job that we began here. It's important for the security of this nation."


Republicans chastised Murtha for advocating what they called a strategy of surrender and abandonment. Democrats defended him as a patriot, even as many declined to back his view.


"I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha," said Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. Also a Vietnam veteran, Kerry was dogged during the campaign by a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who challenged his war record.


"There is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience," Kerry said.


For his part, Kerry has proposed a phased exit from Iraq, starting with the withdrawal of 20,000 troops after December elections in Iraq. A Kerry spokesman said "he has his own plan" when asked if Kerry agreed with immediate withdrawal.


As a Vietnam veteran and top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, Murtha carries more credibility with his colleagues on the issue than a number of other Democrats who have opposed the war from the start.


Bush administration officials have been cautious in responding to him.


"We have nothing but respect for Congressman Murtha's service to his country," White House communications director Nicolle Wallace told NBC's "Today" show Friday. "And I think he spoke from the heart yesterday. We happen to have a real serious policy disagreement with him."


Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a 29-year Air Force veteran who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for nearly seven years, called Murtha's position unconscionable and irresponsible. "We've got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through," he said.


With a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, Murtha retired from the Marine Corps reserves as a colonel in 1990 after 37 years as a Marine, only a few years longer than he's been in Congress. Elected in 1974, Murtha has become known as an authority on national security whose advice was sought out by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file.../w112413S14.DTL


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Rejects Iraq Pullout After GOP Forces a Vote

By Charles Babington

Differences over policy on the Iraq war ignited an explosion of angry words and personal insults on the House floor yesterday when the chamber's newest member suggested that a decorated war veteran was a coward for calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

As Democrats physically restrained one colleague, who appeared as if he might lose control of himself as he rushed across the aisle to confront Republicans with a jabbing finger, they accused Republicans of playing political games with the war.

GOP leaders hastily scheduled a vote on a measure to require the Bush administration to bring the troops home now, an idea proposed Thursday by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). The Republican-proposed measure was rejected 403 to 3, a result that surprised no one.

The idea was to force Democrats to go on the record on a proposal that the administration says would be equivalent to surrender. Recognizing a political trap, most Democrats -- including Murtha -- said from the start they would vote no.

But the maneuvering exposed the chamber's raw partisan divisions and prompted a tumultuous scene, which Capitol Hill veterans called among the wildest and most emotional they had ever witnessed.

Though even many Democrats think Murtha's immediate withdrawal plan is impractical, it struck a chord in a party where frustration with the war and the Bush administration's open-ended commitment is mounting fast. Murtha galvanized the debate as few others could have. He is a 33-year House veteran and former Marine colonel who received medals for his wounds and valor in Vietnam, and he has traditionally been a leading Democratic hawk and advocate of military spending.

Murtha's resolution included language the Republicans wanted to avoid, such as "the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress" toward stability in Iraq. It also said troops should be withdrawn "at the earliest practicable date," although Murtha said in statements and interviews Thursday that the drawdown should begin now.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) drafted a simpler resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, saying it was a fair interpretation of Murtha's intent. Members were heatedly debating a procedural rule concerning the Hunter resolution when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) was recognized at 5:20 p.m. Schmidt won a special election in August, defeating Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, and is so new to Congress that some colleagues do not know her name.

She told colleagues that "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.

Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.

At 5:31, when order was finally restored, Schmidt rose again and said softly, "My words were not directed at any member of the House." She asked that they "be withdrawn" from the record.

As the House temporarily moved to other matters, a calm Ford said in an interview that he confronted the Republicans because he was angry that they were using a ploy to avoid "a real debate" about the war. "I said, 'If you believe it's about Murtha, then talk about Murtha, don't hide behind a resolution,' " Ford said.

It was past 10 p.m. when Murtha addressed a relatively subdued House. Hunter's resolution "is not what I envisioned" because it avoids a broader debate of the war, which "is not going as advertised," Murtha said. "The American people are way ahead of us" in wanting a strategy to bring the troops home, he added. "It's easy to sit in your air-conditioned offices and send them into battle."

But Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.), who spent seven years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said U.S. forces in Iraq "need our full support." He added: "They need to have full faith that a few naysayers in Washington won't cut and run and leave them high and dry."

Those voting yes on the resolution were Democrats Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) and Cynthia McKinney (Ga.). Six other Democrats -- none of them from Maryland or Virginia -- voted "present."

Top Democrats attacked the GOP tactic. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the Republicans "engaged in an act of deception that undermines any shred of dignity that might be left in this Republican Congress." She called Hunter's resolution "a political stunt" and "a disservice to our country and to our men and women in uniform."

Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the GOP resolution was meant to prevent a serious debate on the war's prosecution, and that he lacked the words "to express the magnitude of my contempt with which I view this shabby, petty political maneuver."

Staff writer Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/national...agewanted=print

November 19, 2005
Uproar in House as Parties Clash on Iraq Pullout
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - Republicans and Democrats shouted, howled and slung insults on the House floor on Friday as a debate over whether to withdraw American troops from Iraq descended into a fury over President Bush's handling of the war and a leading Democrat's call to bring the troops home.

The battle boiled over when Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican who is the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she had just received from a Marine colonel back home.

"He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course," Ms. Schmidt said. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Democrats booed in protest and shouted Ms. Schmidt down in her attack on Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam combat veteran and one of the House's most respected members on military matters. They caused the House to come to an abrupt standstill, and moments later, Representative Harold Ford, Democrat of Tennessee, charged across the chamber's center aisle to the Republican side screaming that Ms. Schmidt's attack had been unwarranted.

"You guys are pathetic!" yelled Representative Martin Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts. "Pathetic."

The measure to withdraw the troops failed in a 403-to-3 vote late Friday night.

The rancorous debate drew an extraordinary scolding from Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee.

"Today's debate in the House of Representatives shows the need for bipartisanship on the war in Iraq, instead of more political posturing," Mr. Warner said in a statement.

But as the third hour of debate opened, with the House chamber mostly full on the eve of the Thanksgiving recess, even two senior Republicans, Henry Hyde of Illinois and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, tried to temper the personal nature of the confrontation by offering tributes to Mr. Murtha. "I give him an A-plus as a truly great American," Mr. Hyde said.

Then Mr. Murtha, who normally shuns publicity, gave an impassioned 15-minute plea for his plan to withdraw American troops, who he said had become "a catalyst for violence" in Iraq. The American people, Mr. Murtha thundered, are "thirsty for some direction; they're thirsty for a solution to this problem."

The uproar followed days of mounting tension between Republicans and Democrats in which the political debate over the war sharply intensified. With Mr. Bush's popularity dropping in the polls, Democrats have sought anew to portray him as having exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq before the American invasion in 2003. Republicans have countered that Democrats were equally at fault.

The battle came as Democrats accused Republicans of pulling a political stunt by moving toward a vote on a symbolic alternative to the resolution that Mr. Murtha offered on Thursday, calling for the swift withdrawal of American troops. Democrats said the ploy distorted the meaning of Mr. Murtha's measure and left little time for meaningful debate.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, denied that there were any political tricks involved and said pulling forces out of Iraq so rashly would hurt troop morale overseas. "We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

The measure's fate was sealed - and the vote count's significance minimized - when the Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, criticized the Republican tactics and instructed Democrats to join Republicans in voting against an immediate withdrawal.

"Just when you thought you'd seen it all, the Republicans have stooped to new lows, even for them," said Ms. Pelosi, who assailed Republicans as impugning Mr. Murtha's patriotism.

The parliamentary maneuvering came amid more than three hours of often nasty floor debate and boisterous political theater, with Democrats accusing Republicans of resorting to desperate tactics to back a failed war and Republicans warning that Mr. Murtha's measure would play into the hands of terrorists.

In South Korea, where Mr. Bush was in the final day of the Asian economic summit, the White House released the text of a speech that he is scheduled to make later on Saturday to American forces at Osan Air Base.

"In Washington there are some who say that the sacrifice is too great, and they urge us to set a date for withdrawal before we have completed our mission," Mr. Bush planned to say, keeping up the daily drumbeat of White House response from 7,000 miles away. "Those who are in the fight know better. One of our top commanders in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William Webster, says that setting a deadline for our withdrawal from Iraq would be, quote, 'a recipe for disaster.' "

"General Webster is right," Mr. Bush's text said. "And so long as I am commander in chief, our strategy in Iraq will be driven by the sober judgment of our military commanders on the ground."

On Thursday, Mr. Murtha called for pulling out the 153,000 American troops within six months, saying they had become a catalyst for the continuing violence in Iraq. His plan also called for a quick-reaction force in the region, perhaps based in Kuwait, and for pursuing stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

But House Republicans planned to put to a vote - and reject - their own nonbinding alternative resolution that simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Democrats denounced the Republican measure as a fraud. But Democrats privately acknowledged that they were seeking to escape a political trap set by the Republicans to box them into an unappealing choice: side with Mr. Murtha and face criticism for backing a plan that American commanders say would cripple the mission in Iraq or oppose their respected colleague and blunt momentum for an overhaul of the administration's Iraq policy.

House Democrats greeted Mr. Murtha with a standing ovation on Friday as he entered the chamber.

"This is a personal attack on one of the best members, one of the most respected members of this House, and it is outrageous," said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts.

While some 70 liberal Democrats who support ending American military involvement in Iraq have praised Mr. Murtha's plan, many of his other party colleagues appeared to harbor doubts. To a member, Democrats said they respected the counsel of Mr. Murtha, a retired Marine colonel who has earned bipartisan respect in his three decades in Congress as a champion of American service members.

But many senior House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, have distanced themselves from Mr. Murtha's resolution, saying a phased withdrawal is a more prudent course. The House debate is likely to stoke an intensifying partisan debate on Capitol Hill over the administration's handling of the war, including how it used prewar intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Democrats, including Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, as well as Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, defended Mr. Murtha and gave examples of what they said were faulty intelligence.

The House action comes just days after the Republican-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push to have Mr. Bush describe a timetable for withdrawal. Underscoring unease by both parties about the war, though, the Senate then approved a Republican statement that 2006 should be a year in which conditions were created for the Iraqi government to take over more security duties in the country and allow the United States to begin withdrawing.

Even as Republicans sought to make political hay from Mr. Murtha's plan, Democrats defended him as a patriot.

"I won't stand for the Swift-boating of Jack Murtha," said Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. Mr. Kerry, who is also a Vietnam veteran, was dogged during the campaign by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that challenged his war record.

David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Korea for this article.

--------------------
Senate, House Differences Complicate Spending Bill
--------------------

In seeking compromise, the GOP could find itself caught between conservative and moderate factions within its own party.

By Richard Simon and Joel Havemann
Times Staff Writers

November 19 2005

WASHINGTON; For House Republican leaders, passage of wide-ranging spending cuts by a razor-thin margin early Friday morning may be the easy part. Now they have to reach a compromise with the Senate, which has passed a bill that differs in many ways.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1802165_pf.html


Congress Helps Self to $3,100 Pay Raise

By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
Friday, November 18, 2005; 11:44 PM



WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a $3,100 pay raise on Friday, then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation.

In the final hours of a tumultuous week in the Capitol, Democrats erupted in fury when House GOP leaders maneuvered toward a politically-charged vote _ and swift rejection _ of one war critic's call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. "You guys are pathetic, pathetic," Massachusetts Rep. Martin Meehan yelled across a noisy hall at Republicans.

On another major issue, a renewal of the Patriot Act remained in limbo as an unlikely coalition of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans sought curbs on the powers given law enforcement in the troubled first days after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Both the House and Senate were in session after midnight Thursday, working on the tax and deficit-cutting bills at the heart of the GOP agenda, before returning to work a few hours later.

"What it does is start to turn down the escalating costs ... for our children and our grandchildren. One of the things that we cannot leave to that next generation is a huge deficit that they can't afford," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said after enactment of a $50 billion deficit-reduction bill.

Democrats dissented, with one eye on the 2006 elections.

"The Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of children to give tax cuts to America's wealthiest. This is not a statement of America's values," said the Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. "Democrats believe that together, America can do better," she said, invoking the party's new campaign slogan.

The cost-of-living increase for members of Congress _ which will put pay for the rank and file at an estimated $165,200 a year _ marked a brief truce in the pitched political battles that have flared in recent weeks on the war and domestic issues.

So much so that the issue was not mentioned on the floor of either the House or Senate as lawmakers worked on legislation whose passage will assure bigger paychecks.

Lawmakers automatically receive a cost of living increase each year, unless Congress votes to block it. By tradition, critics have tried to block increases by attaching a provision to the legislation that provides funding for the Treasury Department. One such attempt succeeded in the Senate earlier in the year, but the provision was omitted from the compromise measure moved toward final approval.

The overall bill provided $140 billion for transportation, housing and other programs. It cleared the House on a vote of 392-31. Senate passage was by voice vote.

Pay raise harmony aside, Republicans spent the day celebrating a party-line, post-midnight vote in which the House cleared legislation to reduce deficits by $50 billion over five years. The vote was 217-215, with all the Democrats who voted in opposition, along with 14 GOP rebels.

Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt of Missouri said Republicans would make their tax cut bill the top item on the agenda when lawmakers return to the Capitol in December.

The House-passed measure attacks deficits by limiting spending for the first time in a decade on Medicaid, food stamps, student loans and other benefit programs that normally rise with inflation and eligibility.

The House GOP leadership had hoped to clear the measure a week ago. It was forced to retreat when Republican moderates rebelled, even after Hastert agreed to strip out a controversial proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The Senate-passed companion measure calls for less deficit reduction, $35 billion over five years, but includes the ANWR provision.

The differences are expected to make it difficult for the House and Senate to reach a compromise by year's end, particularly since Republicans can't count on any Democratic support.

The tax bill presents difficulties of its own for a GOP majority struggling to translate last fall's election gains into this year's legislative achievements.

The Senate cleared a measure after 1:30 a.m. that calls for $60 billion in cuts over five years.

The measure drew bipartisan support, passing on a vote of 64-33. Its provisions would continue a series of existing tax breaks that otherwise will expire, and shelters 14 million upper middle-income families from higher taxes.

The White House has threatened a veto, citing a provision that raises taxes on oil companies.

The House has yet to pass a companion measure. When it does, the tax on oil companies is unlikely to be included, and it is likely to be jettisoned before a compromise measure reaches the White House.

Hastert said Republicans want to "make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan ... a lot of people say: Look, this is a tough time, we just ought to pull out and leave. We pull out and leave, we strand an effort to make sure that we can tamp down terrorism, to tamp down a dictatorship, that we can stabilize an area in the Middle East," he added.

GOP aides conceded the last-minute maneuver was designed to put Democrats in a political squeeze _ voting for withdrawal and exposing themselves to attacks from the White House, or voting against it and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.

Democrats angrily attacked the GOP move, then lined up with Republicans to vote against a troop withdrawal in hopes of draining the issue of its political significance. The vote was 403-3 against the measure.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., called the measure "a piece of garbage" and an attack on Rep. John Murtha. The Pennsylvania Democrat, a decorated veteran and respected congressional voice on military matters, said Thursday it was time for the troops to come home.

House and Senate negotiators announced a tentative agreement earlier in the week to pass a seven-year extension of the Patriot Act. Key senators lawmakers involved in the talks balked at the terms, and officials said they would resume compromise efforts when Congress returns to work in December.

© 2005 The Associated Press

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7001090144

The Senate Approves $50 Billion For Iraq, Afghanistan

November 18, 2005 3:01 p.m. EST


Yvonne Lee - All Headline News Staff Reporter

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - As public support for Iraq fighting is slipping, the Senate votes Friday to give President Bush $50 billion more for conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. military efforts against terrorism.

The money would increase total spending for the operations to more than $350 billion.

In a 97-0 vote, the republican-controlled Senate approved the money as part of a $445 billion military spending bill for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

The measure would also put restrictions on the treatment of detainees who are suspected terrorists — a provision that has drawn a White House veto threat.

Passage comes at a time when public support for Bush has declined while U.S. casualties have climbed.

Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When?
Bush says Congress had the same (faulty) intelligence he did. Howard Dean says intelligence was "corrupted." We give facts.
November 19, 2005

Summary



The President says Democrats in Congress "had access to the same intelligence" he did before the Iraq war, but some Democrats deny it."That was not true," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "He withheld some intelligence. . . . The intelligence was corrupted."

Neither side is giving the whole story in this continuing dispute.

The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. So Dean's claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported.

But while official investigators have found no evidence that Bush manipulated intelligence, they never took up the question of whether the President and his top aides manipulated the public, something Bush also denies.

In fact, before the war Bush and others often downplayed or omitted any mention of doubts about Saddam's nuclear program. They said Saddam might give chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to terrorists, although their own intelligence experts said that was unlikely. Bush also repeatedly claimed Iraq had trained al Qaeda terrorists in the use of poison gas, a story doubted at the time by Pentagon intelligence analysts. The claim later was called a lie by the al Qaeda detainee who originally told it to his US interrogators.
Analysis



The latest round of this continuing partisan dispute started Nov. 11, when Bush said in a Veterans' Day speech:

Bush: While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. . . . That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

What Was Congress Told?

The intelligence to which Bush refers is contained in a top-secret document that was made available to all members of Congress in October 2002, days before the House and Senate voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq. This so-called National Intelligence Estimate was supposed to be the combined US intelligence community's "most authoritative written judgment concerning a specific national security issue," according to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The report was titled "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Though most of the document remains classified, the "Key Judgments" section and some other paragraphs were cleared and released publicly in July, 2003. The most recent and complete version available to the public can be read on the website of George Washington University's National Security Archive, which got it from the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act.

The NIE as declassified and released by the CIA says pretty much what Bush and his aides were saying publicly about Iraq's weapons - nearly all of which turned out to be wrong:

CIA Release of NIE, October 2002: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. If left unchecked it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade.

Chemical Weapons: The CIA document expressed no doubt that Iraq had large stocks of chemical weapons. "We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX," it said. "Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents – much of it added in the last year." ("CW" refers to "chemical warfare" agents.)

Biological Weapons: The document also said "we judge" that Iraq had an even bigger germ-warfare program than before the first Gulf War in 1991. "We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives," the report said. ("BW" refers to "biological warfare.")

Nuclear Weapons: The document also said "most" US intelligence agencies believed that some high-strength aluminum tubes that Iraq had purchased were intended for use in centrifuge rotors used to enrich uranium, and were "compelling evidence" that Saddam had put his nuclear weapons program back together.

On the matter of the tubes, however, the report noted that there was some dissent within the intelligence community. Members of Congress could have read on page 6 of the report that the Department of Energy "assesses that the tubes are probably not" part of a nuclear program.

Some news reports have said this caveat was "buried" deeply in the 92-page report, but this is not so. The "Key Judgments" section begins on page 5, and disagreements by the Department of Energy and also the State Department are noted on pages 5,6,8 and 9, in addition to a reference on page 84.

Though much has been made recently of doubts about the tubes, it should be noted that even the Department of Energy's experts believed Iraq did have an active nuclear program, despite their conclusion that the tubes were not part of it. Even the DOE doubters thought Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb.

Connection to terrorism.

On one important point the National Intelligence Estimate offered little support for Bush's case for war, however. That was the likelihood that Saddam would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists for use against the US.

Al Qaeda: The intelligence estimate said that – if attacked and "if sufficiently desperate" – Saddam might turn to al Qaeda to carry out an attack against the US with chemical or biological weapons. "He might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorist in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him," the NIE said.

The report assigned "low confidence" to this finding, however, while assigning "high confidence" to the findings that Iraq had active chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, and "moderate confidence" that Iraq could have a nuclear weapon as early as 2007 to 2009.

That was the intelligence available to Congress when the House passed the Iraq resolution Oct. 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133. The Senate passed it in the wee hours of Oct. 11, by a vote of 77-23. A total of 81 Democrats in the House and 29 Democrats in the Senate supported the resolution, including some who now are saying Bush misled them.

A point worth noting is that few in Congress actually studied the intelligence before voting. The Washington Post reported: "The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But . . . no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary."

"Corrupted" Intelligence?

On all key points, of course, that National Intelligence Estimate turned out to be wrong. No stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons have been found, nor any evidence that Saddam had an active program to enrich uranium or make nuclear weapons. The aluminum tubes turned out to be for use in Iraqi rockets, just as the Department of Energy experts had argued.

That has led to claims that intelligence was deliberately slanted to justify the war in Iraq. On NBC's Meet the Press Nov. 13, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the intelligence given to Congress was "corrupted" and that Bush withheld information.

Dean: The intelligence was corrupted, not just because of the incompetence of the CIA; it was corrupted because it was being changed around before it was presented to Congress . Stuff was taken out and not presented. All of this business about weapons of mass destruction, there was significant and substantial evidence . . . that said, "There is a strong body of opinion that says they don't have a nuclear program, nor do they have weapons of mass destruction." And that intelligence was not given to the Congress of the United States.

NBC's Tim Russert: It was in the National Intelligence Estimate, as a caveat by the State Department.

Dean: It was, a very small one, but the actual caveat that the White House got were (sic) much, much greater. And the deputy to Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, just said so. He just came out and said so.

On this point Dean is incorrect . Wilkerson, who was State Department chief of staff during Bush's first term, actually said there was an "overwhelming" consensus within the intelligence community. He said the State Department dissented only regarding a nuclear program, not about whether Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons.

Wilkerson, Oct. 19, 2005: And people say, well, INR (the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research) dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.

. . . The consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming. I can still hear (CIA Director) George Tenet telling me, and telling my boss (Colin Powell) in the bowels of the CIA, that the information we were delivering . . . (He) was convinced that what we were presented was accurate.

Wilkerson, it should be noted, is no apologist for Bush. This excerpt comes from the same speech in which Wilkerson went public with a well-publicized complaint that decisions leading up to the war were made by a "cabal" between Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and "a President who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either."

Previously, two bipartisan commissions investigated and found no evidence of political manipulation of intelligence.

In 2004 the Senate Intelligence Committee said, in a report adopted unanimously by both Republican and Democratic members:

Senate Intelligence Committee: The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered “yes.” (p273)

A later bipartisan commission, co-chaired by Republican appeals-court judge Laurence Silberman and a Democratic former governor and senator from Virginia, Charles Robb, issued a report in March, 2005 saying:

Silberman-Robb Report: These (intelligence) errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

Although the Silberman-Robb commission was appointed by President Bush, it included prominent Democrats and Republican Sen. John McCain, whom Bush defeated for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.

Misleading the Public?

Neither the Senate Intelligence Committee nor the Silberman-Robb commission considered how Bush and his top aides used the intelligence that was given to them, or whether they misled the public. The Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to take that up in "phase two" of its investigation – and there's plenty to investigate.

Vice President Cheney, for example, said this on NBC's Meet the Press barely a month before Congress voted to authorize force:

Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002: But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

As we've seen, that was wrong. Department of Energy and State Department intelligence analysts did not agree with the Vice President's claim, which turned out to be false. Cheney may have felt "absolute certainty" in his own mind, but that certainty wasn't true of the entire intelligence community, as his use of the word "we" implied.

Similarly, the President himself said this in a speech to the nation, just three days before the House vote to authorize force:

Bush, Oct. 7, 2002: We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases . And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

That statement is open to challenge on two grounds. For one thing, as we've seen, the intelligence community was reporting to Bush and Congress that they thought it unlikely that Saddam would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists – and only "if sufficiently desperate" and as a "last chance to exact revenge" for the very attack that Bush was then advocating.

Furthermore, the claim that Iraq had trained al Qaeda in the use of poison gas turned out to be false, and some in the intelligence community were expressing doubts about it at the time Bush spoke. It was based on statements by a senior trainer for al Qaeda who had been captured in Afghanistan. The detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, took back his story in 2004 and the CIA withdrew all claims based on it. But even at the time Bush spoke, Pentagon intelligence analysts said it was likely al-Libi was lying.

According to newly declassified documents, the Defense Intelligence Agency said in February 2002 – seven months before Bush's speech – "it is . . . likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest. . . . Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control." The DIA's doubts were revealed Nov. 6 in newly declassified documents made public by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Whether or not Bush was aware of the Pentagon's doubts is not yet clear.
Sources



Transcript:"President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror," Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, The White House 11 Nov 2005.

Transcript: "Transcript for November 13: Guests: His Majesty King Abdullah II, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee; and Howard Dean, Chairman, Democratic National Committee," Meet the Press, NBC, 13 November 2005.

Select Committee On Intelligence, United States Senate, " Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq ," 7 July 2004.

The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, " Report to the President of the United States ," 31 March 2005.
Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, " Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument," The Washington Post , 12 Nov 2005; A1.

Central Intelligence Agency, NIE 2002-16HC, " National Intelligence Estimate : Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," October 2002. Redacted, declassified version released under Freedom of Information Act to George Washington University's National Security Archive, posted 9 July 2004.

Transcript, Remarks of former State Department chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson, New America Foundation, Washington DC, 19 Oct. 2005.

Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney Amanda Terkel, Payson Schwin & Christy Harvey, " Bush's Reverse Slam Dunk," The Progress Report, American Progress Action Fund 14 Nov 2005.

“Vice President Dick Cheney discusses 9/11 anniversary, Iraq, nation’s economy and politics 2002,” Transcript, Meet the Press, NBC, 8 Sep 2002.

Transcript: "President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat," Remarks by the President on Iraq, Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal,Cincinnati, Ohio, 7 Oct 2002.

"Levin Says Newly Declassified Information Indicates Bush Administration’s Use of Pre-War Intelligence Was Misleading," press release with supporting documents, office of Sen. Carl Levin 6 Nov 2005.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=47490


Saturday, November 19, 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reid ignored Iraq
pre-war intel report
But Senate minority leader led
recent demand for accountability

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 19, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., failed to read a specially prepared National Intelligence Estimate detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs in the days before he voted to authorize President Bush to use force to invade the Arab state.

Human Events reported that Reid admitted last week he did not examine the report, which was prepared at the request of Senate Democrats by CIA Director George Tenet, even though Reid has been at the forefront of a political effort alleging the Bush administration misled Congress and the nation in its march to war against Saddam Hussein.


The magazine reported that Tenet delivered his NIE to lawmakers early in October 2002; Reid and a majority of other members of Congress voted to give Bush his authority only days later, on Oct. 11.

But in the past month, Reid and fellow Democratic leaders have attempted to shift blame solely to the administration, though the White House and Republicans have maintained all along the intelligence Bush used was commonly known and available to the Legislature.

"Reid locked the Senate into a controversial closed session three weeks ago to demand accountability on prewar intelligence, but it turns out he did not bother in 2002 to thoroughly familiarize himself with what the U.S. intelligence community was saying about Iraq in the run-up to his own pro-war vote," Human Events reported.

The magazine also noted that an April 7, 2004, Washington Post article said, "No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., told Fox News Nov. 13, " There were only six people in the Senate who did [read the NIE], and I was one of them."

Rockefeller, who is the ranking minority member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was "sure" the panel's chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., read the NIE; Human Events reported it confirmed Rockefeller's assertion with Roberts personally.

The magazine also queried other top Democrats – many of whom have accused the White House of using false or exaggerated intelligence information to justify the Iraq war – whether they read the requested NIE. Their responses are as follows:


Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said, "I got briefings. I got a personal briefing at the Pentagon."

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York replied, "I'm not going to say anything about that. Just let the intelligence committee do their work, okay?"

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut answered, "I'm not sure I did. I read a lot of intelligence information around that time, but I don't know whether I formally read the NIE. I'd have to go back on that."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said she did read the NIE and used the information it contained to vote in favor of the war.
In a follow-up, Human Events reported it asked Reid why he hadn't read the requested NIE.

"Senator Reid gave his floor statement on the Iraq resolution on October 9, 2002, and the reasoning he gave for voting for the resolution does not have much to do with current assessments of the intelligence on WMD," a spokesman replied, via e-mail. "Members got their information on Iraq from lots of sources in the months leading up to the October 2002 vote. The most important sources of information were White House/Administration officials, including the President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense."

In recent days President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Republicans have denounced Democratic accusations they falsified or embellished pre-war intelligence.

"It is irresponsible to say that I deliberately misled the American people when it came to the very same intelligence they looked at, and came to the – many of them came to the same conclusion I did," Bush said during on visit to South Korea earlier this week.

Bush added that intelligence showed Saddam to be resurrecting weapons of mass destruction programs.


Cheney, meanwhile, said this week the accusation of manipulation is "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein," he added.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, also noted the intelligence Bush used to justify the invasion was the same Democratic President Bill Clinton used to call for a regime change in Iraq in 1998. In the aftermath of Clinton's declaration, the senator said, Saddam continued to play cat-and-mouse with United Nations weapons inspection teams, and thumbed his nose at U.S. and allied efforts to get him to comply with the terms of his 1991 surrender following the 1991 Gulf War.

"There were all the signs of danger there and I think it would have been irresponsible not to act," Cornyn told Fox News.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Biden_delive..._Iraq_1121.html

Biden seeks to articulate Iraq strategy; Senate Democrats resist pullout
John Byrne

Update: Democrats in Senate not suggesting pullout

While Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) delivered a landmark speech in terms of outlining his party's strategy for Iraq, Democratic senators have yet to embrace the pullout goal of Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), who made waves in the House last week.

Aides to several Democratic senators tell RAW STORY they had not seen specific changes among Democrats' positions since Murtha's emotional call for withdrawal.

"We're waiting to see what the next steps are, but whether senators are embracing Murtha or Feingold’s (D-WI) position, I don’t think that’s out there yet," one Democratic leadership aide said.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has called for the U.S. to begin withdrawing troops at the end of 2006.

Biden's speech, delivered to the Council of Foreign Relations, sketched out a strategy that included (1) forging better alliances between Iraqi factions (the senator said he thought the current constitution had the power to divide the country) (2) strengthen the Iraqi government and its reconstruction efforts and (3) accelerate the transfer of the country's security to Iraqis.

Each of Biden's goals have already been embraced and trumpeted by the Bush Administration. Whether his specific vision -- which is illustrated in great detail -- provides a clearer articulation of the Democrats' Iraq position remains to be seen.

#
AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

Turning the Corner in Iraq U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Council on Foreign Relations November 21, 2005

Mr. BIDEN: Today, I want to talk to you about Iraq. I want to start by the addressing the question on the minds of most Americans: when will we bring our troops home?

Here is my conviction: in 2006, American troops will begin to leave Iraq in large numbers. By the end of the year, I believe we will have redeployed at least 50,000 troops. In 2007, a significant number of the remaining 100,000 American soldiers will follow.

But the real question is this: as Americans start to come home, will we leave Iraq with our fundamental security interests intact or will we have traded a dictator for chaos?

By misrepresenting the facts, misunderstanding Iraq, and misleading on the war, this Administration has brought us to the verge of a national security debacle.

As a result, many Americans have already concluded that we cannot salvage Iraq. We should bring all our forces home as soon as possible.

They include some of the most respected voices on military matters in this country, like Congressman Jack Murtha. They're mindful of the terrible consequences from withdrawing. But even worse, in their judgment, would be to leave Americans to fight - and to die - in Iraq with no strategy for success.

I share their frustration. But I'm not there yet. I still believe we can preserve our fundamental security interests in Iraq as we begin to redeploy our forces.

That will require the not to stay the course, but to change course and to do it now.

And though it may not seem like it, there is actually a broad consensus on what the must do.

Last week, 79 Democrats and Republicans in the Senate came together and said to the President: we need a plan for Iraq.

Level with us. Give us specific goals and a timetable for achieving each one so we know exactly where we are and where we are going.

As I have been urging for some time, that will require as many changes at home as on the ground. The gap between the Administration's rhetoric and the reality of Iraq has opened a huge credibility chasm with the American people.

The problem has been compounded by the President's failure to explain in detail his strategy and to report regularly on both the progress and the problems.

As David Brooks reminded us in the New York Times yesterday, "Franklin Roosevelt asked Americans to spread out maps before them and he described, step by step, what was going on in World War II, where the U.S. was winning and where it was losing. Why can't today's president do that? Why can't he show that he is aware that his biggest problem is not in Iraq, it's on the home front?"

I want to see the President regain the American people's trust. It is vital to our young men and women in Iraq today -- and to our security -- that we get this right. George Bush is our President - and he will be there for another three years. I want him to succeed.

Leveling with the American people is essential, but it is not enough.

The President has to be realistic about the mission and forget his grandiose goals. Iraq will not become a model democracy anytime soon.

Instead, we need to refocus our mission on preserving America's fundamental interests in Iraq.

There are two of them: We must ensure Iraq does not become what it wasn't before the war: a haven for terrorists. And we must do what we can to prevent a full-blown civil war that turns into a regional war.

To accomplish that more limited mission and to begin to redeploy our troops responsibly we must make significant, measurable progress toward three goals over the next six months:

One, we must help forge a political settlement that gives all of Iraq's major groups a stake in keeping the country together.

Two, we must strengthen the capabilities of Iraq's government and revamp the reconstruction program to deliver real benefits.

Three, we must accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces and transfer control to them.

Let me discuss each goal, one at a time.

POLITICAL SOLUTIONS

First, we need to build a political consensus, starting with the Constitution, that gives the Kurds, Shi'a, and Sunnis a stake in keeping Iraq together. Iraq cannot be salvaged by military might alone.

Last month, the Constitution passed overwhelmingly. But the vast majority of Sunni Arabs voted "no." Unless changes are made by next spring, it will become a document that divides rather than unites Iraq.

All sides must compromise. Sunnis must accept the fact that they no longer rule Iraq. But unless Shiites and Kurds give them a stake in the new order, they will continue to resist it.

If the situation devolves into a full-blown civil war, all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put Iraq back together again.

Does anyone here support using American troops to fight a civil war against the Sunni on behalf of the Kurds and Shiites? I don't - and I doubt many American would. But if we fail to forge a political consensus soon, that is what our troops will be dragged into.

The Bush Administration was AWOL until the arrival of Ambassador Khalilzad this summer. We let the Iraqis fend for themselves in writing a Constitution. In our absence, no headway was made.

We can't make those mistakes again. We need to be fully engaged. Next month, there is an election for the National Assembly, and I expect Sunnis to turn out in large numbers.

After the elections, we must turn our attention immediately to encouraging the Kurds and Shi'a to make genuine compromises.

Our Ambassador can't be the only one in the room cajoling Iraqis. We need a regional strategy that persuades Iraq's neighbors to wield their influence with the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds for political compromise. They will do it, because no one other than the terrorists has an interest in Iraq descending into civil war.

The major powers also have a stake. Europe has un-integrated Muslim populations that are vulnerable to Middle East extremism. India and China need stable oil supplies.

Our Allies must get over bruised feelings and help forge a political consensus. We must get over our reluctance to fully involve them.

We should form a Contact Group that becomes Iraq's primary international interlocutor. That would take some of the burden off of us... and maximize the pressure on Iraq's main groups to compromise.

I've called for a regional strategy and an international Contact Group repeatedly. So have three former Republican Secretaries of State - Shultz, Kissinger, and Powell. It's what the Clinton Administration did in the Balkans. It's what this Administration did in Afghanistan. Organized, sustained international engagement can make all the difference.

But it will only happen if America leads.

MINISTRIES THAT WORK/A RECONSTRUCTION PLAN

Second, we need government ministries that work and provide basic services, and we need to re-do the reconstruction program to deliver real benefits.

Right now, Iraq's ministries are barely functional. They make FEMA look like the model of efficiency.

The Bush Administration belatedly has developed plans to build up the government's capacity. But there aren't enough civilian experts with the right skills to do the job.

We need a civilian commitment in Iraq equal to our military one. I recommend the President and Secretary of State consider ordering staff to Baghdad -- if there are shortages. Just as military personnel are required to go to Iraq, why shouldn't the same apply to the foreign service? The dedication and courage of the foreign service officers I've met on my five trips to Iraq is extraordinary. They will take the toughest assignments if we ask them.

This should not be their burden alone. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Blair proposed individual countries be partnered with ministries. It's a good idea. But it got a lukewarm reception. We should revive it.

Our military commanders tell me: we can't defeat the insurgency unless we have a reconstruction program that makes a difference to ordinary Iraqis. Congress gave the Administration $20 billion for reconstruction. There is far too little to show for it.

Raw sewage is in too many streets. Lights are on less than half the day. The water isn't safe to drink in too many homes.

Unemployment rates are around 40 percent. If 40 percent of Iraqis have no job and no hope, the insurgency will always find fresh recruits.

We were told before the war, oil would pay for reconstruction. Two-and-a-half years after Saddam's statue fell, Iraq still is not exporting what it did before the war. They are 700,000 barrels per day below target. That is roughly $15 billion in lost revenues a year.

This President has the only oil company in the world losing money.

Projects have been delayed or never started. Now, the money is nearly gone, and the needs are still great. The President has yet to explain how he will fill the gap.

Of the $13.5 billion in non-American aid pledged at the Madrid conference two years ago, only $3 billion has been delivered, and even less spent.

The Administration is creating Provincial Reconstruction Teams, modeled on the civil-military effort in Afghanistan. They will focus on getting local governments to deliver services. It's a good idea, but it's long overdue - and it's not enough.

We should step up our recruiting of Allied civilian experts for the reconstruction teams.

I would redirect our spending to Iraqi contractors and away from expensive multinationals. Iraqis don't have to add a line item worth 40 percent of the value of a contract for security. I'm glad to save American taxpayers money.

And we need to get countries that have already pledged economic assistance to actually deliver it -- and pledge more.

It's time for another Jim Baker mission. The President should ask him to convene a conference with our Gulf allies. These countries have seen huge windfall oil profits, from our pocket books. We've gone to war twice in the past decade to protect them and preserve security. It is past time that they step up - and give back.

BUILDING SECURITY FORCES

The third goal is to build Iraqi security forces that can provide law and order in neighborhoods, defeat insurgents, and isolate and eliminate foreign jihadists over time.

The tread water on training for two years. Not until the arrival of General David Patreaus in June 2004, did we start a training program worthy of its name.

Back in Washington, all we have heard from this Administration is misleading number, after number.

In February 2004, Secretary Rumsfeld announced there were over 210,000 Iraqi security forces. He called it "an amazing accomplishment." Seven months later he said there were 95,000. Now we're supposedly back over 210,000 trained security forces.

When folks in Delaware hear numbers like that they ask me: why do we have 160,000 American troops in Iraq then?

What we need to know - and what the Administration has refused to tell us until recently - is how many Iraqis can operate without us, or in the lead with U.S. backing?

We're finally starting to get answers. In September, General Casey said that, two and half years into the training program, one battalion -- less than 1,000 troops -- can operate independently. Another 40 or so can lead counter-insurgency operations with American support.

And there are real concerns that the security forces have more loyalty to political parties than to the Iraqi government that militia members dominate certain units and that others have been infiltrated by insurgent informants.

General Patreaus overhauled the training program. The result is much greater professionalism.

But training takes time. And just as it was getting on track, the reassigned General Patreaus back home. That was a mistake.

The President must tell Congress the schedule for getting Army battalions, regular police, and special forces to the point they can act on their own or in the lead with American support.

We also need to accelerate our training efforts, but not at the expense of quality.

We should urge Iraq to accept offers from France, Egypt and other countries to train troops and police - especially at the officer level -- including outside Iraq

If embedding more Americans with more Iraqi units would do the job, do it.

We should devote whatever resources are necessary to develop the capacity of Iraq's security ministries. Even the most capable troops will not make a difference if they cannot be supplied, sustained and directed.

And we must focus our efforts on the police, who are lagging behind. Establishing law and order through a competent police force is as important for Iraqis, as defeating insurgents is for us.

DEALING WITH THE INSURGENCY

That leads me to the final piece of the Iraq puzzle: forging an effective counter-insurgency strategy. Until recently, we have not had one.

Our forces would clean out a town. Then they would move to the next hornet's nest, and the insurgents would return.

Why? Because we did not have enough U.S. troops... or any capable Iraqi troops... to hold what we had cleared.

Meanwhile, neither the Iraqi government nor our reconstruction efforts were capable of building a better future for those temporarily liberated from the violence.

The Administration finally seems to understand the need not only to clear territory, but to hold it, and then to build on it.

The critical question is this: who will do most of the clearing and the holding? We now have no choice but to gamble on the Iraqis.

In the past, I argued that we needed more American troops in Iraq for exactly that purpose. The failure to provide them... and the absence of capable Iraqis... made a "clear and hold" strategy impossible.

We also left huge ammunition depots unguarded. . . allowed unchecked looting . . . and created a security vacuum filled by Sunni insurgents, foreign jihadists and common criminals.

But the time for a large number of additional American troops is past.

What we need now is a different mix, with more embedded trainers, civil affairs units and special forces.

The hard truth is that our large military presence in Iraq is both necessary... and increasingly counter-productive.

Our presence remains necessary because, right now, our troops are the only guarantor against chaos. Pulling out prematurely would doom any chance of leaving Iraq with our core interests intact.

But our large presence is also, increasingly, part of the problem.

Two years ago, even one year ago, Iraqis were prepared to accept an even larger American presence if that's what it took to bring security and real improvements to their lives.

Our failure to do just that has fueled growing Iraqi frustration. A liberation is increasingly felt as an occupation. And we risk creating a culture of dependency, especially among Iraqi security forces.

Even if more troops still made sense, we don't have more to give. In fact, we cannot sustain what we have now beyond next spring unless we extend deployment times beyond 12 months, send soldiers back for third, fourth, and fifth tours or pull forces from other regions.

That is why it is virtually certain we will redeploy a significant number of forces from Iraq in 2006 and more will follow in 2007.

Assuming we succeed in preventing a civil war, perhaps 20,000 to 40,000 Americans will stay for some time after that to continue training and equipping the Iraqis to keep Iraq's neighbors honest and to form a rapid reaction force to prevent jihadists from establishing a permanent base in Iraq.

If - if -- that redeployment is accompanied by measurable progress in forging a political settlement, building real Iraqi governing capacity and transferring control to effective Iraqi security forces, we can start the journey home from Iraq with our fundamental interests intact.

But if we fail to implement the plan I've described, then Iraq is likely to become a Bush-fulfilling prophecy - a terrorist training ground - and we'll see a full blown civil war that could become a regional war.

If that happens, nothing we can do will salvage Iraq. We'll be reduced to trying to contain the problem from afar. Those who today are calling for us to leave will be proved tragically prescient.

I still believe that, if the follows the plan I've outlined today - and if the President brings it to the American people and asks for their support -- we can start climbing out of the hole the has dug and start to leave Iraq with our interests intact.

Iraqis of all sects want to live in a stable country. Iraq's neighbors don't want a civil war. The major powers don't want a terrorist haven in the heart of the Middle East.

And the American people want us to succeed. They want it badly. If the Administration listens, if it levels, and if it leads, it can still redeem their faith.

Thanks for listening.

Bring Democracy to Congress

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Perhaps we should redeploy the democracy experts we have sent to the Middle East and ask them to work on our Congress. The past few days have confirmed that our national government is dysfunctional.

It wasn't just the nasty Friday evening "debate" over Iraq policy in the House, set up by Republican leaders to score political points after Rep. John Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal received so much attention. And it wasn't just Rep. Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican, deciding to send a constituent's "message" to Murtha -- a Marine combat veteran with 37 years of active and reserve service -- to the effect that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

What happened hours earlier, at 1:45 a.m., symbolized all that is wrong with Washington. After immense pressure from Republican leaders, the House passed $50 billion in budget cuts -- including reductions in Medicaid, food stamps and child support enforcement -- on a 217 to 215 vote. Republicans who pride themselves on being moderate had their arms twisted into backing the bill, partly on the basis of promises that many of the cuts it contained wouldn't survive in House-Senate negotiations.

Not a single Democrat was willing to vote for the budget, because there are far better ways to cut the deficit. Rep. Jim Ramstad, a Minnesota Republican who dissented from his party, made the case against the budget as well as anyone. "We should cut the pork," he told the Washington Times, "not the poor."

The current leadership in Congress simply refuses to revisit any of the tax cuts it has passed since President Bush took office. On the contrary, the leaders plan to push through $70 billion in tax cuts after Thanksgiving, including dividend and capital gains reductions that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans.

Some of the most powerful words on the budget cuts came from one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. Rep. Gene Taylor, whose district was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, couldn't believe that cuts in programs for the poor were being justified as necessary to cover the costs of relief for hurricane victims. Taylor's syntax only underscored the emotion he brought to the floor: "Mr. Speaker, in south Mississippi tonight, the people . . . who are living in two- and three-man igloo tents waiting for Congress to do something, have absolutely got to think this place has lost their minds. The same Congress that voted to give the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans tax breaks every time . . . suddenly after taking care of those who had the most, we have got to hurt the least. . . . Folks, this is insane. . . . This is the cruelest lie of all, that the only way you can help the people who have lost everything is by hurting somebody else."

It is, indeed, insane that a clear majority in the House was unable to work its will and come up with a more reasonable approach. In addition to the 14 House Republicans who voted against the cuts, another dozen who voted for them under pressure expressed grave doubts about the effect of some of the reductions. If our democracy were functional, the House majority that wants a balanced approach to cutting the deficit -- Democrats and middle-of-the-road Republicans -- could hash out the trade-offs between tax cuts and spending cuts. Everything would be on the table.

But the Republican leadership does not want to revisit the tax cuts. It wants to keep control over the budget within the Republican Party, which is dominated by its right wing. Eventually, enough moderate Republicans cave in. The game continues. The system guarantees that moderation, so often praised by academics, editorial writers and columnists, is the one approach that's impossible.

And so it was not surprising that hours after the budget vote, the House blew up over Iraq. If the House leadership had wanted a real debate on Iraq policy, it wouldn't have sprung a synthetic, one-sentence "resolution" crafted to embarrass Democrats at the last minute. It would have permitted amendments and alternatives, and allotted serious time to a serious subject.

Which brings us back to those democracy experts we are sending around the world. Let's bring just a few home and ask them to advise our leaders on how to bring democracy to Congress. If we want to sell reason and moderation to our Iraqi allies, we'd be more persuasive if we could have reasonable debates ourselves about how to fund our government and how to conduct our policy in their country.

postchat@aol.com




Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

Biden Criticizes Bush Policy on Iraq but Opposes a Pullout Deadline

By Chris Cillizza

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. added his voice to the growing chorus of Democratic critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, but he rejected calls for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The Delaware senator's luncheon remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York came on the heels of an address by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) last week in which he advocated an immediate drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Biden and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), both of whom are mentioned as potential candidates for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, praised Murtha yesterday even as they disagreed with the specifics of his proposal. Biden said he shared the "frustration" voiced by Murtha and others but was "not there yet" on Murtha's policy prescriptions. Clinton predicted that a hasty withdrawal would "cause more problems for us in America."

Biden, who is perhaps the Democratic Party's most visible spokesman on foreign policy matters, said that President Bush "has to abandon his grandiose goals" for transforming Iraq and the Middle East and define a more realistic mission.

Rather than attempting to transform Iraq into a "model democracy," Biden suggested that Bush spend the next six months accomplishing three goals: creating a "political settlement" that draws support from the rival Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds who make up Iraq; bolstering the ability of the Iraqi government to "deliver basic services"; and accelerating the training of Iraqi troops in order to facilitate a handover of full military authority to them.

Should Bush follow that blueprint, Biden held out hope that "we can start climbing out of the hole he has dug with most of our interest intact."

On the question of troop withdrawal, which is rapidly becoming a litmus test for aspiring national politicians among the Democratic Party's liberal wing, Biden sought a middle ground.

Once an advocate for increased troop levels, Biden said he no longer supports that idea but maintained that "the hard truth is that our large military presence in Iraq is necessary." A quick withdrawal or a must-meet deadline "divorced from progress . . . would doom us," he added.

Biden also said, however, that he expected 50,000 troops to be redeployed from Iraq by the end of 2006 with the remaining 100,000 out of the country by January 2007. A force of 20,000 to 40,000 would remain in the country to continue to train Iraqi forces and "prevent jihadists from establishing a permanent base in Iraq."

Clinton, like Biden, is trying to find a way to balance criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy with an unwillingness to call for a full-scale troop withdrawal.

"Until they vote for a government, I don't know that we will have adequate information about how prepared they are," Clinton said yesterday.

Several other Democrats weighing presidential bids, including Sens. Russell Feingold (Wis.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), have proposed a pullout beginning after next month's parliamentary elections. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) recently declared that he had made a mistake by supporting the use-of-force resolution against Iraq in 2002.


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051121/ap_on_..._clinton_iraq_1

Hilary Clinton: Immediate Iraq Exit a Mistake
By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer
Mon Nov 21, 4:44 PM ET



Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake."

The New York Democrat said she respects Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the Vietnam veteran and hawkish ex-Marine who last week called for an immediate troop pullout. But she added: "I think that would cause more problems for us in America."

"It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us," she said.

At the same time, Clinton said the Bush administration's pledge to stay in Iraq "until the job is done" amounts to giving the Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves."

Clinton, who is running for re-election to the Senate and is seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2008, suggested that the United States wait for Iraq's Dec. 15 elections for an indication about how soon the Iraqis can take over.

"Until they vote for a government, I don't know that we will have adequate information about how prepared they are," she said.

She blamed the problems facing the United States in Iraq on "poor decision-making by the administration," but added: "My view is we have to work together to fix these problems."




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Pelosi: 'Stay the Course' Not a Strategy for Success in Iraq
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2005-11-22 20:05. Activism
By Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
Contact: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616
http://democraticleader.house.gov

Washington, D.C. - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the President's failure to provide a plan for success in Iraq:

"This week, Iraqi leaders at the Arab League conference in Cairo called for a timetable for withdrawing foreign forces from Iraq, further evidence of how far out of touch President Bush's Iraq policy is from reality. While senior Administration officials such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggest that U.S. forces may still be in Iraq in 10 years, Iraqi Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders have all stated clearly that they want the Iraqi people to quickly take over their country's future and be responsible for its security.

"Growing numbers of Iraqis and Americans recognize what President Bush will not: 'stay the course' is not a strategy for success in Iraq. The United States must change direction.

"Last week, a broad, bipartisan majority of the Senate expressed complete and utter dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration's handling of the war in Iraq. And Congressman John Murtha's courageous statement ignited a long overdue debate in Congress and the country over the Administration's failed Iraq policy. Mr. Murtha spoke truth to power: the war in Iraq has not made America safer, it has stretched thin our military forces, and it has damaged our reputation around the world.

"When Congress reconvenes next month, we must engage in a serious debate about the continued U.S. presence in Iraq. We need an exit strategy that allows Iraqis to take control of their own security and allows us to bring our brave men and women home."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8136

Democrats Take on Murtha
It takes a village to wage a needless, immoral war
by Justin Raimondo
Hillary Clinton was quick to distance herself from Rep. John Murtha's impassioned plea to get us out of Iraq:

"The New York Democrat said she respects Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the Vietnam veteran and hawkish ex-Marine who last week called for an immediate troop pullout. But she added: 'I think that would cause more problems for us in America.'"

Aside from the fact that Murtha did not call for an "immediate troop pullout" – his plan calls for an exit after six months – the question is, what sort of "problems" is she talking about? Of course, for Hillary, the Bush tax cuts are a "problem" – and they would be a lot more credible if we were no longer bogged down in Iraq. Another "problem" for the putative Democratic presidential candidate: the pro-war wing of the Democratic Party, which wields a lot of clout – albeit more financial than electoral – would be none too pleased if Mrs. Clinton jumped on board the antiwar bandwagon. Her rationale for continuing the war is indistinguishable from that of the Bush-Cheney gang, although she does her best to make a distinction without a difference:

"'It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us,' she said. At the same time, Clinton said the Bush administration's pledge to stay in Iraq 'until the job is done' amounts to giving the Iraqis 'an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves.'"

With the Clintons, as we all know by now, you have to parse their words very carefully, but if anyone can tease a coherent position out of the above, they are welcome to try.

States "fail" when they are defeated in war and occupied by a foreign army. The moment we invaded, Iraq's future as a "failed state" was assured – and who is to blame for that? Not just Bush and the neocons, but all the Democrats who voted to authorize a military strike – including, very notably, Senator Clinton. And for the life of me, I can't imagine what she means by conjuring up a scenario in which "terrorists are free basically to set up camp and launch attacks against us." What does she think is happening in Iraq now? One is forced to conclude that Clinton is merely rephrasing the core argument advanced by the Bush administration in the run-up to war and since: she has bought into the idea that we're fighting them in Fallujah so we don't have to battle them on the streets of Brooklyn.

La Clinton is restrained from saying this for fear of alienating her Democratic Party base, but she clearly wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, we can't leave – lest Iraq become a "failed state" – and yet, on the other hand, we can't stay "until the job is done," because… well, because that's what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are saying.

So what does Hillary want? When push comes to shove, she comes out an agnostic on the Iraq question:

"Clinton, who is running for re-election to the Senate and is seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2008, suggested that the United States wait for Iraq's Dec. 15 elections for an indication about how soon the Iraqis can take over. 'Until they vote for a government, I don't know that we will have adequate information about how prepared they are,' she said."

Translation: Go away and don't bother me, because, amid all this strenuous positioning, I really don't have a position to unveil this early in the game.

Unfortunately, the nation can't wait until the Democratic Sibyl is ready to come out with an oracular pronouncement we can make sense of. Americans are dying at an alarming rate over there, and the military is getting chewed up pretty badly – to the point where a man like Murtha, who has the ear of the generals, is speaking for his military constituency when he raises the cry of "Out now!" The Bushies, however, aren't listening, and neither are the Democrats – and I don't just mean She Who Would Be President. Even worse is Sen. Joe Biden, who gave his own presidential ambitions a well-deserved rest a while back, yet still speaks with the diction of a paralyzing caution, as if he has to watch his every word lest an original thought creeps in undetected.

In a recent speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden essentially attacked the Republicans from the right and did everything but accuse them of cutting and running:

"Here is my conviction: in 2006, American troops will begin to leave Iraq in large numbers. By the end of the year, I believe we will have redeployed at least 50,000 troops. In 2007, a significant number of the remaining 100,000 American soldiers will follow."

How he comes to this conclusion is anybody's guess: the American troop presence is increasing, not decreasing, and this will continue right up to the year-end elections, with no end in sight. We never had enough boots on the ground to pacify the country in the first place. When Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, dared say we needed 200,000 troops at a minimum, he was out on his butt without further ado, as Biden knows all too well. This was a major talking point for the Kerry campaign: we need more troops, not less.

To hear Biden tell it, the Bush administration is abandoning Iraq, even as Commandant Cheney rails against any talk of withdrawal, and so "the real question is this":

"As Americans start to come home, will we leave Iraq with our fundamental security interests intact or will we have traded a dictator for chaos?"

Those irresponsible Republicans will leave us with the latter, but the Democrats – or, at least, the Biden wing of the party – have a plan to achieve the former. Unfortunately, due to the mismanagement of this essentially righteous and necessary war,

"Many Americans have already concluded that we cannot salvage Iraq. We should bring all our forces home as soon as possible. They include some of the most respected voices on military matters in this country, like Congressman Jack Murtha. They're mindful of the terrible consequences from withdrawing. But even worse, in their judgment, would be to leave Americans to fight – and to die – in Iraq with no strategy for success. I share their frustration. But I'm not there yet. I still believe we can preserve our fundamental security interests in Iraq as we begin to redeploy our forces."

Biden is just as threatened by Murtha's call for withdrawal as Bush and Cheney are, and he – like the Republicans – is forced to address it, albeit a bit less demagogically. He is not above sophistry, however:

"That will require the not to stay the course, but to change course and to do it now."

Politicians play with words while the greatest strategic disaster in our history unfolds. When the full story of this war is written, both parties will stand condemned out of their own mouths. Oh, but don't worry, says Biden, we're the government, and we're here to help you:

"Though it may not seem like it, there is actually a broad consensus on what the must do. Last week, 79 Democrats and Republicans in the Senate came together and said to the president: we need a plan for Iraq. Level with us. Give us specific goals and a timetable for achieving each one so we know exactly where we are and where we are going. … The problem has been compounded by the president's failure to explain in detail his strategy and to report regularly on both the progress and the problems."

True to the modern liberal faith in central planning and "scientific" management, Biden believes if only we have the right "plan," the Best and the Brightest – armed with timetables and the right "metrics" – will carry us forward to victory. The "problem" isn't in our aggressive foreign policy of preemptive conquest, it's a failure to "explain in detail" why the export of "democracy" at gunpoint isn't an oxymoronic illusion. If only the Democrats were given the job of explaining, says Biden, they would do a much better job at winning American hearts and minds. Says Biden:

"As David Brooks reminded us in the New York Times yesterday, 'Franklin Roosevelt asked Americans to spread out maps before them and he described, step by step, what was going on in World War II, where the U.S. was winning and where it was losing. Why can't today's president do that? Why can't he show that he is aware that his biggest problem is not in Iraq, it's on the home front?'"

We Democrats wouldn't have that problem, is what Biden means to imply. We could really sell this war.

Good luck with that one, Joe.

One can't help but notice that the distinguished senator cites none other than the New York Times' house neocon, whose advice is an odd source of inspiration for the Democratic base, which hates this war and the men who started it. But Biden isn't addressing them: he's talking to the Council on Foreign Relations, after all, the elite foreign-policy movers and shakers.

Yet surely such a knowledgeable group wasn't about to be taken in by this invocation of World War II, and recognized it as hyperbole of the first order. Iraq wasn't even close to being a military power on the scale of Nazi Germany, and Saddam – for all his brutality – was no Hitler. World War II raged across three continents, and the death toll was in the millions: the Iraq war has yielded but a small fraction of that destructive power.

However, such inconvenient facts are irrelevant, in any case, because the neocons couldn't care less about reality: after all, they are in the business of creating their own reality, as one White House official confided. It's a matter of constructing the right narrative, perhaps one gleaned from their historical mythos of supposedly heroic wars, and certainly World War II is one that the neocons and Biden can agree on. Aside from being horribly overblown, however, the WWII analogy is applicable to Iraq in a certain sense, as Ahmed Chalabi pointed out to New Yorker writer Jane Mayer:

"Ahmed Chalabi, the wealthy Iraqi Shi'ite who spent more than a decade working for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, prides himself on his understanding of the United States and its history. 'I know quite a lot about it,' he told me not long ago. … One episode in American history particularly fascinated him, he said. 'I followed very closely how Roosevelt, who abhorred the Nazis, at a time when isolationist sentiment was paramount in the United States, managed adroitly to persuade the American people to go to war. I studied it with a great deal of respect; we learned a lot from it. The Lend-Lease program committed Roosevelt to enter on Britain's side – so we had the Iraq Liberation Act, which committed the American people for the liberation against Saddam.'"

Like Bush, Roosevelt lied us into war with the aid of a well-oiled and ruthlessly efficient propaganda machine. Backed up by the power and resources of the British, who employed a number of covert means to influence American public opinion and goad the U.S. into war, the War Party of that era was joined by the pro-Russian Left after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. If Bush is Roosevelt, and Saddam is Hitler, then the Iraqis are the Brits, Chalabi is Churchill, and the Israelis, perhaps, are the Russians, picking up the pieces – as the Soviets did in Eastern Europe – and using their American fifth column to consolidate and expand their gains in the region.

The analogy pans out even in some of the details. The Niger uranium forgery of Roosevelt's day was that fake map of a Nazified South America wielded by President Roosevelt as proof positive of Hitler's plan to invade the Western Hemisphere – another forgery whipped up by the Brits in their laboratory of dirty tricks, as documented in Nicholas John Crull's Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign Against American Neutrality in World War II. "The most striking feature of the episode," writes Crull, "was the complicity of the president of the United States in perpetrating the fraud."

History repeats itself – the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

Today's Democrats are whining that they were "misled" and even lied to, but they don't really object to this in principle, as history shows. Biden wants the Republicans and this president to "level" with the American people. But does he really? I doubt it. Because that would mean extrapolating from his analogy with World War II, and, as Chalabi points out, we can learn an awful lot from that example. The problem for Biden and his fellow Democratic interventionists is that the lesson learned is not favorable to their case.

We intervened in Europe's internecine war, and postponed the destruction of the Soviet Union by half a century. Having assured the survival of Stalinism, we furthermore ran the risk of another world war – one that could have wiped out the human race. All in all, a bad bargain – a net loss, which continued to take its toll in blowback decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the Soviet empire.

Al-Qaeda is the mutant spawn of the Cold War era, birthed by the Reaganites of yesteryear who hailed the Afghan mujahedin as "freedom fighters," supporting them by word and deed against the Red Army in Afghanistan. The U.S. government sided with and subsidized Osama bin Laden and his core group of Islamic internationalists, paving the way for the creation of a terrorist organization with global reach – until one bright day in September 2001, when the Islamist Frankenstein turned on its creators.

Now, once again, we are creating an Islamic Frankenstein, in the form of a Greater Iran. In a bid to split the Muslim world, and turn Shi'ite against Sunni, we are playing "balance of power" politics, classic divide-and-rule tactics, in an overall strategy to "democratize" (i.e., subjugate) the Middle East. How long before the Shi'ite superstate we are creating turns on us with the same vengeance wreaked by bin Laden?

Why do our rulers keep making the same mistakes, over and over, like some mental patient dominated by his compulsions?

The problem is not the lack of will, nor the lack of a "plan" to win in Iraq. The problem is our foreign policy of perpetual war, which presupposes the wisdom of a policy that deems it our business – our duty – to intervene everywhere for the alleged benefit of mankind. The problem is the arrogance of our rulers, and their apparently limitless capacity for hubris. This is what blinds them to the folly of their course, which does not need to be "changed," as Biden avers, so much as it needs to be ended.

We are on a course set for Empire, and there's mutiny in the air. Biden, Clinton, and the entire Democratic Party establishment, as well as the GOP, are frantically trying to quell it. After Rep. Murtha announced his support for a plan that would have us out of Iraq in six months, Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi demurred when asked if she endorsed it. Naturally, Biden, too, shied away from Murtha, while praising the old Marine's courage – and demonstrating his own lack of it.

The Democratic Party is worse than useless in the struggle to extract us from the Iraqi quagmire: it is an obstacle, not the lever that will get us out. Combined with their hopelessly statist domestic policies – which cry out for a wartime atmosphere of permanent emergency, all the better to increase the size and power of government – the Democrats' stance is indistinguishable from the Cheneyites in everything but tone. The two parties may trade barbs over the merits of what Cheney calls the Democrats' "historical revisionism," but this is a quibble best settled by the historians. When it comes to acknowledging the wit and wisdom of David Brooks, there is a bipartisan consensus.

If the Republicans lied us into war, one might say, with Dr. Chalabi, that they learned it all at Roosevelt's feet, and what of it? The Democrats don't have a plan to get out, won't even say the dreaded word "withdrawal," and are positioning themselves to accuse the president of preparing to "cut and run."

The two-party monopoly is the last – and strongest – bastion of the War Party, one that can be successfully defended in spite of overwhelming antiwar sentiment in this country. What gets me is that Biden, in his speech, has the gall to talk about a "credibility chasm" opening up between the administration and the American people. The only proper answer to that is: look who's talking!

ADMINISTRATION
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.


The administration has refused to provide the Sept. 21 President's Daily Brief, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.






The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

On November 18, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he planned to attach an amendment to the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill that would require the Bush administration to give the Senate and House intelligence committees copies of PDBs for a three-year period. After Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on language for the amendment, Kennedy said he would delay final action on the matter until Congress returns in December.

The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment-which has also been denied to the committee-were strikingly similar to those provided to President Bush in the September 21 PDB, according to records and sources. In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

"What the President was told on September 21," said one former high-level official, "was consistent with everything he has been told since-that the evidence was just not there."

In arguing their case for war with Iraq, the president and vice president said after the September 11 attacks that Al Qaeda and Iraq had significant ties, and they cited the possibility that Iraq might share chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons with Al Qaeda for a terrorist attack against the United States.

Democrats in Congress, as well as other critics of the Bush administration, charge that Bush and Cheney misrepresented and distorted intelligence information to bolster their case for war with Iraq. The president and vice president have insisted that they unknowingly relied on faulty and erroneous intelligence, provided mostly by the CIA.

The new information on the September 21 PDB and the subsequent CIA analysis bears on the question of what the CIA told the president and how the administration used that information as it made its case for war with Iraq.

The central rationale for going to war against Iraq, of course, was that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons, and that he was pursuing an aggressive program to build nuclear weapons. Despite those claims, no weapons were ever discovered after the war, either by United Nations inspectors or by U.S. military authorities.

Much of the blame for the incorrect information in statements made by the president and other senior administration officials regarding the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue has fallen on the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.

In April 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report that the CIA's prewar assertion that Saddam's regime was "reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and "has chemical and biological weapons" were "overstated, or were not supported by the underlying intelligence provided to the Committee."

The Bush administration has cited that report and similar findings by a presidential commission as evidence of massive CIA intelligence failures in assessing Iraq's unconventional-weapons capability.

Bush and Cheney have also recently answered their critics by ascribing partisan motivations to them and saying their criticism has the effect of undermining the war effort. In a speech on November 11, the president made his strongest comments to date on the subject: "Baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Since then, he has adopted a different tone, and he said on his way home from Asia on November 21, "This is not an issue of who is a patriot or not."

In his own speech to the American Enterprise Institute yesterday, Cheney also changed tone, saying that "disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy" and the "sign of a healthy political system." He then added: "Any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false."

Although the Senate Intelligence Committee and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 commission, pointed to incorrect CIA assessments on the WMD issue, they both also said that, for the most part, the CIA and other agencies did indeed provide policy makers with accurate information regarding the lack of evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," President Bush said on September 25, 2002.

The next day, Rumsfeld said, "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that Al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire … weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities."

The most explosive of allegations came from Cheney, who said that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center, had met in Prague, in the Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, five months before the attacks. On December 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press: "[I]t's pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in [the Czech Republic] last April, several months before the attack."

Cheney continued to make the charge, even after he was briefed, according to government records and officials, that both the CIA and the FBI discounted the possibility of such a meeting.

Credit card and phone records appear to demonstrate that Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time of the alleged meeting, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials. Al-Ani, the Iraqi intelligence official with whom Atta was said to have met in Prague, was later taken into custody by U.S. authorities. He not only denied the report of the meeting with Atta, but said that he was not in Prague at the time of the supposed meeting, according to published reports.

In June 2004, the 9/11 commission concluded: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Regarding the alleged meeting in Prague, the commission concluded: "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

Still, Cheney did not concede the point. "We have never been able to prove that there was a connection to 9/11," Cheney said after the commission announced it could not find significant links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. But the vice president again pointed out the existence of a Czech intelligence service report that Atta and the Iraqi agent had met in Prague. "That's never been proved. But it's never been disproved," Cheney said.

The following month, July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in its review of the CIA's prewar intelligence: "Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al-Qaeda."

One reason that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld made statements that contradicted what they were told in CIA briefings might have been that they were receiving information from another source that purported to have evidence of Al Qaeda-Iraq ties. The information came from a covert intelligence unit set up shortly after the September 11 attacks by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith.

Feith was a protégé of, and intensely loyal to, Cheney, Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and Cheney's then-chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The secretive unit was set up because Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Libby did not believe the CIA would be able to get to the bottom of the matter of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. The four men shared a long-standing distrust of the CIA from their earlier positions in government, and felt that the agency had failed massively by not predicting the September 11 attacks.

At first, the Feith-directed unit primarily consisted of two men, former journalist Michael Maloof and David Wurmser, a veteran of neoconservative think tanks. They liked to refer to themselves as the "Iraqi intelligence cell" of the Pentagon. And they took pride in the fact that their office was in an out-of-the-way cipher-locked room, with "charts that rung the room from one end to the other" showing the "interconnections of various terrorist groups" with one another and, most important, with Iraq, Maloof recalled in an interview.

They also had the heady experience of briefing Rumsfeld twice, and Feith more frequently, Maloof said. The vice president's office also showed great interest in their work. On at least three occasions, Maloof said, Samantha Ravich, then-national security adviser for terrorism to Cheney, visited their windowless offices for a briefing.

But neither Maloof nor Wurmser had any experience or formal training in intelligence analysis. Maloof later lost his security clearance, for allegedly failing to disclose a relationship with a woman who is a foreigner, and after allegations that he leaked classified information to the press. Maloof said in the interview that he has done nothing wrong and was simply being punished for his controversial theories. Wurmser has since been named as Cheney's Middle East adviser.

In January 2002, Maloof and Wurmser were succeeded at the intelligence unit by two Naval Reserve officers. Intelligence analysis from the covert unit later served as the basis for many of the erroneous public statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others regarding the alleged ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to former and current government officials. Intense debates still rage among longtime intelligence and foreign policy professionals as to whether those who cited the information believed it, or used it as propaganda. The unit has since been disbanded.

Earlier this month, on November 14, the Pentagon's inspector general announced an investigation into whether Feith and others associated with the covert intelligence unit engaged in "unauthorized, unlawful, or inappropriate intelligence activities." In a statement, Feith said he is "confident" that investigators will conclude that his "office worked properly and in fact improved the intelligence product by asking good questions."

The Senate Intelligence Committee has also been conducting its own probe of the Pentagon unit. But as was first disclosed by The American Prospect in an article by reporter Laura Rozen, that probe had been hampered by a lack of cooperation from Feith and the Pentagon.

Internal Pentagon records show not only that the small Pentagon unit had the ear of the highest officials in the government, but also that Rumsfeld and others considered the unit as a virtual alternative to intelligence analyses provided by the CIA.

On July 22, 2002, as the run-up to war with Iraq was underway, one of the Naval Reserve officers detailed to the unit sent Feith an e-mail saying that he had just heard that then-Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz wanted "the Iraqi intelligence cell … to prepare an intel briefing on Iraq and links to al-Qaida for the SecDef" and that he was not to tell anyone about it.

After that briefing was delivered, Wolfowitz sent Feith and other officials a note saying: "This was an excellent briefing. The Secretary was very impressed. He asked us to think about possible next steps to see if we can illuminate the differences between us and CIA. The goal was not to produce a consensus product, but rather to scrub one another's arguments."

On September 16, 2002, two days before the CIA produced a major assessment of Iraq's ties to terrorism, the Naval Reserve officers conducted a briefing for Libby and Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser to President Bush.

In a memorandum to Wolfowitz, Feith wrote: "The briefing went very well and generated further interest from Mr. Hadley and Mr. Libby." Both men, the memo went on, requested follow-up material, most notably a "chronology of Atta's travels," a reference to the discredited allegation of an Atta-Iraqi meeting in Prague.

In their presentation, the naval reserve briefers excluded the fact that the FBI and CIA had developed evidence that the alleged meeting had never taken place, and that even the Czechs had disavowed it.

The Pentagon unit also routinely second-guessed the CIA's highly classified assessments. Regarding one report titled "Iraq and al-Qaeda: Interpreting a Murky Relationship," one of the Naval Reserve officers wrote: "The report provides evidence from numerous intelligence sources over the course of a decade on interactions between Iraq and al-Qaida. In this regard, the report is excellent. Then in its interpretation of this information, CIA attempts to discredit, dismiss, or downgrade much of this reporting, resulting in inconsistent conclusions in many instances. Therefore, the CIA report should be read for content only-and CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored."

This same antipathy toward the CIA led to the events that are the basis of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity, according to several former and current senior officials.

Ironically, the Plame affair's origins had its roots in Cheney and Libby's interest in reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium yellowcake from Niger to build a nuclear weapon. After reading a Pentagon report on the matter in early February 2002, Cheney asked the CIA officer who provided him with a national security briefing each morning if he could find out about it.

Without Cheney's knowledge, his query led to the CIA-sanctioned trip to Niger by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, to investigate the allegations. Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were most likely not true.

Despite that conclusion, President Bush, in his State of the Union address in 2003, included the Niger allegation in making the case to go to war with Iraq. In July 2003, after the war had begun, Wilson publicly charged that the Bush administration had "twisted" the intelligence information to make the case to go to war.

Libby and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove told reporters that Wilson's had been sent to Niger on the recommendation of his wife, Plame. In the process, the leaks led to the unmasking of Plame, the appointment of Fitzgerald, the jailing of a New York Times reporter for 85 days, and a federal grand jury indictment of Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly attempting to conceal his role in leaking Plame's name to the press.

The Plame affair was not so much a reflection of any personal animus toward Wilson or Plame, says one former senior administration official who knows most of the principals involved, but rather the direct result of long-standing antipathy toward the CIA by Cheney, Libby, and others involved. They viewed Wilson's outspoken criticism of the Bush administration as an indirect attack by the spy agency.

Those grievances were also perhaps illustrated by comments that Vice President Cheney himself wrote on one of Feith's reports detailing purported evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In barely legible handwriting, Cheney wrote in the margin of the report:

"This is very good indeed … Encouraging … Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA."

-- Murray Waas is a Washington-based writer and frequent contributor to National Journal. Several of his previous stories are also available online.

http://www.counterpunch.org/gray11212005.html

Out of Iraq, Now
Rep. Maxine Waters, the Real Leader of the Anti-War Caucus
By KEVIN ALEXANDER GRAY
and MIKE HERSH

Since the beginning of George Bush's unpopular war against the Iraqi people, black female leadership has led the fight in opposing what has now become Bush's moral and political albatross.

Although Representative John Conyers (D-Mich) remains the dean of progressive politics in Congress, a coterie of black female lawmakers have emerged on the leadership forefront of opposition to the war. Many are familiar with Oakland area Congresswoman Barbara Lee's lone challenge to the war at the start-up and Georgia's Cynthia McKinney's constant vocal opposition to a variety of questionable policies, political tactics and the truthfulness of Bush administration officials. Now, Maxine Waters (D-Calif), in her leadership of a multi-racial coalition, hopes to assume a more public role in shaping and leading anti-war efforts in Congress.

The mainstream press has focused on Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a decorated Vietnam War veteran and hawkish legislator who last week declared that the Iraq had become so bad that the United States needs to immediately withdraw troops. However, it was Waters' "Out of Iraq Coalition" in the House, that jump started House opposition at a press conference at the Longworth Office Building days prior to Murtha's announced change of heart. At her side were 19 other congresspeople, black, white, female, male, gay and Latino demanding that the issue of "how the United States got into war" be fully debated on the floor of the House.

Although the Sunday morning talk shows were quick to book Murtha as a guest, news of last weeks press conference got little notice. The "Out of Iraq Coalition" event, received literally no coverage from mainstream or national media outlets. Nevertheless, Waters, chair and founder of the "Out of Iraq" Congressional Caucus begun in June 2005, announced that the Caucus filed a discharge petition on House Resolution 55, authored by Congressmen Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and Walter Jones (D-NC). If passed by Congress, HJ 55 would require Bush to begin bringing US troops home from Iraq.

A discharge petition is a House rule that permits members to bring to the floor for consideration a measure not reported from committee if 218 members sign the petition. The discharge petition, as drafted, provides 17 hours of debate and permits consideration of any germane amendments including amendments that would move up the date at which US troops would begin to return home.

Waters said, "The American people expect leadership from their elected officials and so far that leadership has been non-existent. We filed the discharge petition on HJ 55 in order to force the House of Representatives, the people's House, to debate the Iraq War. The President and the Republican leadership have refused to fully explain why we are in Iraq and when our troops will be able to return to their families. 'Staying the course' as the President suggests is an insult to our soldiers who have served so bravely in Iraq and to their families who worry every minute about their safety."

Waters listed the ever rising costs of the war: $250 billion, more than 2,070 US troops killed, 15,000 injured, 400 limbs amputated. She pledged to examine and analyze the "distorted" information
which led us into war, and--with our help--lead us out of Iraq. She recounted that in only six months, the Out of Iraq Caucus has grown to include 70 House members of various points of view, but united in the desire to formulate a strategy to lead America out of Iraq: "All of us want out of Iraq."

Waters appears on solid ground in her opposition to the war as most polls show support for the President's policy in Iraq in free fall and his overall support numbers dropping as well. Among blacks, support for the war has been low from the start. A 2005 Pew Research poll found blacks nearly twice as likely as whites to have strong reservations about the war. And black military recruitment numbers have followed suit with black enlistment in the Army falling by 40% since 2000 according to USA Today.

Resolution co-author Abercrombie invited all Republicans, Democrats, and the lone House Independent Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) to join with the Representatives in the room supporting an "open rule," allowing any member to offer any amendment to the resolution. He presented his "bipartisan approach" as "an opportunity for Republicans to join with us." He called the resolution a "kick off" on debate and an opportunity for the American people to demand accountability.

Waters announced that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) will manage the effort on House Joint Resolution 55. Frank said, "The House ought to be able to have a debate" on what he called the "single most important issue" facing the Congress and the nation, and explained this discharge petition would permit the debate.

Frank dismissed the Bush claims that debate on Iraq policy was "irresponsible" and rejected the President's excuse for misleading the Congress and the American people because "other people were wrong, too" as a "so's-your-mother defense." Frank added that the discharge petition step would not be necessary "if the Republican [House] Leadership had any respect for democracy."

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx) called the Iraq conflict an "unconstitutional war" and HJ Resolution 55 the "fix-it resolution." She said the war is "Vietnam reincarnated", and assured there is "no division" between this effort and the troops. She said, "This effort is all about having our people return from Iraq with dignity and success. This will say to the American People, your voices are heard." She told of her visits to the troops in Iraq, as well as hospitals in Germany and the US-- people she called "victims of war."

Barbara Lee described one such victim in a Germany hospital, a servicewoman "burned from head to toe" who was only concerned about her mother. Lee said, "The President misled the Congress with false and misleading reasons for the war. It's crucial we have this debate."

Lee, Co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus said the White House still refuses to respond to questions about the Downing Street Minutes despite signatures from 500,000 Americans and 100 Members of Congress. She was referring to a petition effort led by Conyers with signatures collected through the Washington-based Progressive Democrats of America and the After Downing Street Coalition. She explained that this discharge petition drive is building on her Resolution of Inquiry. That resolution would have required answers and demanded accountability from the administration on pre-war intelligence and other related issues.

Caucus member and former former presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh) suggested that the Out of Iraq Caucus' effort be called achieving "an Honorable Discharge from Iraq." Kucinich countered the Bush talking point, that 'Democrats have no grounds to question his Iraq policies because they supported it.' Kucinich argued, "Two-thirds of current House Democrats [and] one-half of current Senate Democrats opposed the resolution empowering Bush to use force." Kucinich declared, "Bush can no longer claim he was misled and continue to mislead." He charged that the American people do not support the war or this president, and he called this, "the beginning of the
end of the war."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Oh) said, "Our goal is to have a conversation with the American people." She raised three keys to the discussion. First, "Moral Legitimacy: [the USA has] lost that moral edge starting with the revelations of atrocities at Abu Ghraib, after which casualties doubled." She stressed that, "in the military slogan 'Honor, Duty, Country' honor comes first. Second, she claims that the Bush Administration is setting up a "parallel system" of mercenaries--thousands of "contractors" who conduct the "questioning" of prisoners and "undermine our military." Kaptur revealed there could be as many as 100-150,000 "contractors" in Iraq. Third, she warned of apparent and rumored plans to "hold up" the Defense Appropriations bill to link the spending on the war and occupation to spending for all agencies and services-- an effort to "hold the entire nation hostage" to the Bush war policies.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif) --the other co-chairs of the House Progressive Caucus--praised grassroots activists for "putting the starch in the spines" of House Members. She said it's time the Congress started "hearing the voices of the American People" and pass what she called the "Homeward Bound" Resolution. She said this discharge petition effort began in the House with her amendment to the Defense Authorization requesting the White House articulate some exit plan or strategy. Her measure was defeated, but gained bipartisan support and set the stage for Barbara Lee's and Kucinich's Resolutions of Inquiry.

"I believe this war was a mistake from the very beginning," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass). "There are two things you can do with a mistake--you can correct it or you can compound it. HJ Resolution 55 is an attempt to correct this mistake by requiring the President to develop and implement a meaningful plan to end our military involvement in Iraq."

The discharge petition would also open the House floor to other efforts, including McGovern's HR 4232 which if passed would immediately end funding for the war. "Both of these [approaches] are better than 'staying the course,' as the Bush Administration would have us do which would only compound the mistakes we have made in Iraq," declared McGovern.

Many of those attending the press conference agreed that the world-wide reputation of the United States is suffering because people around the globe don't believe we're going to ever leave Iraq. They stressed the need for ongoing Congressional efforts--with increasing Republican support--to bar permanent bases and other entanglements with Iraq such as "sweet heart deals" for oil.

Kevin Alexander Gray is a civil rights organizer in South Carolina. Mike Hersh is a political commentator. They can be reached at: kagamba@bellsouth.net

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5122

Bipartisan Quartet Urges House Conferees to Endorse Iraq ‘Transition’
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2005-11-23 16:51. Congress
By Congressional Quarterly

Two House Republicans and two Democrats joined forces this week to urge House conferees on the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill to accept Senate language prodding the Bush administration to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq next year.

The lawmakers said adopting such legislation would be “an important first step” in restoring “unity” to a nation and a Congress divided over the war.
The Senate on Nov. 19 adopted by 79-19 an amendment to the defense bill offered by Armed Services Chairman John W. Warner, R-Va., that would designate 2006 as a “period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty” and require the president to report to Congress every three months on progress of the military mission.

Reps. Tom Osborne, R-Neb., and Mark Udall, D-Colo., this week wrote a letter to the House and Senate managers of the bill asking them to ensure that the Warner amendment is included in the final version of the measure. Since then, Reps. Joe Schwarz , R-Mich., and Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., have added their signatures, a spokesman for Udall said.

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/...2205/news3.html

November 22, 2005


Dems win McCain’s backing
By Alexander Bolton

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has emerged as a leading opponent of the Bush administration’s policy on interrogating detainees in the war on terrorism, wants Senate investigators to interview senior administration officials about their statements regarding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein before the war.

McCain backed Democratic calls for interviews of top-level administration officials in an interview last week. But his position is at odds with many in his party, including Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), whom McCain may face in the 2008 GOP presidential primary.

Lawmakers facing a difficult reelection in 2006 and have an eye on the 2008 presidential election seem torn between McCain and their party line. Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), a centrist Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee who is one of the chamber’s most vulnerable incumbents, said he would reserve judgment on whether senior administration officials should testify before the intelligence panel. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who is also expected to run for president in 2008, noted that Roberts is his home-state colleague and deferred comment until he learned more about the matter.

McCain, who is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee but does not sit on the intelligence panel, said the interviews could give senators and the public a way to evaluate the officials’ statements, but he also said he recognizes boundaries protecting the president and vice president.

“In general, I think everyone should be interviewed that was involved,” he said. “The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States have a special status, and you’ve got to be concerned about the executive-congressional relationship.”

“I think certainly Cabinet secretaries who are confirmable by the Senate should be interviewed,” he said, acknowledging that he is not intimately familiar with the mechanics of the Senate probe. McCain said that the former national-security adviser should also be exempted from Senate interviews because of the sensitivity of that official’s communications with the president.

McCain’s parameters appear to include Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense who played an important role in the months before the war in analyzing Iraqi intelligence for the White House. Democrats have accused Feith of overstepping legal boundaries and want to interview him about his activities.

So far at least one other Republican, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), who is also facing a difficult race next year, is siding with McCain.

“Why not come in and defend what you say?” said Chafee. “I agree with McCain.”

Senate Democrats have called for an evaluation of pre-invasion statements about the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons capabilities by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is pressing for some of those officials to be interviewed as part of that evaluation process and has argued that a thorough report cannot be written without interviews, but Republicans have so far resisted.

Roberts said it is too early to decide whether or not to interview senior administration officials about their statements. He said that those decisions should be made after the committee completes its report on prewar intelligence, known as phase two of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s investigation into pre-war intelligence.

“That would be premature until we get the report done,” he said.

Roberts has also said that he doesn’t want to subpoena or investigate Feith until the Department of Defense inspector general has finished a review of Feith’s work.

Republican strategists fear the prospect of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz trying to justify statements they made about the Iraqi threat using hazy intelligence. Democrats recognize this and have stepped up their efforts in recent weeks to spur action on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s plodding investigation. Earlier this month, Democrats forced the Senate into closed-session to pressure Republicans to speed up the pace of the probe.

Lack of agreement between Republicans and Democrats over the interviews is one of the main hurdles to completing the probe. Three Democrats on the Intelligence Committee highlighted the issue in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week.

In recent weeks, Democrats have tried to focus media and public attention on the prewar statements of Bush administration officials as polls have shown waning public support for the war.

Senate Republicans have tried to remind the public about statements Democrats made at the time about the threat posed by Hussein.

Frist distributed a memo during a closed-door luncheon meeting of the Republican conference last week urging Republicans to counter the Democrats’ attack.

“Democrats are claiming the Bush administration manipulated and “cherry-picked” intelligence before commencing military operations in Iraq,” he wrote. “By making such claims, they are waging a public-relations campaign of mass deception.”

Jonathan Allen contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051124/ap_on_...DMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Sen. Nelson Opposes Iraq Troop Withdrawal By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record) said Wednesday he was opposed to the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq because he fears it would allow al-Qaida to take over the oil-rich nation.

"We want this thing to end, but it's got to be done in a way that stabilizes so that we don't have an al-Qaida controlling the world's oil supply," Nelson said in a news conference that also covered oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Navy's future in northeast Florida.

Nelson's comments came after a fellow Democrat, Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), set off a firestorm last week when he proposed all the about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq be pulled out over the next six months. Nelson said the Bush administration had not done a good job selling the war to the American people.

"The way to keep the American people behind the war effort is to be open and truthful and up front and to give clear goals of what you are trying to achieve," Nelson said. "When we went in to Iraq, we were not only given misinformation, we withheld information and what we were given was not true."

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have defended their administration in recent days from those types of accusations, repeating that there is no timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Cheney has said suggestions that the White House twisted information to lead the nation to Iraq were "dishonest and reprehensible."

Nelson, who opposes oil drilling off the coast of Florida, said military training in the skies and waters in the Gulf of Mexico could prevent oil companies from drilling near shore.

"The one trump card we have up our sleeve that they will not be able to come close to the coast of Florida is the United States military's largest training and testing area in the entire continental United States is the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. Almost all the gulf off of Florida is restricted air space," he said.

Nelson also talked about the decision by the city of Jacksonville to end its quest to have the Navy reopen Cecil Field Naval Air Station.

Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton, bowing to pressure from people who live near the former Navy base about concerns of the noisy Navy jets, announced earlier the city would no longer attempt to have the base reopened.

Nelson said the Base Closure and Realignment Commission gave Oceana, Va., until March to do something about encroachment from homes and businesses around its base or face the possibility of losing it.

If Oceana has not come up with a plan to handle the problem, Jacksonville will be asked if it is still opposed to reopening Cecil Field, which closed in 1999.

Nelson said he and Gov. Jeb Bush had both testified twice in support of reopening Cecil Field. Nelson said, however, that he would no go against the wishes of local leaders.

The senator said he was confident that funding will be provided by the Navy to upgrade Mayport Naval Station so that it could be the port for a nuclear aircraft carrier. The USS John F. Kennedy, a conventional aircraft carrier, may be mothballed within the next year.




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051125/ap_on_...DMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Democratic Lawmaker Lament Iraq War Vote By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 25, 1:42 PM ET



Three years ago, Massachusetts congressmen Martin Meehan, Stephen Lynch and Edward Markey bucked their state Democratic colleagues and cast votes to give President Bush a green light to go to war in Iraq.

Since then, the three have renounced their votes and emerged as critics of the way Bush has handled the war.

Unlike the dramatic public change of heart by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a decorated Marine veteran who served in Korea and Vietnam, the three congressmen said they began gradually re-evaluating their views soon after the U.S.-led invasion, when no weapons of mass destruction were found.

"The war was based on the false premise that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons program," said Markey, who accused the administration of "manipulating facts."

They are not the first to express regret about their pro-war votes. Several members of Congress, including Reps. Walter Jones, R-N.C., and Robert Wexler, D-Fla., have had changes of heart about Iraq.

But for Meehan, Lynch and Markey, the shift has paid political dividends, helping them mend fences with top state Democratic leaders such as Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), and anti-war liberals who are active in the party ranks.

"I'd say that we have been the most vocal state delegation in the entire country in criticizing the president's handling of the war in Iraq," said Meehan, an early advocate of a phased troop withdrawal.

As Bush's popularity slumps, public support for the war crumbles and U.S. casualties mount, Democrats nationwide are stepping up their attacks on the president and pressing for a clearer exit strategy.

"There's been a rift in the Democratic Party about Iraq from the beginning," said Amy Walter, a congressional expert for the Washington-based Cook Political Report. "As the American public changes its views, it makes it easier for these guys (to change)."

Meehan, Lynch and Markey were among 126 House Democrats who voted for the Iraq war measure one year after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Their seven Massachusetts House colleagues opposed the resolution, which passed by a vote of 296-133.

Their votes put them at odds with Kennedy, the state's senior Democrat and one of the party's leading anti-war voices. The votes also rankled many liberal activists.

Such core support is vital for Democrats seeking to run statewide. Meehan, Lynch and Markey, who were seen as potential Senate candidates when John Kerry ran for president in 2004 and the prospect of an open seat arose, are all considered politically ambitious.

"For those contemplating a presidential effort, this helps to get out in front of that issue three years before the first primaries, so they are on record and not waiting until the primaries to change," said Earl Black, a Rice University political scientist. "That goes for others who are not running for president as well."

Back home, the three congressmen drew flak at times for their pro-war votes. Massachusetts is home to an active network of peace groups who have held several protests and vigils denouncing the war. Howard Dean's rise during the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries also stoked anti-war sentiment across the state. One Boston Common anti-war rally in fall 2002 drew an estimated 15,000 people.

Since none of the three faced major re-election challenges, they had a freer hand than most lawmakers to alter their views on the war.




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Lawmakers Under Scrutiny in Probe of Lobbyist

By Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi

The Justice Department's wide-ranging investigation of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has entered a highly active phase as prosecutors are beginning to move on evidence pointing to possible corruption in Congress and executive branch agencies, lawyers involved in the case said.

Prosecutors have already told one lawmaker, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), and his former chief of staff that they are preparing a possible bribery case against them, according to two sources knowledgeable about the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The 35 to 40 investigators and prosecutors on the Abramoff case are focused on at least half a dozen members of Congress, lawyers and others close to the probe said. The investigators are looking at payments made by Abramoff and his colleagues to the wives of some lawmakers and at actions taken by senior Capitol Hill aides, some of whom went to work for Abramoff at the law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP, lawyers and others familiar with the probe said.

Former House majority leader Tom DeLay ®, now facing separate campaign finance charges in his home state of Texas, is one of the members under scrutiny, the sources said. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) and other members of Congress involved with Indian affairs, one of Abramoff's key areas of interest, are also said to be among them.

Prosecutions and plea deals have become more likely, the lawyers said, now that Abramoff's former partner -- public relations executive Michael Scanlon -- has agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy and to testify about gifts that he and his K Street colleagues showered on lawmakers, allegedly in exchange for official favors.

An attorney for DeLay, whose wife worked for a lobbying firm that received client referrals from Abramoff, said there was no connection between her work and congressional business. A spokesman for Doolittle, whose wife received payments from Abramoff's lobbying firm, also said there was no connection with her husband's position. Burns's office has said his actions were consistent with his support for improving conditions for Indian tribes.

Ney is the congressman whose name has surfaced most prominently in the Abramoff investigation. His spokesman and attorney have said for weeks that Ney has not been told he is a target of the inquiry, even while acknowledging that his office has received a grand jury subpoena and that his activities were mentioned in Scanlon's plea agreement.

But the sources said that during the third week of October prosecutors told Ney and his former chief of staff, Neil Volz, that they were preparing a bribery case based in part on activities that occurred in October 2000. Abramoff and another business partner, Adam Kidan, were also told that they are targets in that case, the sources said.

The five-year statute of limitations for filing charges based on those events expired last month; the prosecutors sought and received a waiver of the deadline from all four men while they continue their investigation, the sources said. Prosecutors are often able to obtain such waivers by giving the targets a choice of being indicted right away or granting more time to see if information might surface that exonerates them.

Ney's attorney, Mark H. Tuohey, did not return calls seeking comment on the waiver. Ney spokesman Brian Walsh said the office had no comment, as did a lawyer for Volz.

The attorneys of Abramoff and Kidan did not return calls seeking comment.

The events in 2000 that interest investigators are connected to the purchase by Abramoff and Kidan of SunCruz Casinos, owner of a fleet of Florida gambling boats. Ney twice placed comments in the Congressional Record about SunCruz, first criticizing its former owner when Abramoff and Kidan were in difficult purchase negotiations and then, in October, praising Kidan's new management. Abramoff and Kidan are facing trial in January on charges of defrauding lenders in their purchase of the casino boats.

The statute of limitations may also soon run out on a 2001 Super Bowl trip sponsored by SunCruz that sources said investigators have reviewed. The Washington Post reported earlier this year that aides to Burns and DeLay were ferried to Tampa on a SunCruz corporate jet arranged by Abramoff. Ney and his sons were invited to the 2001 Super Bowl outing, former Abramoff associates said, but did not go.

The Hill aides were treated to the game and a night of gambling on a Sun Cruz ship. They were offered $500 in gambling chips, sources knowledgeable about the trip said.

The Post has reported that Burns, who received $137,000 in contributions from Abramoff lobbyists and their tribal clients, obtained a controversial $3 million school construction grant for one of Abramoff's wealthy tribal clients after pressuring the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Investigators are also gathering information about Abramoff's hiring of several congressional wives, sources said, as well as his referral of clients to Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying and consulting firm run by former senior aides to DeLay. Financial disclosure forms show that the firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, from 1998 to 2002.

Former Abramoff lobbying associates have said that Abramoff shared some of his high-paying clients with the group, including Malaysian interests, the Mississippi Choctaw Indian tribe and online gambling firms. Federal investigators have questioned some former Abramoff associates about whether those referrals were related to Christine DeLay's employment there, sources said.

Alexander Strategy Group is run by former DeLay senior staffers Edwin A. Buckham and Tony C. Rudy. Rudy served as DeLay's deputy chief of staff until 2001, when he took a job with Abramoff, and later moved on to join Buckham.

Investigators are looking into whether Rudy aided Abramoff's lobbying clients while he was working on the Hill, the sources said, and are reviewing payments from Abramoff clients and associates to Liberty Consulting, a political firm founded by Rudy's wife, Lisa. The Washington Post reported last month that Rudy, while on DeLay's staff, helped scuttle a bill opposed by eLottery Inc., an Abramoff client, and that Abramoff had eLottery pay a foundation to hire Liberty Consulting.

Richard Cullen, an attorney for the DeLays, said Christine DeLay was hired by Buckham, an old family friend, to determine the favorite charity of every member of Congress. She was paid $3,200 to $3,400 a month for three years, or about $115,000 total, he said.

"It wasn't like she did this 9 to 5, but it was an ongoing project," Cullen said. He said Christine DeLay's work was commensurate with the project and had nothing to do with her husband or any official congressional business. "This was something that she found to be very interesting, very challenging and very worthwhile," Cullen said.

Rudy and Buckham and their attorneys did not return calls seeking comment.

Abramoff's connections to Doolittle are also of interest to investigators, sources said. Doolittle's former chief of staff, Kevin A. Ring, went to work with Abramoff. Doolittle's wife, Julie, owned a consulting firm that was hired by Abramoff and his firm, Greenberg Traurig, to do fundraising for a charity he founded. Two sources close to the investigation said that Ring, while working for Abramoff, was an intermediary in the hiring of Julie Doolittle's firm, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions Inc., which last year received a subpoena from the grand jury investigating Abramoff.

Julie Doolittle's attorney, William L. Stauffer Jr., said Sierra Dominion Financial was hired by Greenberg Traurig to provide "event planning, marketing and related services, as requested by Mr. Abramoff" for Abramoff's Capital Athletic Foundation and his Signatures restaurant. Sierra Dominion received a monthly retainer from Greenberg Traurig from January 2003 until February 2004, at a rate similar to that paid by other Sierra Dominion clients, Stauffer said.

Abramoff frequently used the athletic foundation as a pass-through organization to run lobbying efforts and to pay for expenses, records show. Julie Doolittle was hired to put on a fundraiser for the foundation at the International Spy Museum, but the event was canceled because it had been scheduled to take place just at the Iraq war was commencing, Stauffer said.

"Sierra Dominion primarily performed public relations and other event planning services for the Spy Museum event," Stauffer said in an e-mail reply to questions. "This included responding to all individuals calling the Capital Athletic Foundation concerning the Spy Museum event, identifying (and contacting) possible attendees for the event, and assisting in fund raising strategy and letters."

Doolittle's office denied any connection between the firm's work and official acts.

"In no way did Sierra Dominion's business services work for Greenberg Traurig have any relationship to Congressman Doolittle's official duties as a member of the House of Representatives," said Doolittle spokeswoman Laura Blackmann.

"Congressman Doolittle has never received a subpoena regarding this matter, nor has he ever been contacted by the Justice Department to provide information or be questioned," she said.

The Justice Department investigation is also looking into Abramoff's influence among executive branch officials. Sources said prosecutors are continuing to seek information about Abramoff's dealings with then-Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles, including a job offer from the lobbyist at a time when he was seeking department actions on behalf of his tribal clients.

The former top procurement official in the Bush administration, David H. Safavian, has already been charged with lying and obstruction of justice in connection with the Abramoff investigation. Safavian, who traveled to Scotland with Ney on a golf outing arranged by Abramoff, is accused of concealing from federal investigators that Abramoff was seeking to do business with the General Services Administration at the time of the golf trip. Safavian was then GSA chief of staff.


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

Time for An Iraq Timetable

By Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The question most Americans want answered about Iraq is this: When will our troops come home?

We already know the likely answer. In 2006, they will begin to leave in large numbers. By the end of the year, we will have redeployed about 50,000. In 2007, a significant number of the remaining 100,000 will follow. A small force will stay behind -- in Iraq or across the border -- to strike at any concentration of terrorists.

That is because we cannot sustain 150,000 Americans in Iraq without extending deployment times, sending soldiers on fourth and fifth tours, or mobilizing the National Guard. Even if we could, our large military presence -- while still the only guarantor against a total breakdown -- is increasingly counterproductive. A liberation has become an occupation.

There is another critical question: As our soldiers redeploy, will our security interests in Iraq remain intact or will we have traded a dictator for chaos?

There is a broad consensus on what must be done to preserve our interests. Recently, 79 Democratic and Republican senators told President Bush we need a detailed, public plan for Iraq, with specific goals and a timetable for achieving each one.

Over the next six months, we must forge a sustainable political compromise between Iraqi factions, strengthen the Iraqi government and bolster reconstruction efforts, and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces.

First, we need to build political consensus, starting with the constitution. Sunnis must accept that they no longer rule Iraq. But unless Shiites and Kurds give them a stake in the new deal, they will continue to resist. We must help produce a constitution that will unite Iraq, not divide it.

Iraq's neighbors and the international community have a huge stake in the country's future. The president should initiate a regional strategy -- as he did in Afghanistan -- to leverage the influence of neighboring countries. And he should establish a Contact Group of the world's major powers -- as we did in the Balkans -- to become the Iraqi government's primary international interlocutor.

Second, we must build Iraq's governing capacity and overhaul the reconstruction program. Iraq's ministries are barely functional. Sewage in the streets, unsafe drinking water and a lack of electricity are all too common. With 40 percent unemployment in Iraq, insurgents do not lack for fresh recruits.

We need a civilian commitment equal to our military effort. Just as military personnel are required to go to Iraq, the president should identify more skilled foreign service officers to help.

This should not be their burden alone. Britain proposed that individual countries adopt ministries. It's a good idea that we should pursue. We must redirect reconstruction contracts away from multinationals and to Iraqis.

Countries that have pledged aid must deliver it. So far, only $3 billion of the $13.5 billion in non-American aid has made it to Iraq. And the president should convene a conference of our Gulf allies. They have reaped huge windfall oil profits -- it's time they gave back.

The third goal is to transfer authority to Iraqi security forces. In September, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. acknowledged that only one Iraqi battalion -- fewer than 1,000 troops -- can fight without U.S. help. An additional 40 can lead counterinsurgency operations with our support.

The president must set a schedule for getting Iraqi forces trained to the point that they can act on their own or take the lead with U.S. help. We should take up other countries on their offers to do more training, especially of officers. We should focus on getting the security ministries up to speed. Even well-trained troops need to be equipped, sustained and directed.

We also need an effective counterinsurgency strategy. The administration finally understands the need not only to clear territory but also to hold and build on it. We have never had enough U.S. troops to do that. Now there is no choice but to gamble on the Iraqis. We can help by changing the mix of our forces to include more embedded trainers, civil affairs units and Special Forces.

Iraqis of all sects want to live in a stable country. Iraq's neighbors don't want a civil war next door. The major powers don't want a terrorist haven in the heart of the Middle East. The American people want us to succeed.

If the administration shows it has a blueprint for protecting our fundamental security interests in Iraq, Americans will support it.

The writer is a senator from Delaware and the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113...ys_free_feature

Federal Influence-Peddling Inquiry
Casts Wider Net

Four Lawmakers' Dealings
With Lobbyist Are Studied;
Low Threshold for Bribery?
By BRODY MULLINS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 25, 2005; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- A Justice Department investigation into possible influence-peddling by prominent Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is examining his dealings with four lawmakers, more than a dozen current and former congressional aides and two former Bush administration officials, according to lawyers and others involved in the case.

Investigators want to know whether Mr. Abramoff and his lobbying firm partners made illegal payoffs to lawmakers and aides in the form of campaign contributions, sports tickets, meals, travel and job offers, in exchange for helping their clients.


The Justice Department's probe is far broader than previously thought. Though it remains smaller than the congressional influence-peddling scandals of the 1970s, its focus on prominent Republicans raises the risk of serious embarrassment to the party before next year's congressional elections. Those involved in Mr. Abramoff's case say that the Justice Department investigation could take years to complete.

Prosecutors in the department's public integrity and fraud divisions -- separate units that report to the assistant attorney general for the criminal division -- are looking into Mr. Abramoff's interactions with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, Rep. Bob Ney (R., Ohio), Rep. John Doolittle (R., Calif.) and Sen. Conrad Burns (R., Mont.), according to several people close to the investigation. Messrs. DeLay and Ney have retained criminal defense lawyers. Spokespeople for Messrs. Doolittle and Burns said they haven't hired lawyers.

"We have not been contacted by the Justice Department," said J.P. Pendleton, a spokesman for Mr. Burns. "We are more than happy to help out in any investigation should we be asked."

Mr. Doolittle's spokeswoman said the lawmaker hasn't been contacted by the Justice Department. Prosecutors often contact the subjects of investigations only after gathering significant information from others. The spokeswoman added that any suggestion that Mr. Doolittle "may have had some improper involvement in matters recently disclosed about Mr. Abramoff and others comes as a complete surprise and is simply ridiculous."


Prosecutors also are investigating at least 17 current and former congressional aides, about half of whom later took lobbying jobs with Mr. Abramoff, say lawyers and others involved in the case. Five of the former aides worked for Mr. DeLay, including Tony Rudy, Ed Buckham and Susan Hirschmann. The three were top aides to Mr. DeLay and are now Washington lobbyists. None returned calls or emails seeking comment.

Until this week, prosecutors seemed to be focused primarily on whether Mr. Abramoff and his partner, Michael Scanlon, had bilked a half-dozen Native American tribes out of $80 million over four years. But a plea agreement made public Monday between prosecutors and Mr. Scanlon, and interviews with individuals and lawyers close to the investigation, show that the Justice Department is pursuing a much broader influence-peddling and bribery case.

Mr. Scanlon pleaded guilty to a single bribery charge, admitting that he and Mr. Abramoff "engaged in a course of conduct through which one or both of them offered and provided things of value to public officials in exchange for a series of official acts," according to his plea agreement.

Mr. Scanlon said that beginning in January 2000 he and Mr. Abramoff offered Mr. Ney, a close ally of the House Republican leadership, meals, sports tickets, political contributions and a golfing trip to Scotland in exchange for a series of "official acts" that helped Mr. Abramoff and his clients.

The plea agreement, which refers to Mr. Abramoff as "Lobbyist A" and Mr. Ney as "Representative #1," states that the congressman put two statements in the House's official record in 2000 supporting one of Mr. Abramoff's business ventures. In June 2002, the lawmaker attempted to help Mr. Abramoff by trying to approve legislation that would have helped one of Mr. Abramoff's Indian-tribe clients win a license to operate a casino, according to the plea. That effort failed, and Mr. Ney says that he was duped by Mr. Abramoff.

Stephen Braga, a lawyer for Mr. Scanlon, wouldn't comment on targets of the Justice Department investigation. But he said that the "investigation is much broader -- and Mr. Scanlon's cooperation in it will be much more extensive than the 'Lobbyist A' and 'Representative #1' facts recited in the plea agreement papers." A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.

Mr. Burns, the Montana congressman, helped one of Mr. Abramoff's clients -- the Saginaw Chippewa tribe in Michigan -- win a $3 million grant from Congress. Mr. Burns was the chairman of a key Senate subcommittee that allocated the funds to the tribe.

Mr. Burns has accepted $150,000 in political contributions from Mr. Abramoff, his lobbying partners and his clients since 2001. Three Burns aides later were hired by Mr. Abramoff. Mr. Burns has said in the past that he included the grant funds in the spending bill at the request of senators from Michigan.

It isn't clear what involvement, if any, Mr. Doolittle had with Mr. Abramoff. The Justice Department subpoenaed documents more than a year ago from Mr. Doolittle's wife, a Republican fund-raiser. Mr. Abramoff also hired Kevin Ring, a top Doolittle aide. Mr. Ring declined to comment. It is unclear whether he or Mr. Doolittle are targets of the investigation.

The Justice Department also is looking into Mr. Abramoff's dealings with Steven Griles, a former deputy secretary at the Interior Department, and David Safavian, a former head of the government's procurement office, according to lawyers and others close to the investigation. Mr. Safavian was arrested earlier this year and accused of lying about his participation in a golf trip to Scotland with Mr. Abramoff. Mr. Safavian's lawyer has said that her client isn't guilty and that his prosecution is an attempt at guilt by association.

Mr. Griles recently testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that Mr. Abramoff had offered him a job in 2003, and that he had reported the offer to department officials. An attorney for Mr. Griles declined to comment on the investigation.

Mr. Abramoff hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing by the Justice Department. Earlier this year, he was indicted in Florida on fraud charges for his role in purchasing a fleet of casino boats that later went into bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Abramoff was accused of falsifying financial information in order to secure the financing needed for the purchase. As part of his plea deal, Mr. Scanlon also agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in the Florida case, the Associated Press reported.

Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues represented more than two dozen clients, ranging from his two wealthy Indian tribes -- the Saginaw Chippewas in Michigan and the Mississippi Band of Choctaws -- to major U.S. corporations, such as Tyco International Ltd. and Unisys Corp. During his decade as a Washington lobbyist, Mr. Abramoff made a name for himself as a lobbyist in the gambling industry. Most of the tribes that he represented owned casinos that generated millions of dollars a year. He typically was hired to prevent rival Indian tribes from getting government permission to open up casinos that would have competed with the gambling operations run by his clients. He also represented several online gaming operations that do business in the U.S. and offshore.

It had been widely assumed in Washington that prosecutors were scrutinizing Mr. DeLay's dealings with Mr. Abramoff, who were longtime political allies. Mr. Abramoff took Mr. DeLay and several of his then aides on an expensive golf trip to Scotland several years ago. Mr. DeLay stepped down as House majority leader two month ago after he was indicted in Texas on unrelated campaign-finance charges.

Mr. Scanlon's guilty plea suggests that prosecutors may be setting a low threshold for bringing bribery charges. Mr. Scanlon pleaded guilty to bribing Mr. Ney by contributing just $4,000 to his campaign account in 2000 and an additional $10,000 to a separate Republican campaign fund. Prosecutors told Mr. Scanlon that if he made the contributions in exchange for some action or public statement by Mr. Ney, the donations amounted to bribery. That argument put pressure on Mr. Scanlon to plead guilty.

Despite the surge in donor-financed campaign spending, the Justice Department, at least in the past 30 years, hasn't charged a lobbyist with bribery based on political contributions. The Justice Department won't discuss its tactics, but Washington lobbyists are watching closely. If it were to use a similar standard for other prosecutions, it might be easier for the Justice Department to bring cases against Mr. Abramoff and his lobbying partners.

A Justice Department argument that political contributions are akin to bribery if the lobbyist is looking for something in return would force a big change in the way lobbyists ply their trade. Registered lobbyists have contributed $6 million in political donations in the first nine months of this nonelection year. Last year, lobbyists contributed $24 million to candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

In the 1970s, Congress was shaken by two influence-peddling scandals -- Koreagate, in which dozens of congressmen were found to have taken money from South Korean lobbyist Tongsun Park and one congressman went to prison, and Abscam, in which one senator and four congressmen were convicted of accepting bribes from Federal Bureau of Investigation operatives posing as Arab sheiks.

Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com

SPECTER PROPOSES INCREASE IN ALIENS
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
-----------------------------------------------------------
A draft immigration bill from Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter calls for dramatic increases in legal immigration, far beyond any of the other major proposals now before Congress.

Immigration and border security have become the hottest issues in Washington, with senators and members of Congress filing bill after bill to address them. The Senate is preparing for a major debate early next year on an overhaul, including creating a new flow of foreign workers like that contained in the bill by Mr. Specter, Pennsylvania Republican.

The House, meanwhile, is pushing toward a vote this year specifically on border and immigration enforcement.

"What we want to do is go home saying we've taken a first step, and it's not just at the hearing level, and we've voted on something," said Rep. Jack Kingston, Georgia Republican and vice chairman of the House Republican Conference.

The two approaches underscore the difficulty Congress will have in putting together a bill for President Bush to sign, especially when, Mr. Kingston said, the politics of immigration have now joined "race, guns, school prayer, religion and Social Security" as the most volatile issues of American politics.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Specter might be able to control flow of the debate in the Senate with his bill. His measure combines provisions from several of his colleagues' bills, including requiring illegal aliens to return home, but only for a short period of time before being let back into the United States on a path to citizenship.

His biggest addition, though, is the increase in green card totals, or legal immigration.

A review by NumbersUSA, which advocates lower immigration levels, found that the level of legal, permanent immigration could double from its current level of more than 900,000 in fiscal 2004.

Rosemary Jenks, the group's director of government affairs, said Mr. Specter increases the cap on family-preference immigrants by 254,000 a year, raises the cap on employment-based visas by 150,000 a year, "recaptures" unused visas and exempts hundreds of thousands of family members from caps as well.

"My best estimate is more than doubled, so another million a year," she said.

A brief analysis by Michael M. Hethmon, a lawyer at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, also showed big increases.

"In terms of mass immigration, they decided the 'something-for-everybody' approach would work," he said.

Mr. Specter's goal in putting out a bill was to jump-start the argument and assert his committee's jurisdiction over the issue. In a letter accompanying his draft, he said he does "not necessarily endorse every provision included."

In the House, meanwhile, dozens of bills have been filed targeting the current flow of illegal aliens. The House also seems more willing to take up the thorny issue of targeting employers who hire illegal aliens.

Mr. Kingston said farmers in his district are torn because they don't want to hire illegal aliens but they feel they have to in order to compete with other farmers who hire them.

"If people can escape from a maximum security prison, they darn sure can get into the U.S.A.," Mr. Kingston said. "The question is why are they getting in. They're getting in because they want a job, and what you have to do is dry up that source."

The House Homeland Security Committee has approved a bill that would boost personnel and end "catch-and-release," the policy of allowing non-Mexican illegal aliens to go free in the hope they return for a deportation hearing. The bill also expands expedited removal, which should reduce the time needed to send those aliens home.

Among the other House measures introduced are bills to end birthright citizenship, which grants children of illegal aliens automatic citizenship; to build a barrier system along the border -- either with a fence, or technology, or a combination of the two; to allow local law enforcement to detain illegal aliens for immigration violations and force federal authorities to pick up the aliens; and to increase penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...13236-1437r.htm

Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/26/politics...agewanted=print
Republicans Are Deeply Split Over How to Apportion New Tax Cuts
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 - Republicans of all stripes want to cut taxes, but rarely have they been in so much disarray about whose to cut.

If House Republicans and President Bush have their way, more than half of tax reductions over the next five years will go to the top 1 percent of households, those with average incomes of $1.1 million.

House leaders are pushing a $63-billion tax-cutting package that would extend President Bush's tax cut on stock dividends, protect oil companies from a windfall profits tax and shield people caught using illegal tax shelters.

The Republican-controlled Senate, by contrast, has passed a bill that would cut taxes by $59 billion but ignore Mr. Bush's top priority, and that contains two other provisions that have provoked his wrath.

The Senate bill omits an extension of Mr. Bush's tax cuts for stock dividends and capital gains, which are to expire at the end of 2008.

Instead, almost half of the bill is devoted to shielding middle-income and upper-income families from the alternative minimum tax.

The Senate bill has also proposed two revenue-raising measures that Mr. Bush has threatened to veto: a one-year, $5-billion tax on major oil companies and a provision that would make it easier to impose steep penalties on people caught using illegal tax shelters.

The impact of the two bills would be wildly different. According to calculations by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group, about 51 percent of the tax cuts in the House bill would go to the top 1 percent of income earners.

The Senate bill favors upper-income families, but not nearly as much: only about 12 percent of the benefits would go to the top 1 percent of earners.

The enormous gulf reflects more than just Republican disarray. With budget deficits likely to widen again next year, even as Congress cuts money for programs like Medicaid and child support, Mr. Bush and his allies have to choose between warring constituencies.

Business groups are demanding that Congress extend tens of billions of dollars' worth of tax breaks and create new ones. Mr. Bush wants to lock in his legacy, even though his tax cuts do not expire for another three years. And millions of affluent families, especially those with two or more children, want to avoid the alternative minimum tax, which excludes tax breaks for dependents.

"The great middle of America is underrepresented in Congress," said Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, who is critical of the House tax bill. "The leadership will insist that a compromise be established. But what that final product is, I have no idea."

Even staunch supporters of Mr. Bush's agenda are torn.

"We're not going to be left out in the cold," vowed Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, a New York Republican whose affluent district in the Rochester area is packed with families who could be battered by the alternative minimum tax. "There is going to be a lot of negotiation."

The budget problems have amplified Republican difficulties. Staunch fiscal conservatives, seeking to attack the budget deficit, forced Republican moderates to vote for politically painful cuts in Medicaid, student loans and child-support enforcement.

But Republican moderates are now balking at tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the very rich.

Democratic lawmakers, hoping to exploit Republican uncertainty, have remained unusually unified and were almost jubilant when Mr. Bush threatened to veto the Senate tax bill because of the tax on oil companies.

"It just shows you how outside the mainstream they are," said Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, a senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. "What they should be threatening is to veto a cut in child-support funds, cuts in student loans or cuts in funds for child health care."

Republican leaders betrayed their own anxiety, postponing a vote on the House tax bill just before Congress's Thanksgiving break.

"It could be harder to get through the House than the Senate," said Representative Devin Nunes, a California Republican on the tax-writing committee. "What we decided to do is let people go back and think. We said, let's wait and make sure all the members are comfortable."

But there is no comfortable way for Republicans to deal with the budget math that confronts them.

Permanently extending Mr. Bush's tax cuts would cost about $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office says.

Republican leaders already scaled back their ambitions months ago, and are trying to pass only about $70 billion in tax cuts for the next five years.

Simply extending Mr. Bush's tax cut on stock dividends for two years, as the House bill would do, would cost $22 billion. Preventing an automatic expansion next year of the alternative minimum tax, which would mean a surprise tax increase for about 15 million households, would cost about $27 billion.

The alternative tax was created in 1969 as a way to prevent millionaires from using too many deductions. But it is now engulfing millions of additional homes every year, partly because it is not adjusted for inflation and even more because of the way it interacts with Mr. Bush's tax cuts.

The alternative minimum tax's impact is heaviest on families with many children, because it excludes tax breaks for dependents, and for people who pay high property taxes and state income taxes.

The Bush administration estimates that, if nothing is changed, the number of families that face the tax will jump to 18 million in 1006 from 3 million this year.

More than one-third of all families with incomes below $100,000 would face the tax next year, according to the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy Center. Among married couples with two or more children, 73 percent of those earning less than $100,000 would be hit.

Senate Republican leaders, bowing to moderates in their party, decided to drop Mr. Bush's tax extension and focus on the more immediate impact of the alternative minimum tax. They also included $7 billion in tax cuts for Gulf Coast areas struck by Hurricane Katrina.

House leaders decided exactly the opposite. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Bill Thomas of California, has told Republican lawmakers that he will take up the alternative minimum tax next year as part of a broader tax overhaul.

But prospects for a sweeping tax overhaul next year are almost zero, most analysts say, because it would prompt too much opposition from entrenched interest groups in an election year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Mass. Democrats Emerge As Iraq War Critics By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer

Three years ago, Massachusetts Reps. Martin Meehan, Stephen Lynch and Edward Markey bucked their state Democratic colleagues and cast votes to give President Bush a green light to go to war in Iraq.

Since then, the three have renounced their votes and emerged as critics of the way Bush has handled the war.

Unlike the dramatic public change of heart by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a decorated Marine veteran who served in Korea and Vietnam, the three congressmen said they began gradually re-evaluating their views soon after the U.S.-led invasion, when no weapons of mass destruction were found.

"The war was based on the false premise that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons program," said Markey, who accused the administration of "manipulating facts."

They are not the first to express regret about their pro-war votes. Several members of Congress, including Reps. Walter Jones, R-N.C., and Robert Wexler, D-Fla., have had changes of heart about Iraq.

But for Meehan, Lynch and Markey, the shift has paid political dividends, helping them mend fences with top state Democratic leaders such as Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), and anti-war liberals who are active in the party ranks.

"I'd say that we have been the most vocal state delegation in the entire country in criticizing the president's handling of the war in Iraq," said Meehan, an early advocate of a phased troop withdrawal.

As Bush's popularity slumps, public support for the war crumbles and U.S. casualties mount, Democrats nationwide are stepping up their attacks on the president and pressing for a clearer exit strategy.

"There's been a rift in the Democratic Party about Iraq from the beginning," said Amy Walter, a congressional expert for the Washington-based Cook Political Report. "As the American public changes its views, it makes it easier for these guys (to change)."

Meehan, Lynch and Markey were among 126 House Democrats who voted for the Iraq war measure one year after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Their seven Massachusetts House colleagues opposed the resolution, which passed by a vote of 296-133.

Their votes put them at odds with Kennedy, the state's senior Democrat and one of the party's leading anti-war voices. The votes also rankled many liberal activists.

Such core support is vital for Democrats seeking to run statewide. Meehan, Lynch and Markey, who were seen as potential Senate candidates when John Kerry ran for president in 2004 and the prospect of an open seat arose, are all considered politically ambitious.

"For those contemplating a presidential effort, this helps to get out in front of that issue three years before the first primaries, so they are on record and not waiting until the primaries to change," said Earl Black, a Rice University political scientist. "That goes for others who are not running for president as well."

Back home, the three congressmen drew flak at times for their pro-war votes. Massachusetts is home to an active network of peace groups who have held several protests and vigils denouncing the war. Howard Dean's rise during the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries also stoked anti-war sentiment across the state. One Boston Common anti-war rally in fall 2002 drew an estimated 15,000 people.

Since none of the three faced major re-election challenges, they had a freer hand than most lawmakers to alter their views on the war.




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...rmdicks25m.html
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly said Norm Dicks is a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Dicks is no longer a member of that committee, although he participated in various intelligence briefings about Iraq.

Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake
By Alicia Mundy

Seattle Times Washington bureau

Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.

JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003

U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.

WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.

Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and "peaceniks" who protested the Vietnam War and "did terrible things to troop morale."

The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.

Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: "Cowards cut and run; Marines never do."

During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.

"There was a lot of anger back there," Dicks said in an interview this week. "It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here."

Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.

And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.

Voted to back Bush

In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.

Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.

After visiting Iraq early in the war, "Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops," Murtha said in an interview this week.

Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.

While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, "He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further."

"The insurgency has gotten worse and worse," he said. "That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake."

Dicks, a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.

Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would "absolutely not" have voted for the war.

The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.

But Dicks says the intelligence was "doctored." And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.

"A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs," he said.

He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.

"Norm ... has agonized"

"All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized," Murtha said this week.

Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.

In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.

"Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon," Dicks said at the time.

By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.

"We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed," he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. "There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined."

By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. "I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened," he said at the time.

That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.

Growing doubts

On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.

Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.

"That Joe Wilson article was very troubling," Dicks said.

Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.

"Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me," McDermott said recently. "This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe" about prewar intelligence.

The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.

Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.

The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.

Dicks said he told the White House that "their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard."

The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.

Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. "We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole," he said.

But he added, "We can't take forever."

Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.

"I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't."

Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27208262.htm

Republican senator urges Bush to explain Iraq war
27 Nov 2005 18:00:46 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Jackie Frank

WASHINGTON, Nov 27 (Reuters) - The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee urged President George W. Bush on Sunday to go before the American public to explain his plan for the war in Iraq.

Virginia Sen. John Warner told NBC's "Meet the Press," said such a public address would be helpful to hold on to public support during the next six months while Iraq sets up its own government and gains the ability to maintain its security.

Bush, who has been out of public sight since he arrived on Nov. 22 at his Crawford, Texas ranch for a Thanksgiving break, has been facing waning support for the war and the lowest job approval ratings of his presidency.

"I think it would be to Bush's advantage. It would bring him closer to the people, dispel some of the concern that, understandably, our people have about the loss of life and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public," Warner said.

"We have got to stay firm for the next six months. It is a critical period ... in this Iraqi situation, to restore full sovereignty in that country. And that enables them to have their own armed forces to maintain that sovereignty," he said.

Bush is to speak on immigration in Arizona on Monday and then will return to Washington on Tuesday and give a speech about the war on terror at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis on Wednesday.

Anti-war protesters, including Cindy Sheehan whose son died in Iraq last year and who became an icon for the peace movement after her 26-day vigil near Bush's ranch in the summer, gathered in the tiny central Texas town again, although in much smaller numbers. They vowed to come to Crawford every time Bush visits his ranch.

Warner was one of the authors of a Senate-passed resolution that called for Iraqis to start taking the lead in their own security next year to allow a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.

CRITICAL SIX MONTHS

While the Senate rejected a Democrats' demand that Bush submit a plan and an estimated timetable to withdraw, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said on NBC it would be "virtually impossible" to sustain 150,000 American troops in Iraq for the next two years.

Although Biden said he did not believe the Iraq war was lost, he added: "I think we have a six-month window here to get it right. But I have to admit that I think the chances are not a lot better than 50-50."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar, said on "Fox News Sunday" that more pressure needs to be put on the Iraqis to take responsibility for their security.

"But the fact is that we are going to try to train them to perform, and the question is how well they do so, whether they mop up on each other or whether they have a unified country," the Indiana Republican said.

Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, said the goal was to enable multinational forces to be drawn down to under 100,000 by 2007.

"Basically, we want to create the right conditions in the urban areas for the Iraqi security forces to assume the responsibility of security in these cities and towns," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."

U.S. defense officials said last week that the Pentagon plans to shrink the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, now at 155,000, to about 138,000 after the Dec. 15 Iraqi elections and is considering dropping the number to 100,000 next summer if conditions allow. However, a variety of scenarios are being reviewed, including no troop cuts, based on political and security conditions in Iraq.

(Additional reporting Leslie Wroughton in Washington and Patricia Wilson in Crawford, Texas)

http://kvoa.com/global/story.asp?s=4169121...tType=Printable

Feingold says Iraq has been a distraction

WASHINGTON Senator Russ Feingold is calling for a public timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

The Wisconsin Democrat says such a move would show the Iraqi people the U-S won't occupy the country permanently. He tells A-B-C's "This Week" that "Iraq has ended up being a real distraction." And he adds "it's actually made us weaker rather than stronger."

Feingold says the U-S needs to refocus on the fight against al-Qaida.

Meantime, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is suggesting that President Bush use an F-D-R-style presentation to update people on progress in the Iraq war.

Virginia Republican John Warner tells N-B-C's "Meet The Press" that "fireside chats" like ones President Franklin Roosevelt used during World War Two would be to Bush's advantage.

Warner says "It would bring him closer to the people" and dispel some of the concern about loss of life and the enormous cost of the war.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.







All content © Copyright 2003 - 2005 WorldNow and KVOA. All Rights Reserved.
For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=4599

U.S. Congress report warns of Iran’s meddling in Iraq Sun. 27 Nov 2005



Iran Focus

London, Nov. 27 – The United States Congressional Research Service issued a report warning of Iran’s dominating influence in neighbouring Iraq.

The report, recently posted on the website of the U.S. State Department, cited Iranian support for militant groups and Shiite political parties in Iraq.

“Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iran has showcased its growing political and economic influence over and mentorship of the Iraqi government”, it said, adding that the “thrust of Iran’s strategy in Iraq has been to engineer and perpetuate domination of Iraq’s government by pro-Iranian Shiite Islamist movements that would, in Iran’s view, likely align Iraq’s foreign policy with that of Iran”.

It identified two groups in particular of being “Iran’s Shiite Islamist protégés in Iraq” - the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the most pro-Iranian of the groups, and the Da’wa (Islamic Call) party, whose leader is current Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari.

According to the report, SCIRI controls a 20,000-strong militia called the Badr Brigades, recently renamed the Badr Organisation. “Badr fighters are playing unofficial policing roles in Basra and other Shiite cities. Those Badr members that have joined the national Iraqi police and military forces are widely said to retain their loyalties to Badr and SCIRI”.

“The Badr Brigades were formed, trained, and equipped by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, politically aligned with Iran’s hardliners, during the Iran-Iraq war”, the Congressional report said. “A related militia called the ‘Wolf Brigade’ is a Badr offshoot that is formally under the Ministry of Interior’s control. It is led by a SCIRI activist”.

The report also noted Iran’s relations with Moqtada Al Sadr, another Shiite Islamist cleric, stating, “Iran’s strategy thus far apparently has been to build ties to Sadr and attempt to persuade him to work with SCIRI, Da’wa, and Ayatollah Sistani in the political process, while tolerating — or possibly even encouraging — his occasional challenges to U.S. and British forces in southern Iraq”.

“Iran’s relationship with Iraq’s Moqtada Al Sadr is relatively new, but Iran appears to see him as a growing force in Iraqi politics, and a long term asset to Iran. … Many of the alleged Iranian weapons shipments into Iraq appear to have been destined for Sadr’s forces”.

It added that Sadr’s Mahdi Army had the potential to again come into conflict with U.S. forces, “possibly bringing Iran or its representatives into conflict with the United States as well”.

Referring to the Sunni insurgency in central and northern Iraq, it warned that Iranian support to Sunni Muslim insurgents, such as foreign volunteers commanded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, might be part of a plan by Tehran to “cause harm to the U.S. military position in Iraq”.

“Iran appears to be pursuing multiple options in Iraq. Iran is supporting the U.S.-engineered political process in Iraq because doing so favours pro-Iranian movements in Iraq, which have numeric strength and a degree of popularity. However, Iran is preserving the option of sponsoring militant activity in Iraq either to drive U.S. and allied forces out of Iraq or to raise the costs of U.S. military intervention close to Iran’s borders”.

The report summed up by saying that the “significant Iranian influence in Iraq” could enable Tehran to retaliate against the U.S. should it succeed in persuading the United Nations to impose economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic because of its nuclear program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10219754/site/newsweek/

The Vet Strategy
The public is unhappy. The GOP is on the run. The Dems have a secret weapon: Iraq war vets, deployed on a new field of battle.

Khue Bui for Newsweek

By Richard Wolffe and Jonathan Darman
Newsweek
Dec. 5, 2005 issue - A few days after last year's presidential election, Ladda (Tammy) Duckworth was piloting her helicopter north of Baghdad when she saw a ball of fire at her knees. A rocket-propelled grenade had struck her Black Hawk at its chin bubble, close to her seat. When she awoke 10 days later, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, she found she had lost her legs, but none of her desire to serve. For the next year, as she recovered from her devastating injuries, she became one of the capital's favorite troops: an inspirational war story amid the grinding violence of Iraq. She was a senator's guest at the State of the Union and a witness before a congressional hearing on health care for war casualties. As Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson put it, she was simply "a true American hero."

She could have stayed a trophy veteran. But as Major Duckworth met with Democratic members of Congress, she talked about how she viewed politics as an extension of her service. One summer's day she invited Rahm Emanuel, the Democrats' master strategist in the House of Representatives, to the hospital to meet some recovering vets from their home state of Illinois. "We were walking down the hall and you could see the incredible response to her and her leadership," Emanuel told NEWSWEEK. "She goes to see other troops to keep their spirits up." Last week Duckworth returned home to Chicago's affluent suburbs to begin what looked like an unofficial campaign for the open congressional seat now held by retiring Republican Rep. Henry Hyde. Still on active duty, Duckworth cannot declare her candidacy or talk politics to the media. But according to Democratic leaders, she's their preferred candidate.

Duckworth is part of a new breed of macho Democrats, joining eight Iraq veterans who have already announced themselves as candidates in next year's congressional elections. (The party is also reaching out to veterans of wars in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Vietnam, as well as former CIA officers and FBI agents.) These Democrats don't offer a unified strategy on how to leave Iraq. But they represent the most visible sign of the sea change in politics over the past year. The GOP has long held an advantage on questions of national security, but that lead has steadily eroded, offering Democrats a rare opening since 9/11. Recent polls show Democrats running neck and neck with Republicans on terrorism and comfortably ahead on Iraq. For all the lack of alternatives, Democrats have gained ground as public opinion has turned against the war. With relatively few competitive seats across the country, as well as a bigger campaign war chest, the GOP is still favored to retain control of the House. But Democrats believe they have found candidates who personify what voters want: real Americans (not politicians) who represent community, service and, of course, security. The vets also represent the Democrats' best hope of burying their GOP-crafted caricature as the Mommy party of John Kerry—unable to defend the country from terrorists or themselves from political attack. "A macho Democrat is someone who isn't afraid to stand up for what they believe in, to tell their story, to fight back when they're unfairly attacked," says John Lapp, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Their opponents aren't waiting for them to suit up. The White House says it doesn't matter who the candidate is: the Democrats cannot argue from a position of strength on the war given the depth of antiwar sentiment inside their base. One senior Bush aide, who declined to be named while discussing political strategy, pointed to the Democrats' dilemma when confronted with Rep. John Murtha's calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. "It took Hillary Clinton five days to respond to the Murtha statement," the aide said, suggesting that Clinton was struggling to reconcile her hawkish position on the war with the demands of the party base. "That shows the dynamic of the Democratic Party. They are always pulled to the left, the same thing John Kerry found out during the primary process." Other Republicans say the war isn't going to affect the '06 elections either way. "Local dynamics will trump everything," says Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Reynolds dismisses the Democratic veterans' strategy as "just a bunch of hoopla," saying his goal is simply to recruit the best candidates. With just one Iraq veteran on the ballot (Van Taylor, a 33-year-old former Marine who is running in the Texas district where Bush owns his ranch), the GOP has a far more modest strategy: to persuade incumbents to delay their retirement. Reynolds says they shouldn't abandon the Republican majority right now. "I tell them: stay and enjoy it," he says.

The Democrats have been here before. It was only a year ago that they pinned their hopes on Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran and outspoken war critic only to watch him collapse under friendly fire from fellow veterans. Another veteran, Gen. Wes Clark, proved that unelected soldiers aren't always ready for prime time. And two years earlier, another Vietnam hero, Max Cleland, lost his Senate seat as the White House went to war in Iraq—and Republicans declared total war on Cleland.

But that was back when the GOP was still riding high in the polls. This summer, Paul Hackett helped jump-start the Democrats' faith in soldier-politicians. After a seven-month tour of Iraq as a Marine reservist, the untested Hackett entered a special election to fill an open House seat in the conservative second district of Ohio. Combining vocal criticism of Bush's handling of the war with an attack on ethics scandals plaguing the state GOP, Hackett came within 3,500 votes of an electoral upset. (He lost to Jean Schmidt, who earned scorn this month for suggesting on the House floor that Murtha—a decorated Vietnam veteran—was a coward.) Buoyed by his near miss, Hackett decided to try again—this time for the Senate seat held by Republican Michael DeWine, up for election in '06. And Emanuel began stepping up efforts to find other veterans in the Hackett mold.

He found one in Chris Carney, who is running for a House seat in northeastern Pennsylvania. Carney is a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve, but his specialty is intel and counterterrorism. That took him inside the Bush administration as a Pentagon adviser, where he argued the case that there were links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. As a uniformed officer, Carney defended the road to war even as he began harboring concerns about its execution—the lack of troops on the ground and the absence of planning for a possible insurgency. He decided to run—as a Democrat, his lifelong affiliation—in part to reshape policy on the war, advocating a phased withdrawal with clear targets. "For every trained-up battalion of Iraqi security forces, an American battalion should get to come home," he told NEWSWEEK.

While Carney watched the war from Washington, Patrick Murphy decided to get involved in politics shortly after returning from Iraq. A lieutenant commander in the 82nd Airborne, Murphy was embarrassed by the lack of supplies and support as he helped train Iraqi security forces. If anything, Murphy—now running in Pennsylvania's eighth district northeast of Philadelphia—takes a harder line on the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq than many of his fellow vets. "To win the war on terror," he says, "we need to get the hell out of Iraq." A lifelong Democrat, he happened to vote for George W. Bush in the 2000 election. "At that time I believed the rhetoric that he was a compassionate conservative and that he wasn't going to start doing nation-building," he said.

Despite the national Democrats' faith in these candidates, the hopefuls aren't shoo-ins at home. Some face resistance from local pols who see them as arrivistes jumping ahead in the political pecking order. While the national party leaders love Hackett, the state party leans toward Sherrod Brown, a seven-term congressman; the two will do battle in the primary next spring. In Illinois, Duckworth's emergence has dismayed supporters of Christine Cegelis, a software engineer who won a respectable 44 percent against Hyde last year. And some of the Democratic vets are more conservative than their party's base on crucial issues like abortion and gun rights, let alone how and when to wind down the U.S. presence in Iraq.

But the war has taken its toll on party unity among Republicans, too—as rank-and-file members up for re-election begin edging nervously away from their embattled president. House Republicans cite poll numbers showing that voters may disapprove of Bush and Congress in general, but largely approve of their own representatives. That suggests the GOP should follow localized strategies for survival—or, in the words of one House Republican (who spoke on condition of anonymity about campaign tactics), a strategy best summed up as "Remember Me? You Like Me." In Ohio, Rep. Deborah Pryce is fighting against Democratic efforts to tie her to Bush, Iraq and the indicted former GOP House leader Tom DeLay. Pryce told one Columbus TV station she hoped voters would judge her only "on my performance and my service to them."

For his part, Bush will try once again to reshape the national debate on Iraq this week with a speech in Annapolis, Md., where he will cite a new metric of progress: the amount of territory controlled by Iraqi security forces. Bush's aides want to demonstrate advances on the ground ahead of next month's elections for a full-term Iraqi government, as well as next year's congressional elections here at home.

For many Iraq vets on the path to politics, the well-worn debate about the war—including exit strategies and the rationale for the invasion—is an emotional minefield given their concerns about their fellow troops. Tammy Duckworth, for instance, would much rather talk about veterans' issues and the need to get adequate resources to those in the field. Whether she and her fellow vets can survive the new combat zone will test something more than machismo. Politicians sent them to war. Now they must prove they can campaign—and govern—as well as they can fight.

With Holly Bailey

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

Advocacy Groups Targeting Vulnerable Senators on Alito Vote

By Michael A. Fletcher

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Fifteen foot soldiers newly recruited to the campaign to derail the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. introduced themselves at a recent meeting not only by name but also by offering their reasons for joining the cause.

Their concerns sounded a lot like an anthology of liberal talking points, bringing faint smiles to the faces of the organizers from Rhode Islanders for a Fair Judiciary, which is working to marshal opposition to Alito across the state. Abortion, gay rights, worker rights -- all are imperiled if Alito receives a lifetime appointment to the nation's high court, the volunteers said.

To prevent that from happening, these activists have joined a growing grass-roots campaign aimed at persuading the state's U.S. senators to oppose Alito. And one of those two senators is foremost in their minds: Republican Lincoln D. Chafee, who is up for reelection next year.

Coming from the small liberal wing of his party, Chafee is a supporter of abortion rights whose future is imperiled from both directions. He is facing a conservative challenge in the primary, and if he survives that he faces a general election battle in a distinctly Democratic-leaning state. Few are weighing Alito's nomination more gingerly -- and these activists know it.

This is the mirror opposite of the vulnerability that Alito's supporters are hoping to exploit in states such as Nebraska and North Dakota, which President Bush won easily last year but where Democrats hold Senate seats.

This gives activists on both sides incentives to plunge into the political trenches -- distributing postcards to be mailed to senators, writing letters to the editor, passing out literature extolling Alito's virtues or warning of the dangers he would present if elevated to the high court.

In Providence, one volunteer even offered to prowl downtown streets with a mobile phone and a script, offering passers-by a chance to call Chafee's office on the spot to register opposition to Alito.

"I know some of you might be wondering: Is this going to make a difference? It's only postcards," said Marti Rosenberg, the lead organizer here, who opposed the 1987 Supreme Court nomination of Robert H. Bork. "In the Bork fight, we got nearly 1,000 cards to Senator [John H.] Chafee, the dad. And we did beat Bork."

Backed by the money and know-how of Washington-based advocacy organizations, activists on both sides are duplicating those efforts in about 25 states. In many cases, the grass-roots campaign is being supplemented with television advertising focused on swaying swing-vote senators.

Opponents of the nomination, who are concentrating on states with moderate Republican senators or conservative Democrats, are trying to drive home the argument that Alito is a threat to long-established rights. His confirmation, they say, will put the judiciary in the hands of conservative extremists, threatening the right to abortion, crippling the power of Congress to pass anti-discrimination or gun-control laws, and resulting in more police power over individuals.

Alito's supporters, meanwhile, are trying to apply pressure to Democratic senators from more conservative states by portraying him as a brilliant and restrained jurist committed to narrowly interpreting the Constitution. Any senator who opposes him, they warn, is a captive of liberal groups outside the mainstream.

"If you are a Democratic senator from a state that the president won, the last thing you want to do is be aligned with [liberal advocate] Ralph Neas or groups like People for the American Way," said Keith Appell, a Republican strategist working with organizations supporting Alito's nomination.

Groups on both sides began mobilizing supporters hours after Bush announced Alito's nomination on Oct. 31. But the brewing battle has been largely obscured by the decorum of Alito's courtesy calls to senators, to whom he has offered reassuring words about his 15 years as an appeals court judge. The effort has earned praise from many senators, including some Democrats, who are impressed by Alito's intellect, judicial experience and professed respect for legal precedent.

But if the ritual visits to senators are mostly smiles, small talk and carefully calibrated promises to interpret the law, not make it, the street-level campaign is something else altogether. Both sides are framing their arguments in urgent and emotional words -- hoping to sway what polls suggest is substantial but hardly insurmountable sentiment for Alito to be confirmed. With a quarter to a third of Americans still uninformed or undecided, both sides are working hard to win converts.

"Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has a 15-year history of judicial decisions that are hostile to our rights," reads the opening line of a flier being circulated by anti-Alito activists here. It calls him a right-wing activist interested in undermining a positive role for government, sanctioning discrimination and "threatening our civil liberties."

Alito's supporters are hardly more nuanced in condemning the motives of opponents. "Their agenda is clear," intones an ad sponsored by a coalition of conservative groups. "They want to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and are fighting to redefine traditional marriage. They support partial-birth abortion, sanction the burning of the American flag."

Rhode Island's other senator, Jack Reed (D), voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in September and is widely assumed to take the same stance toward Alito. That leaves Chafee as the real target.

He has said that he would wait for Alito's hearings, scheduled to begin Jan. 9, before deciding how to vote. The nature of his reelection challenge makes the decision on Alito tricky. The senator's Republican primary opponent, Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey, is unabashedly conservative. The likely Democratic nominee -- either former state attorney general Sheldon Whitehouse or Rhode Island Secretary of State Matt Brown -- will be more liberal than either Republican.

Chafee "does not have an easy calculation as to how to play this," said Darrell West, a Brown University political scientist. "The problem with being in the center is you end up getting attacked by all sides."

West added that the grass-roots campaign surrounding the nomination only increases the stakes. "I think advocacy campaigns make a big difference because they put the senator on guard that people are paying attention and that this is a vote that matters," he said.

During their meeting here, the fledgling activists started making plans to bring maximum pressure to bear. "I felt like we didn't have a chance with Judge Roberts," said Brooke Huffman, 26, a youth counselor who suggested the mobile phone idea. "But with Alito, he's such an extremist, there is going to be more opposition."

Social worker Lisa Reichstein, 35, said she rarely gets deeply involved in politics. But calling the Alito nomination a special case, she promised to arrange a happy hour or other social event in hopes of drawing more people for their cause.

"I'm scared. I'm very scared," she said, explaining that she worries most about protecting abortion rights and privacy generally. "Putting Alito in there will absolutely change the balance of the court. We have to stop him."


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

Medicaid Cutbacks Divide Democrats

By Jonathan Weisman

Controversial House legislation designed to gain control of Medicaid growth has split Democrats, with lawmakers in Washington united in their opposition while Democratic governors are quietly supporting the provisions and questioning the party's reflexive denunciations.

The Medicaid provisions have become a flashpoint for the opposition of Democrats -- and some moderate Republicans -- to the $50 billion budget-cutting bill that narrowly passed the House last week. The provisions would reduce Medicaid spending by $12 billion through 2010 and $48 billion over the next decade, in part by making it difficult for more affluent seniors to transfer their assets to relatives, then plead poverty to get Medicaid to pay for them to stay in nursing homes.

But the measures would also save $2.4 billion over five years by allowing state governments to impose higher health insurance deductibles, co-payments and premiums on poor Medicaid recipients, including, for the first time, impoverished children and pregnant women. An additional $3.9 billion would be saved by relaxing mandated preventive health care and screening of children and pregnant women.

The changes would trim just 1.7 percent from a program expected to spend nearly $2.8 trillion though 2015, but the proposals have prompted bitter condemnation from congressional Democrats.

"As the number of people without health insurance has increased for four years in a row, Republicans are charging ahead with $45 billion in cuts to Medicaid -- the health insurance program that provides medical care to America's poorest children and many of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) thundered Nov. 18, just before the pre-dawn passage of the bill. "Republicans give new meaning to the words 'suffer little children.' "

What she did not say is that those changes were proposed over the summer by a bipartisan task force of governors, led by Virginia's Mark R. Warner, whose popularity in a Republican state has made him a rising star in the Democratic Party.

In fact, the most controversial provisions in the House bill were adapted almost word for word from a document drafted by Govs. Warner, Tom Vilsack (D-Iowa), Haley Barbour (R-Miss.), Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.), Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.), Jennifer M. Granholm (D-Mich.), Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho), Jim Doyle (D-Wis.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), and Edward G. Rendell (D-Pa.), said Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association.

"The House has worked very closely with us," Scheppach said. "From our standpoint, Republicans and Democrats saw this very similarly at the state level."

The split has underscored the differing interests of Democrats in Washington -- out of power and struggling to capitalize on the declining popularity of their adversaries -- and Democratic governors, who take a more pragmatic approach. For governors, the soaring costs of Medicaid threaten to swamp state financing. Already, tens of thousands of people have been thrown off the Medicaid rolls in states such as Tennessee and Missouri, and governors have warned that those cuts will grow deeper if they do not have the flexibility to trim benefits more rationally.

So where Washington Democrats hope to highlight the partisan divide, their gubernatorial counterparts outside the Beltway have emphasized pragmatism and moderation, not only in the way they have governed but in their political campaigns.

That split -- over policy and style -- could come increasingly into focus as potential presidential contenders outside Washington, such as Warner, clash with congressional contenders, such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), as they jockey for position ahead of the 2008 White House race.

For now, Democratic governors have been willing to voice their opposition to the broader budget-cutting bill, attacking provisions that cut child support enforcement, narrow eligibility for foster care and adoption assistance, and impose stricter work requirements on welfare recipients with only modest increases in child care assistance.

"The president and his friends on Capitol Hill have put together a budget that does not reflect the values of everyday Americans," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association.

But they have conspicuously steered clear of the Medicaid debate that will continue to rage into next month, as House negotiators push their Medicaid provisions in conference with a wary Senate.

Thomas S. Kahn, the Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee, said Democrats are unified on one point: Savings from changes to the Medicaid system should be used to strengthen health care for the poor, not pay for tax cut extensions that congressional Republicans hope to pass when they return in December.

"All Democrats agree strongly that cuts in Medicaid, especially those that hurt poor beneficiaries, should not be used to pay for tax cuts, especially those geared toward those at the top," Kahn said.

And gubernatorial support for the Medicaid changes may not be universal. In an Aug. 31 letter, Gov. Ted Kulongoski of Oregon implored Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) to oppose increased cost-sharing, especially for Medicaid recipients below the poverty line.

But Kahn and liberal activists acknowledged the fissure with governors is real.

The division stems in part from long-standing fears that if Washington gives states too much latitude over federal programs, some governors will go too far. Under the House bill, the $3 co-payment for Medicaid recipients below the poverty level would be allowed to rise annually with the medical inflation rate. For the first time, states would be allowed to refuse care for patients who refuse to pay.

States would also be allowed to charge co-payments, premiums or deductibles for visits to hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency care and for expensive prescription drugs not on a list of preferred medications.

What really worries liberal policy groups is a measure allowing states to impose any co-payment they want on Medicaid recipients who are above the poverty line, typically the working poor. Those fees are supposed to remain below 5 percent of beneficiaries' total incomes, but policy experts say that cap will be impossible to enforce. Most working poor will not be able to track their annual medical expenses to that degree of specificity.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that by 2015, 11 million Medicaid beneficiaries -- half of them children -- will face fees they do not face today. About 80 percent of the cost savings from the bill would come not from the premiums and co-payments but from poor people no longer seeking medical attention.

Scheppach allowed that experiences do indicate higher fees might keep some people from seeking needed health care. But, he said, Congress should trust the governors to use the proposed changes wisely.

"We think governors are going to use these measures in a positive way, steering people away from emergency to non-emergency care or getting them drugs that are more affordable," he said, adding that if nothing is done about Medicaid costs, even more people will be cut from the Medicaid rolls entirely. "These are good policies for the long run."


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politic...-bn28duke3.html

Randy 'Duke' Cunningham
Cunningham pleads guilty to conspiring to take bribes, income tax evasion

By Gregory Alan Gross, Debbi Farr Baker and Karen Kucher
UNION-TRIBUNE BREAKING NEWS TEAM

9:56 a.m. November 28, 2005

SAN DIEGO – Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday morning to conspiring to take bribes in exchange for using his influence to help a defense contractor get business.

He also pleaded guilty to one count of income tax evasion.

U.S. District Larry A. Burns scheduled Cunninghman's sentencing for Feb. 27.

Cunningham, an eight-term Republican congressman, had been under scrutiny for months for his ties to defense contractors and their officials.

Federal officials launched investigations after The San Diego Union-Tribune and Copley News Service reported in June that a defense contractor who won tens of millions of dollars in Pentagon contracts had taken a $700,000 loss after purchasing Cunningham's Del Mar house.

Cunningham sold the house for $1.675 million in November 2003, but the buyer, defense contractor Mitchell Wade, never moved in and almost immediately put it back on the market. Wade sold it 261 days later for $975,000.

Prosecutors contend the overpayment was a bribe.

The congressman, who sits on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, used the proceeds of the sale to buy a $2.55 million house in Rancho Santa Fe, which he has since put up for sale.

Cunningham, a former Navy Top Gun pilot, was first elected to Congress in 1990. The 63-year-old Republican represents a district that stretches from northern San Diego to Escondido and San Marcos and then along the coast from Carlsbad to Del Mar. He has vowed not to seek reelection and plans to retire next year, at the end of his term.

His attorney, K. Lee Blalack, said Cunningham would speak to reporters outside the downtown San Diego Federal Court building at 11:30 a.m.

Cunningham had insisted the real estate deal was independent of his efforts to help Wade win contracts. Wade's company saw its business soar over the past three years after it won an open-ended blanket-purchase agreement with the government.

Cunningham initially downplayed his friendship with Wade, saying it was no different than his relationship with other CEOs.

But then, 11 days after the story broke, Cunningham released a three-page statement to reporters in which he acknowledged he and Wade had been friends for many years and said that he had showed "poor judgment" in the real estate transaction.

As weeks passed, more revelations emerged and the FBI and a federal grand jury launched probes into Cunningham's financial dealings.

News reports revealed that Wade provided Cunningham the use of his 42-foot yacht, which was named Duke-Stir, to live aboard on the Potomac when Cunningham was in Washington. Cunningham said he paid dock fees and some maintenance costs for the boat.

It was then disclosed that Cunningham made roughly a $400,000 profit by selling a boat he lived on from 1997 to 2002 to a businessman convicted in a bid-rigging scheme.

The Long Island businessman who bought the Kelly C from Cunningham for $627,000 also said a mortgage company owned by his relatives loaned money to Cunningham for two real estate transactions. The businessman, Thomas Kontogiannis, said he paid off one of those loans as partial payment for the Kelly C purchase.

Kontogiannis said Cunningham offered to help him explore the possibility of a presidential pardon and recommended two or three lawyers to talk to, but he never pursued the pardon.

Cunningham's relationship with a second defense contractor, ADCS Inc., also came under scrutiny.

In mid-August, federal regulators seized documents from ADCS's Poway headquarters and raided company president Brent Wilkes' home. Wade formerly worked for ADCS in the Washington, D.C. area.

Like MZM, ADCS won millions of dollars worth of government contracts while making significant donations to Cunningham and other members of the defense subcommittee. ADCS, or Automated Document Conversion Systems, specializes in scanning documents so they can easily be indexed and cross-referenced.

The subcommittee repeatedly penciled in funding for projects involving the company, even though the Pentagon had not requested the money.

Since 1997, Wilkes and other ADCS insiders contributed more than $600,000to political campaigns, mostly giving funds to members of the Appropriations and Armed Services committees. Cunningham and his American Prosperity politicalaction committee received $53,500 in donations.

The Union-Tribune reported in early August that Cunningham alsorepeatedly used ADCS' corporate jet on campaign-related trips, including ahunting trip in Idaho and a golf tournament in Hawaii. House MajorityLeader Tom DeLay also flew on the jet.

Cunningham said he paid for those flights.

On July 14, Cunningham held a news conference to announce he would not seek a ninth term.

"I fully recognize that I showed poor judgment when I sold my home in DelMar to a friend who did business with the government," Cunningham told reporters. "I should have given more thought to how such a transaction might look to those who don't know me. I have spent an entire life building a reputation of integrity and trust. It pains me beyond words that I have jeopardized your trust."

Cunningham also told reporters that he planned to sell his Rancho Santa Fe house and give a portion of the profit to three local charities.

But government lawyers moved to block the sale a week later, filing a secret lawsuit that claimed Cunningham had bought the home with money obtained through bribery. Lawyers also put a notice in county property records advising potential buyers that the government intended to try to seize the property.

Cunningham's attorney went to court in early September to ask the legal warning be removed from the home, but a federal judge rejected the request. The attorney said the warning is scaring off potential buyers.

The investigation has also affected MZM, a company which has undergone major changes since the first stories broke.

MZM's business began to take off three years ago when it wasdesignated the sole contractor for certain types of Army intelligenceprograms.

Under the agreement, MZM became an exclusive contractor for the DefenseInformation Systems Agency, enabling the agency to order services from MZM. Its five-year contract with the Department of Defense was structured asan open-ended blanket-purchase agreement, with a $250 million spendinglimit.

Since 2002, MZM received $163 million in federal contracts, primarily for Pentagon programs. Much of MZM's services under the agreement involved classified work on intelligence programs for the U.S. Army.

Wade, the founder of MZM, resigned as president in late June.

In a move officials said was unrelated to the Cunningham flap, the government announced in late June it no longer would allow federal agencies to buy from MZM under the sole contractor program.

In August, MZM was sold to a private equity firm.

Cunningham's use of a third boat also came under scrutiny. The Union-Tribune and Copley News Service reported that Brent Wilkes, the Poway defense contractor whose home and offices were raided in August by federal agents, allowed Cunningham use of a 14½ -foot fiberglass boat several years ago when it was docked near Cunningham's yacht in Washington, D.C.

Critics contended it represented another example of the favors that some businessmen offered Cunningham and of his willingness to accept their offers. But Cunningham's attorney, K. Lee Blalack, said Cunningham simply accepted an offer to use the boat periodically.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thefix/200...&referrer=email

RNC Hits Senate Minority Leader at Home
The Republican National Committee is upping the ante in its offensive against Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, launching a television ad this weekend attacking the Nevada Democrat for his alleged hypocrisy on the war in Iraq.

The 60-second ad, which will run Sunday in Nevada as well as on national cable outlets, is a condensed version of a Web video the RNC debuted earlier this week. It highlights past comments made by a number of Democratic leaders -- including Reid -- that painted former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as a menace and expressed support for President Bush's military solution.

The clip of Reid is taken from a September 2002 cable television appearance in which he said: "Saddam Hussein... has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion."

The total ad buy in Nevada is just $5,000, according to Reid's office, and the commercials will run on the four local network affiliates (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News Channel) during the Sunday talk shows.

The RNC ad is the latest in a series of moves designed to demonize Reid in his home state -- the same blueprint used by Republicans last year in South Dakota against former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Earlier this year the RNC released a lengthy research document detailing Reid statements that the GOP says are out of step with his Nevada constituents. None of these small hits in and of themselves are likely to make an impression with voters but Republicans hope the totality will eventually erode his home state standing.

Reid loyalists insist the vilification effort is not working, pointing to a recent Democratic poll that showed Reid's favorability ratings in the state are as high as they have been since he became party leader following the 2004 election.

Tessa Hafen, a spokeswoman for Reid, said the GOP ad was a smokescreen to distract from offering real solutions in Iraq. "Instead of giving our troops a plan for success or answering the serious questions of the American people, they’ve decided to start up the Rove/Cheney attack machine in an effort to restore their diminishing credibility and raise their sinking poll numbers," said Hafen.

His office also points out that Reid has been and will continue to travel to bright red states to spread the Democratic message. Reid will be in Utah over the Christmas holiday and then in Idaho on Jan. 11.

Reid likely isn't going anywhere soon; he's not up for reelection until 2010 and was essentially unchallenged in his re-election race last year.

By Chris Cillizza | November 18, 2005; 02:24 PM ET | Category: Senate
Previous: The Friday Line: Ranking the '06 Gov. Races | Return to The Fix's Main Page | Next: Sunday Politics Column; Warner in New Hampshire