The Bush Family Coup:
The 9-11 attacks provided the rationale for what amounts to a Bush family coup against the Constitution
http://villagevoice.com/news/0601,mondo1,71442,6.html
===
Go To The Light:
The irony of Bush, the NSA and Gonzales whipping up a criminal investigation into who dared tell the public that they were breaking the law will be lost on far too many Americans.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11424.htm
Full Version: National News, Articles, and Commentary
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Daily National and International News > National News Archive
The Bush Legacy 2006 Is So Yesterday New York Times
FUTURE FLIGHT In recent speeches, President Bush has been indirectly addressing questions of his legacy.
BEFORE he retreated behind the fences of his ranch here to ring out a bruising year, President Bush made it clear that even with three years to go, he already regards his presidency as a big one in the sweep of American history. He insists that his real motive in conducting the war in Iraq is to democratize one of the least democratic corners of the earth. He regularly quotes Harry Truman, who rebuilt Japan and Germany while remaking American national security policy from the ground up. Several of his speeches have deliberately included Churchillian echoes about never surrendering to terrorists and achieving total victory, along with made-for-television imagery to drive home the message.
Mr. Bush, of course, is trying to give larger meaning to a war whose unpopularity dragged down his presidency last year. But at moments he often seems to also be talking directly to historians, tilting the pinball machine of presidential legacy. It may not be too early: the year 2006, many in the White House believe, will cement the story line of the Bush presidency for the ages. And there is growing acknowledgment, perhaps premature, that his standing will rise or fall with the fate of Iraq. Maybe so, but presidential legacies are complicated - a point proven by Truman himself, whose reputation has aged so well that it is almost forgotten that he left office mired in the intelligence failures, early mistakes and the ultimate muddle of the Korean War. "They have learned to love the Truman analogies in this White House because it's a reminder that legacies are built out of events that happen long after most presidents leave office, when we see things through the lens of later events and one or two ideas look like big turning points," said Richard Norton Smith, who heads the Lincoln Library in Springfield, Ill. Only in retrospect do we regard Truman's decision to integrate the armed forces as a precursor to the civil rights movement, something he did while containing Stalin and establishing NATO. These days, you can almost hear this administration struggling to find its own combination of domestic and foreign programs - Supreme Court appointments and education initiatives, tinkering with domestic liberties in the name of facing down foreign enemies - that makes the difference between an F.D.R. and a Franklin Pierce. What if Iraq in a few years is a muddle of its own, neither a great democratic success nor the battleground of a sectarian civil war? Or if it takes decades to sort out? The history of American interventions is littered with such examples. In the Philippines, victory in 1898 was followed by more than a decade of insurgency, and democracy did not begin to take full root for nearly a century. And is fighting Islamic radicalism really akin to fighting fascism and communism, as Mr. Bush insists? Even some of Mr. Bush's aides wonder if, in a few years, the battle against Al Qaeda might look more like the fight a century ago against anarchists who set off bombs and even managed to kill an American president and a host of European heads of state. Of course, those anarchists operated in a prenuclear age when only states could kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time. Mr. Bush argues, in effect, that he is the first president to reorient the country to face superempowered fanatics seeking weapons Hitler dreamed about and Stalin possessed. So he may have the raw ingredients needed: A big idea, driven by a big event, 9/11. "One thing that makes for great legacies are great crises, and we have had that," said John Lewis Gaddis, the Yale historian who just published "The Cold War: A New History" (Penguin, 2005). "But it then requires not only the right diagnosis of the problem, but a strategy that proves durable enough that it survives the end of the administration that invented it, and is picked up by subsequent administrations of either party." The prime example comes, not surprisingly, from Truman's time: containment. Over the years, with input from the likes of George Kennan, that strategy evolved to exploit the divisions behind the Iron Curtain. Mr. Gaddis said the White House is starting to do the same among the jihadist groups. "The question historians will be asking is whether the Bush people will have established a similarly durable legacy," he said. Clear victory helps a legacy, too. The Cold War took decades. As Mr. Bush's poll numbers began to fall last year, his aides clearly decided he couldn't afford the wait. So they put "victory" backdrops behind the president, and for the first time he described what victory against a shadowy enemy might look like. It comes in three stages. "We think we changed the debate," one of the designers of that strategy said in Washington recently. "But it only worked because we married it up with admitting some mistakes and that was quite a fight, because the president doesn't talk that way." To some historians, spinning the meaning of victory seems an exercise in futility. "It's ridiculous talk," John Dower, the historian who has chronicled war propaganda and written the definitive history of the American occupation of Japan. "People know what victory looks like," he said, and are unlikely to adopt the president's definitions. But what truly sets Mr. Dower off are Mr. Bush's comparisons between rebuilding Iraq and the postwar rebuilding of Japan. He and others note that Japan was religiously unified with some history of parliamentary government and a bureaucracy ready to work as soon as the conflict ended. Mr. Bush's team is already acutely aware that even if Iraq ultimately proves a success - far from a sure bet - a major part of his legacy hinges on his performance on the home front. Mr. Smith, of the Lincoln Library, argues that the president got a good start his first year, when "he changed the Republican orthodoxy on education from dismantling the Education Department to actually paying attention to the issue." With a new chief justice confirmed, and an associate justice on deck, he has a shot at reformulating the Supreme Court, though a real judicial legacy might require one or two more resignations. There is little time left for a Social Security overhaul and fundamental tax reform, the two domestic issues Mr. Bush once thought would be his. And then there is the big legacy question of how well Mr. Bush persuades the country that extraordinary times truly called for the assumption of extraordinary presidential powers. Mr. Bush argues that authorizing domestic wiretaps without warrants was part of his inherent power as commander in chief. His defenders cited Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. But as David Donald, the Lincoln biographer, notes, there was an uproar at the time. It all might be remembered differently had the war taken another turn. "A lot of people believed it wasn't necessary for Lincoln to do these things, just as a lot of people think that about Bush," he said.
Bush finally realises he must change course on Iraq Sydney Morning Herald
Bush looks to the new year with hope Xinhua
San Francisco Chronicle - Houston Chronicle - Cape Cod Times - Political Gateway - all 31 related »
FUTURE FLIGHT In recent speeches, President Bush has been indirectly addressing questions of his legacy.
BEFORE he retreated behind the fences of his ranch here to ring out a bruising year, President Bush made it clear that even with three years to go, he already regards his presidency as a big one in the sweep of American history. He insists that his real motive in conducting the war in Iraq is to democratize one of the least democratic corners of the earth. He regularly quotes Harry Truman, who rebuilt Japan and Germany while remaking American national security policy from the ground up. Several of his speeches have deliberately included Churchillian echoes about never surrendering to terrorists and achieving total victory, along with made-for-television imagery to drive home the message.
Mr. Bush, of course, is trying to give larger meaning to a war whose unpopularity dragged down his presidency last year. But at moments he often seems to also be talking directly to historians, tilting the pinball machine of presidential legacy. It may not be too early: the year 2006, many in the White House believe, will cement the story line of the Bush presidency for the ages. And there is growing acknowledgment, perhaps premature, that his standing will rise or fall with the fate of Iraq. Maybe so, but presidential legacies are complicated - a point proven by Truman himself, whose reputation has aged so well that it is almost forgotten that he left office mired in the intelligence failures, early mistakes and the ultimate muddle of the Korean War. "They have learned to love the Truman analogies in this White House because it's a reminder that legacies are built out of events that happen long after most presidents leave office, when we see things through the lens of later events and one or two ideas look like big turning points," said Richard Norton Smith, who heads the Lincoln Library in Springfield, Ill. Only in retrospect do we regard Truman's decision to integrate the armed forces as a precursor to the civil rights movement, something he did while containing Stalin and establishing NATO. These days, you can almost hear this administration struggling to find its own combination of domestic and foreign programs - Supreme Court appointments and education initiatives, tinkering with domestic liberties in the name of facing down foreign enemies - that makes the difference between an F.D.R. and a Franklin Pierce. What if Iraq in a few years is a muddle of its own, neither a great democratic success nor the battleground of a sectarian civil war? Or if it takes decades to sort out? The history of American interventions is littered with such examples. In the Philippines, victory in 1898 was followed by more than a decade of insurgency, and democracy did not begin to take full root for nearly a century. And is fighting Islamic radicalism really akin to fighting fascism and communism, as Mr. Bush insists? Even some of Mr. Bush's aides wonder if, in a few years, the battle against Al Qaeda might look more like the fight a century ago against anarchists who set off bombs and even managed to kill an American president and a host of European heads of state. Of course, those anarchists operated in a prenuclear age when only states could kill hundreds of thousands of people at a time. Mr. Bush argues, in effect, that he is the first president to reorient the country to face superempowered fanatics seeking weapons Hitler dreamed about and Stalin possessed. So he may have the raw ingredients needed: A big idea, driven by a big event, 9/11. "One thing that makes for great legacies are great crises, and we have had that," said John Lewis Gaddis, the Yale historian who just published "The Cold War: A New History" (Penguin, 2005). "But it then requires not only the right diagnosis of the problem, but a strategy that proves durable enough that it survives the end of the administration that invented it, and is picked up by subsequent administrations of either party." The prime example comes, not surprisingly, from Truman's time: containment. Over the years, with input from the likes of George Kennan, that strategy evolved to exploit the divisions behind the Iron Curtain. Mr. Gaddis said the White House is starting to do the same among the jihadist groups. "The question historians will be asking is whether the Bush people will have established a similarly durable legacy," he said. Clear victory helps a legacy, too. The Cold War took decades. As Mr. Bush's poll numbers began to fall last year, his aides clearly decided he couldn't afford the wait. So they put "victory" backdrops behind the president, and for the first time he described what victory against a shadowy enemy might look like. It comes in three stages. "We think we changed the debate," one of the designers of that strategy said in Washington recently. "But it only worked because we married it up with admitting some mistakes and that was quite a fight, because the president doesn't talk that way." To some historians, spinning the meaning of victory seems an exercise in futility. "It's ridiculous talk," John Dower, the historian who has chronicled war propaganda and written the definitive history of the American occupation of Japan. "People know what victory looks like," he said, and are unlikely to adopt the president's definitions. But what truly sets Mr. Dower off are Mr. Bush's comparisons between rebuilding Iraq and the postwar rebuilding of Japan. He and others note that Japan was religiously unified with some history of parliamentary government and a bureaucracy ready to work as soon as the conflict ended. Mr. Bush's team is already acutely aware that even if Iraq ultimately proves a success - far from a sure bet - a major part of his legacy hinges on his performance on the home front. Mr. Smith, of the Lincoln Library, argues that the president got a good start his first year, when "he changed the Republican orthodoxy on education from dismantling the Education Department to actually paying attention to the issue." With a new chief justice confirmed, and an associate justice on deck, he has a shot at reformulating the Supreme Court, though a real judicial legacy might require one or two more resignations. There is little time left for a Social Security overhaul and fundamental tax reform, the two domestic issues Mr. Bush once thought would be his. And then there is the big legacy question of how well Mr. Bush persuades the country that extraordinary times truly called for the assumption of extraordinary presidential powers. Mr. Bush argues that authorizing domestic wiretaps without warrants was part of his inherent power as commander in chief. His defenders cited Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. But as David Donald, the Lincoln biographer, notes, there was an uproar at the time. It all might be remembered differently had the war taken another turn. "A lot of people believed it wasn't necessary for Lincoln to do these things, just as a lot of people think that about Bush," he said.
Bush finally realises he must change course on Iraq Sydney Morning Herald
Bush looks to the new year with hope Xinhua
San Francisco Chronicle - Houston Chronicle - Cape Cod Times - Political Gateway - all 31 related »
Heavy Flooding Hits Northern California New York Times
A winter rainstorm caused severe flooding across Northern California on Saturday, setting off mudslides, forcing the evacuation of hundreds of people and closing roads and freeways here and in Nevada. The flooding, the worst in California's wine country in two decades, turned hundreds of dormant vineyards into small lakes and threatened to inundate tens of thousands of acres of farmland in Sonoma and Napa counties. Some stranded people had to be evacuated by helicopter. Scattered power failures were reported. In Napa, southeast of here, weather forecasters said flooding from the Napa River had reached record stages in St. Helena, where 230 residents in one community were temporarily evacuated to a high school.
Second NorCal storm may cause more problems for drenched areas San Francisco Chronicle
Northern California surveys storm damage San Jose Mercury News
Forbes - Seattle Times - Napa Valley Register - Monterey County Herald - all 865 related »
A winter rainstorm caused severe flooding across Northern California on Saturday, setting off mudslides, forcing the evacuation of hundreds of people and closing roads and freeways here and in Nevada. The flooding, the worst in California's wine country in two decades, turned hundreds of dormant vineyards into small lakes and threatened to inundate tens of thousands of acres of farmland in Sonoma and Napa counties. Some stranded people had to be evacuated by helicopter. Scattered power failures were reported. In Napa, southeast of here, weather forecasters said flooding from the Napa River had reached record stages in St. Helena, where 230 residents in one community were temporarily evacuated to a high school.
Second NorCal storm may cause more problems for drenched areas San Francisco Chronicle
Northern California surveys storm damage San Jose Mercury News
Forbes - Seattle Times - Napa Valley Register - Monterey County Herald - all 865 related »
Tropical Storm Zeta Drifts Across Atlantic Washington Post
Tropical Storm Zeta drifted west across the Atlantic on Sunday and forecasters said the storm might weaken over the day. The 27th named storm of a record-breaking hurricane season, drifted westward across the Atlantic on Sunday and forecasters said it might weaken during the day. Zeta had top sustained wind of about 50 mph, according to the National Hurricane Center. Forecasters said it was not expected to become a hurricane or threaten land.
Storm Zeta lingers over Atlantic NEWS.com.au
Tropical Storm Zeta lingers over open Atlantic Reuters AlertNet
New York Times - Henderson Gleaner - Voice of America - Slashdot - all 676 related »
Tropical Storm Zeta drifted west across the Atlantic on Sunday and forecasters said the storm might weaken over the day. The 27th named storm of a record-breaking hurricane season, drifted westward across the Atlantic on Sunday and forecasters said it might weaken during the day. Zeta had top sustained wind of about 50 mph, according to the National Hurricane Center. Forecasters said it was not expected to become a hurricane or threaten land.
Storm Zeta lingers over Atlantic NEWS.com.au
Tropical Storm Zeta lingers over open Atlantic Reuters AlertNet
New York Times - Henderson Gleaner - Voice of America - Slashdot - all 676 related »
White House to investigate contractor's Web tracking Boston Globe
Without the Bush administration knowing, an outside contractor has been using Internet tracking technologies that may be prohibited to analyze usage and traffic patterns at the White House's website, an official said yesterday. David Almacy, the White House's Internet director, promised an investigation into whether the practice is consistent with a 2003 policy from the White House's Office of Management and Budget banning the use of most such technologies at government sites. ''No one even knew it was happening," Almacy said. ''We're going to work with the contractor to ensure that it's consistent with the OMB policy." The acknowledgment came a day after the National Security Agency admitted it had erred in using banned ''cookies" at its website. Both acknowledgments followed inquiries by the Associated Press. The White House's website uses what is known as a Web bug to anonymously keep track of who is visiting and when. A Web bug is essentially a graphic image that is virtually invisible. In this case, the bug is pulled from a server maintained by the contractor, WebTrends Inc., and lets the traffic analytic company know that another person has visited a specific page on the site. Web bugs themselves are not prohibited. But when these bugs are linked to a data file known as a ''cookie" so that a site can tell whether the same person has visited again, a federal agency using them must demonstrate a ''compelling need," get a senior official's approval, and disclose such usage, said Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who helped draft the original rules. The White House's privacy policy does not specially mention cookies or Web bugs, and Almacy said approval was never sought because it was not thought to be required. He said his team was first informed of the cookie use by the AP. In any case, Almacy said, no personal information was collected, and the cookie was used only to determine whether a visitor was a new or returning user. In a statement, WebTrends said the analysis performed at the White House site is typical among organizations for improving user experience. But Swire said a similar use of cookies had prompted the federal guidelines.
Contractor Investigated for White House Site Tracking CIO Today
US to Probe Contractor's Web Tracking ABC News
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - ABC News - ABC News - Forbes - all 298 related »
Without the Bush administration knowing, an outside contractor has been using Internet tracking technologies that may be prohibited to analyze usage and traffic patterns at the White House's website, an official said yesterday. David Almacy, the White House's Internet director, promised an investigation into whether the practice is consistent with a 2003 policy from the White House's Office of Management and Budget banning the use of most such technologies at government sites. ''No one even knew it was happening," Almacy said. ''We're going to work with the contractor to ensure that it's consistent with the OMB policy." The acknowledgment came a day after the National Security Agency admitted it had erred in using banned ''cookies" at its website. Both acknowledgments followed inquiries by the Associated Press. The White House's website uses what is known as a Web bug to anonymously keep track of who is visiting and when. A Web bug is essentially a graphic image that is virtually invisible. In this case, the bug is pulled from a server maintained by the contractor, WebTrends Inc., and lets the traffic analytic company know that another person has visited a specific page on the site. Web bugs themselves are not prohibited. But when these bugs are linked to a data file known as a ''cookie" so that a site can tell whether the same person has visited again, a federal agency using them must demonstrate a ''compelling need," get a senior official's approval, and disclose such usage, said Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who helped draft the original rules. The White House's privacy policy does not specially mention cookies or Web bugs, and Almacy said approval was never sought because it was not thought to be required. He said his team was first informed of the cookie use by the AP. In any case, Almacy said, no personal information was collected, and the cookie was used only to determine whether a visitor was a new or returning user. In a statement, WebTrends said the analysis performed at the White House site is typical among organizations for improving user experience. But Swire said a similar use of cookies had prompted the federal guidelines.
Contractor Investigated for White House Site Tracking CIO Today
US to Probe Contractor's Web Tracking ABC News
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - ABC News - ABC News - Forbes - all 298 related »
Former top US justice official objected to Bush spy program New Straits Times
A former top official at the US Justice Department objected in 2004 to aspects of a US domestic spying program and refused to back it amid concerns about its legality and oversight, A US newspaper reported. A former top official at the US Justice Department objected in 2004 to aspects of a US domestic spying program and refused to back it amid concerns about its legality and oversight, A US newspaper reported.
Visiting wounded US troops who have served in Iraq at a Texas hospital, Bush on Sunday again staunchly defended the program's existence.
"It seems logical to me that if we know there's a phone number associated with Al-Qaeda and/or an Al-Qaeda affiliate, and they're making phone calls, it makes sense to find out why," Bush said. The US president also again slammed the unknown source or sources who leaked information about the undercover program to the media, saying US security may have been impaired. "The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States," Bush said. Citing anonymous officials familiar with the 2004 deliberations over the program, the Times reported that Comey's refusal to back the program led senior Bush aides Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales, who is now Attorney General himself, to make a hospital visit to then Attorney General John Ashcroft in a bid to win his backing for the program. The Times said it could not ascertain whether Ashcroft, hospitalized at the time for gallbladder surgery, gave his backing to the program or whether the White House moved ahead without his approval. Bush's 2002 order enabled the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor, without a court warrant, international telephone calls and the electronic mail of US citizens with suspected ties to Al-Qaeda. The decision on whether someone is believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda and should be monitored is sometimes left to a shift supervisor at the NSA, according to the Times. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, a top US lawmaker on judicial matters, said Sunday he would ask Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter to call senior Bush administration officials to testify before Congress during hearings later this month about the program. "I hope the White House won't hide behind saying oh, executive privilege, we can't discuss this. That's the wrong attitude," Schumer told the Fox News Sunday. He added that "the balance between security and liberty is a very delicate one." Domestic spying is a sensitive issue for many Americans who are proud of their civil liberties. Similar revelations about domestic spying led to legislation in the 1970s that allows wiretapping but requires government agencies to obtain a special court warrant for it. However, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, Bush approved the mass wiretap program under which the NSA could conduct domestic spying without a court warrant. Lawmakers plan to hold congressional hearings on the program -- which was first revealed by the Times in mid-December -- and some have questioned whether Bush has the legal authority to bypass the courts in ordering domestic wiretaps without warrants. The Justice Department announced Friday that it had launched an investigation into the leaking of the program's existence to the media. Comey left the Justice Department earlier this year and is now the general counsel of Lockheed Martin. Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported Sunday that information from the NSA's secret eavesdropping has been passed on to other government agencies, which cross-check the information with tips and data held in other databases. Information from intercepts, which typically includes records of telephone or e-mail communications would be made available by request to agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA and Department of Homeland Security. At least one of those organizations, the DIA, has used NSA information as the basis for carrying out surveillance of people in the United States suspected of posing a threat, two sources told the Post.
Top Democrat seeks wider NSA hearings International Herald Tribune
Schumer Wants to Know Motivation Behind NSA Leak FOX News
San Diego Union Tribune - Reuters - Washington Post - New York Times - all 250 related »
A former top official at the US Justice Department objected in 2004 to aspects of a US domestic spying program and refused to back it amid concerns about its legality and oversight, A US newspaper reported. A former top official at the US Justice Department objected in 2004 to aspects of a US domestic spying program and refused to back it amid concerns about its legality and oversight, A US newspaper reported.
Visiting wounded US troops who have served in Iraq at a Texas hospital, Bush on Sunday again staunchly defended the program's existence.
"It seems logical to me that if we know there's a phone number associated with Al-Qaeda and/or an Al-Qaeda affiliate, and they're making phone calls, it makes sense to find out why," Bush said. The US president also again slammed the unknown source or sources who leaked information about the undercover program to the media, saying US security may have been impaired. "The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States," Bush said. Citing anonymous officials familiar with the 2004 deliberations over the program, the Times reported that Comey's refusal to back the program led senior Bush aides Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales, who is now Attorney General himself, to make a hospital visit to then Attorney General John Ashcroft in a bid to win his backing for the program. The Times said it could not ascertain whether Ashcroft, hospitalized at the time for gallbladder surgery, gave his backing to the program or whether the White House moved ahead without his approval. Bush's 2002 order enabled the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor, without a court warrant, international telephone calls and the electronic mail of US citizens with suspected ties to Al-Qaeda. The decision on whether someone is believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda and should be monitored is sometimes left to a shift supervisor at the NSA, according to the Times. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, a top US lawmaker on judicial matters, said Sunday he would ask Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter to call senior Bush administration officials to testify before Congress during hearings later this month about the program. "I hope the White House won't hide behind saying oh, executive privilege, we can't discuss this. That's the wrong attitude," Schumer told the Fox News Sunday. He added that "the balance between security and liberty is a very delicate one." Domestic spying is a sensitive issue for many Americans who are proud of their civil liberties. Similar revelations about domestic spying led to legislation in the 1970s that allows wiretapping but requires government agencies to obtain a special court warrant for it. However, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, Bush approved the mass wiretap program under which the NSA could conduct domestic spying without a court warrant. Lawmakers plan to hold congressional hearings on the program -- which was first revealed by the Times in mid-December -- and some have questioned whether Bush has the legal authority to bypass the courts in ordering domestic wiretaps without warrants. The Justice Department announced Friday that it had launched an investigation into the leaking of the program's existence to the media. Comey left the Justice Department earlier this year and is now the general counsel of Lockheed Martin. Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported Sunday that information from the NSA's secret eavesdropping has been passed on to other government agencies, which cross-check the information with tips and data held in other databases. Information from intercepts, which typically includes records of telephone or e-mail communications would be made available by request to agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA and Department of Homeland Security. At least one of those organizations, the DIA, has used NSA information as the basis for carrying out surveillance of people in the United States suspected of posing a threat, two sources told the Post.
Top Democrat seeks wider NSA hearings International Herald Tribune
Schumer Wants to Know Motivation Behind NSA Leak FOX News
San Diego Union Tribune - Reuters - Washington Post - New York Times - all 250 related »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2, 2006
Bush Defends Spy Program and Denies Misleading Public
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Jan. 1 - President Bush continued on Sunday to defend both the legality and the necessity of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, and he denied that he misled the public last year when he insisted that any government wiretap required a court order.
"I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy's thinking, and that's what we're doing," Mr. Bush told reporters in San Antonio as he visited wounded soldiers at the Brooke Army Medical Center.
"They attacked us before, they'll attack us again if they can," he said. "And we're going to do everything we can to stop them."
Mr. Bush's strong defense of the N.S.A. program, which he authorized in 2002 to allow some domestic eavesdropping without court warrants, came as a leading Democratic lawmaker called on the administration to make available current and former high-level officials to explain the evolution of the secret program.
Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has already pledged to make hearings into the program one of his highest priorities.
In a letter to Mr. Specter on Sunday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is also on the committee, said the panel should also explore "significant concern about the legality of the program even at the very highest levels of the Department of Justice."
The New York Times reported Sunday that James B. Comey, then deputy attorney general, refused to sign on to the recertification of the program in March 2004.
That prompted two of Mr. Bush's most senior aides - Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel and now the attorney general - to make an emergency hospital visit to John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, to try to persuade him to give his authorization, as required by White House procedures for the program.
Officials with knowledge of the events said that Mr. Ashcroft also appeared reluctant to sign on to the continued use of the program, and that the Justice Department's concerns appear to have led in part to the suspension of the program for several months. After a secret audit, new protocols were put in place at the N.S.A. to better determine how the agency established the targets of its eavesdropping operations, officials have said.
Asked Sunday about internal opposition, President Bush said: "This program has been reviewed, constantly reviewed, by people throughout my administration. And it still is reviewed.
"Not only has it been reviewed by Justice Department officials, it's been reviewed by members of the United States Congress," he said. "It's a vital, necessary program."
But Mr. Schumer, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said the White House should have to explain the apparent internal dissent over the program.
"I hope the White House won't hide behind saying 'executive privilege, we can't discuss this,' " Mr. Schumer said. "That's the wrong attitude."
"A discussion, perhaps a change in the law," he said, "those are all legitimate. Unilaterally changing the law because the vice president or president thinks it's wrong, without discussing the change, that's not the American way."
But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, said on the same television program that Mr. Bush had acted within the Constitution to protect the country from another terrorist attack. Mr. McConnell said the focus now should be on identifying who disclosed the existence of the classified operation.
The Justice Department said Friday that it had opened an investigation into the disclosure of the N.S.A. program, which was first reported by The Times on Dec. 15.
Mr. McConnell said of the disclosure, "This needs to be investigated, because whoever leaked this information has done the U.S. and its national security a great disservice."
As Mr. Bush continued to defend the program in San Antonio, he was asked about a remark he made in Buffalo in 2004 at an appearance in support of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, where he discussed government wiretaps.
"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap," Mr. Bush said in Buffalo, "a wiretap requires a court order."
He added: "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
Democrats have seized on the remark, made more than two years after Mr. Bush authorized the N.S.A. to conduct wiretaps without warrants, in charging that the president had misled the public.
Asked about that charge on Sunday, Mr. Bush said: "I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the N.S.A. program.
"The N.S.A. program is a necessary program. I was elected to protect the American people from harm. And on Sept. 11, 2001, our nation was attacked. And after that day, I vowed to use all the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people, which is what I have been doing and will continue to do."
Mr. Bush also emphasized that the program was "limited" in nature and designed to intercept communications from known associates of Al Qaeda to the United States. He said several times that the eavesdropping was "limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States."
This assertion was at odds with press accounts and public statements of his senior aides, who have said the authorization for the program required one end of a communication - either incoming or outgoing - to be outside the United States. The White House, clarifying the president's remarks after his appearance, said later that either end of the communication could in fact be outside the United States.
The Times has reported that despite a prohibition on eavesdropping on phone calls or e-mail messages that are regarded as purely domestic, the N.S.A. has accidentally intercepted what are thought to be a small number of communications in which each end was on American soil, due to technical confusion over what constitutes an "international" call.
Officials also say that the N.S.A., beyond eavesdropping on up to 500 phone numbers and e-mail addresses at any one time, has conducted much larger data-mining operations on vast volumes of communication within the United States to identify possible terror suspects. To accomplish this, the agency has reached agreements with major American telecommunications companies to gain access to some of the country's biggest "switches" carrying phone and e-mail traffic into and out of the country.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
January 2, 2006
Bush Defends Spy Program and Denies Misleading Public
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Jan. 1 - President Bush continued on Sunday to defend both the legality and the necessity of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, and he denied that he misled the public last year when he insisted that any government wiretap required a court order.
"I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy's thinking, and that's what we're doing," Mr. Bush told reporters in San Antonio as he visited wounded soldiers at the Brooke Army Medical Center.
"They attacked us before, they'll attack us again if they can," he said. "And we're going to do everything we can to stop them."
Mr. Bush's strong defense of the N.S.A. program, which he authorized in 2002 to allow some domestic eavesdropping without court warrants, came as a leading Democratic lawmaker called on the administration to make available current and former high-level officials to explain the evolution of the secret program.
Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has already pledged to make hearings into the program one of his highest priorities.
In a letter to Mr. Specter on Sunday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is also on the committee, said the panel should also explore "significant concern about the legality of the program even at the very highest levels of the Department of Justice."
The New York Times reported Sunday that James B. Comey, then deputy attorney general, refused to sign on to the recertification of the program in March 2004.
That prompted two of Mr. Bush's most senior aides - Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel and now the attorney general - to make an emergency hospital visit to John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, to try to persuade him to give his authorization, as required by White House procedures for the program.
Officials with knowledge of the events said that Mr. Ashcroft also appeared reluctant to sign on to the continued use of the program, and that the Justice Department's concerns appear to have led in part to the suspension of the program for several months. After a secret audit, new protocols were put in place at the N.S.A. to better determine how the agency established the targets of its eavesdropping operations, officials have said.
Asked Sunday about internal opposition, President Bush said: "This program has been reviewed, constantly reviewed, by people throughout my administration. And it still is reviewed.
"Not only has it been reviewed by Justice Department officials, it's been reviewed by members of the United States Congress," he said. "It's a vital, necessary program."
But Mr. Schumer, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said the White House should have to explain the apparent internal dissent over the program.
"I hope the White House won't hide behind saying 'executive privilege, we can't discuss this,' " Mr. Schumer said. "That's the wrong attitude."
"A discussion, perhaps a change in the law," he said, "those are all legitimate. Unilaterally changing the law because the vice president or president thinks it's wrong, without discussing the change, that's not the American way."
But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, said on the same television program that Mr. Bush had acted within the Constitution to protect the country from another terrorist attack. Mr. McConnell said the focus now should be on identifying who disclosed the existence of the classified operation.
The Justice Department said Friday that it had opened an investigation into the disclosure of the N.S.A. program, which was first reported by The Times on Dec. 15.
Mr. McConnell said of the disclosure, "This needs to be investigated, because whoever leaked this information has done the U.S. and its national security a great disservice."
As Mr. Bush continued to defend the program in San Antonio, he was asked about a remark he made in Buffalo in 2004 at an appearance in support of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, where he discussed government wiretaps.
"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap," Mr. Bush said in Buffalo, "a wiretap requires a court order."
He added: "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
Democrats have seized on the remark, made more than two years after Mr. Bush authorized the N.S.A. to conduct wiretaps without warrants, in charging that the president had misled the public.
Asked about that charge on Sunday, Mr. Bush said: "I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the N.S.A. program.
"The N.S.A. program is a necessary program. I was elected to protect the American people from harm. And on Sept. 11, 2001, our nation was attacked. And after that day, I vowed to use all the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people, which is what I have been doing and will continue to do."
Mr. Bush also emphasized that the program was "limited" in nature and designed to intercept communications from known associates of Al Qaeda to the United States. He said several times that the eavesdropping was "limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States."
This assertion was at odds with press accounts and public statements of his senior aides, who have said the authorization for the program required one end of a communication - either incoming or outgoing - to be outside the United States. The White House, clarifying the president's remarks after his appearance, said later that either end of the communication could in fact be outside the United States.
The Times has reported that despite a prohibition on eavesdropping on phone calls or e-mail messages that are regarded as purely domestic, the N.S.A. has accidentally intercepted what are thought to be a small number of communications in which each end was on American soil, due to technical confusion over what constitutes an "international" call.
Officials also say that the N.S.A., beyond eavesdropping on up to 500 phone numbers and e-mail addresses at any one time, has conducted much larger data-mining operations on vast volumes of communication within the United States to identify possible terror suspects. To accomplish this, the agency has reached agreements with major American telecommunications companies to gain access to some of the country's biggest "switches" carrying phone and e-mail traffic into and out of the country.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2, 2006
Islamic Leaders Were Paid to Aid U.S. Propaganda
By DAVID S. CLOUD and JEFF GERTH
WASHINGTON, Jan. 1 - A Pentagon contractor that paid Iraqi newspapers to print positive articles written by American soldiers has also been compensating Sunni religious scholars in Iraq in return for assistance with its propaganda work, according to current and former employees.
The Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations company, was told early in 2005 by the Pentagon to identify religious leaders who could help produce messages that would persuade Sunnis in violence-ridden Anbar Province to participate in national elections and reject the insurgency, according to a former employee.
Since then, the company has retained three or four Sunni religious scholars to offer advice and write reports for military commanders on the content of propaganda campaigns, the former employee said. But documents and Lincoln executives say the company's ties to religious leaders and dozens of other prominent Iraqis is aimed also at enabling it to exercise influence in Iraqi communities on behalf of clients, including the military.
"We do reach out to clerics," Paige Craig, a Lincoln executive vice president, said in an interview. "We meet with local government officials and with local businessmen. We need to have relationships that are broad enough and deep enough that we can touch all the various aspects of society." He declined to discuss specific projects the company has with the military or commercial clients.
"We have on staff people who are experts in religious and cultural matters," Mr. Craig said. "We meet with a wide variety of people to get their input. Most of the people we meet with overseas don't want or need compensation, they want a dialogue."
Internal company financial records show that Lincoln spent about $144,000 on the program from May to September. It is unclear how much of this money, if any, went to the religious scholars, whose identities could not be learned. The amount is a tiny portion of the contracts, worth tens of millions, that Lincoln has received from the military for "information operations," but the effort is especially sensitive.
Sunni religious scholars are considered highly influential within the country's minority Sunni population. Sunnis form the core of the insurgency.
Each of the religious scholars underwent vetting before being brought into the program to ensure that they were not involved in the insurgency, said a former employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity because Lincoln's Pentagon contract prohibits workers from discussing their activities. The identities of the Sunni scholars have been kept secret to prevent insurgent reprisals, and they were never taken to Camp Victory, the American base outside Baghdad where Lincoln employees work with military personnel.
Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for the American military in Baghdad, declined to comment.
After the disclosure in November that the military used Lincoln to plant articles written by American troops in Iraqi newspapers, the Pentagon ordered an investigation, led by Navy Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk.
Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, said that a preliminary assessment made shortly after the military's information campaign was disclosed concluded that the Army was "operating within our authorities and the appropriate legal procedures."
Admiral Van Buskirk has finished his investigation, several Pentagon officials said, but it has not been made public.
Lincoln recently sought approval from the military to make Sunni religious leaders one of several "target audiences" of the propaganda effort in Iraq. A Lincoln plan titled "Divide and Prosper" presented in October to the Special Operations Command in Tampa, which oversees information operations, suggested that reaching religious leaders was vital for reducing Sunni support for the insurgency.
"Clerics exercise a great deal of influence over the people in their communities and oftentimes it is the religious leaders who incite people to violence and to support the insurgent cause," the company said in the proposal, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times.
In some cases, "insurgent groups may provide Sunni leaders with financial compensation in return for that cleric's loyalty and support," the proposal said, adding that religious leaders are motivated by "a need to retain patronage" and a "desire to maintain religious and moral authority."
Unlike in many other Middle Eastern countries, sermons by Iraqi imams are not subject to government control, enabling them to speak "without fear of repercussions," the document said.
The Special Operations Command said in a statement that it did not adopt the Lincoln plan, choosing another contractor's proposal instead. When the Lincoln Group was incorporated last year, using the name Iraqex, its stated purpose was to provide support services for business development, trade and investment in Iraq.
But the company soon shifted to information warfare and psychological operations, two former employees said. The company was awarded three new Pentagon contracts, worth tens of millions of dollars, they said.
Payments to the scholars were originally part of Lincoln's contract to aid the military with information warfare in Anbar Province. Known as the "Western Missions" contract, it also called for producing radio and television advertisements, Web sites, posters, and for placing advertisements and opinion articles in Iraqi publications. In October, Lincoln was awarded a new contract by the Pentagon for work in Iraq, including continued contact with Muslim scholars.
Lincoln has also turned to American scholars and political consultants for advice on the content of the propaganda campaign in Iraq, records indicate. Michael Rubin, a Middle East scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research organization, said he had reviewed materials produced by the company during two trips to Iraq within the past two years.
"I visited Camp Victory and looked over some of their proposals or products and commented on their ideas," Mr. Rubin said in an e-mailed response to questions about his links to Lincoln. "I am not nor have I been an employee of the Lincoln Group. I do not receive a salary from them."
He added: "Normally, when I travel, I receive reimbursement of expenses including a per diem and/or honorarium." But Mr. Rubin would not comment further on how much in such payments he may have received from Lincoln.
Mr. Rubin was quoted last month in The New York Times about Lincoln's work for the Pentagon placing articles in Iraqi publications: "I'm not surprised this goes on," he said, without disclosing his work for Lincoln. "Especially in an atmosphere where terrorists and insurgents - replete with oil boom cash - do the same. We need an even playing field, but cannot fight with both hands tied behind our backs."
Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad, Iraq, for this article.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
January 2, 2006
Islamic Leaders Were Paid to Aid U.S. Propaganda
By DAVID S. CLOUD and JEFF GERTH
WASHINGTON, Jan. 1 - A Pentagon contractor that paid Iraqi newspapers to print positive articles written by American soldiers has also been compensating Sunni religious scholars in Iraq in return for assistance with its propaganda work, according to current and former employees.
The Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations company, was told early in 2005 by the Pentagon to identify religious leaders who could help produce messages that would persuade Sunnis in violence-ridden Anbar Province to participate in national elections and reject the insurgency, according to a former employee.
Since then, the company has retained three or four Sunni religious scholars to offer advice and write reports for military commanders on the content of propaganda campaigns, the former employee said. But documents and Lincoln executives say the company's ties to religious leaders and dozens of other prominent Iraqis is aimed also at enabling it to exercise influence in Iraqi communities on behalf of clients, including the military.
"We do reach out to clerics," Paige Craig, a Lincoln executive vice president, said in an interview. "We meet with local government officials and with local businessmen. We need to have relationships that are broad enough and deep enough that we can touch all the various aspects of society." He declined to discuss specific projects the company has with the military or commercial clients.
"We have on staff people who are experts in religious and cultural matters," Mr. Craig said. "We meet with a wide variety of people to get their input. Most of the people we meet with overseas don't want or need compensation, they want a dialogue."
Internal company financial records show that Lincoln spent about $144,000 on the program from May to September. It is unclear how much of this money, if any, went to the religious scholars, whose identities could not be learned. The amount is a tiny portion of the contracts, worth tens of millions, that Lincoln has received from the military for "information operations," but the effort is especially sensitive.
Sunni religious scholars are considered highly influential within the country's minority Sunni population. Sunnis form the core of the insurgency.
Each of the religious scholars underwent vetting before being brought into the program to ensure that they were not involved in the insurgency, said a former employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity because Lincoln's Pentagon contract prohibits workers from discussing their activities. The identities of the Sunni scholars have been kept secret to prevent insurgent reprisals, and they were never taken to Camp Victory, the American base outside Baghdad where Lincoln employees work with military personnel.
Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for the American military in Baghdad, declined to comment.
After the disclosure in November that the military used Lincoln to plant articles written by American troops in Iraqi newspapers, the Pentagon ordered an investigation, led by Navy Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk.
Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, said that a preliminary assessment made shortly after the military's information campaign was disclosed concluded that the Army was "operating within our authorities and the appropriate legal procedures."
Admiral Van Buskirk has finished his investigation, several Pentagon officials said, but it has not been made public.
Lincoln recently sought approval from the military to make Sunni religious leaders one of several "target audiences" of the propaganda effort in Iraq. A Lincoln plan titled "Divide and Prosper" presented in October to the Special Operations Command in Tampa, which oversees information operations, suggested that reaching religious leaders was vital for reducing Sunni support for the insurgency.
"Clerics exercise a great deal of influence over the people in their communities and oftentimes it is the religious leaders who incite people to violence and to support the insurgent cause," the company said in the proposal, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times.
In some cases, "insurgent groups may provide Sunni leaders with financial compensation in return for that cleric's loyalty and support," the proposal said, adding that religious leaders are motivated by "a need to retain patronage" and a "desire to maintain religious and moral authority."
Unlike in many other Middle Eastern countries, sermons by Iraqi imams are not subject to government control, enabling them to speak "without fear of repercussions," the document said.
The Special Operations Command said in a statement that it did not adopt the Lincoln plan, choosing another contractor's proposal instead. When the Lincoln Group was incorporated last year, using the name Iraqex, its stated purpose was to provide support services for business development, trade and investment in Iraq.
But the company soon shifted to information warfare and psychological operations, two former employees said. The company was awarded three new Pentagon contracts, worth tens of millions of dollars, they said.
Payments to the scholars were originally part of Lincoln's contract to aid the military with information warfare in Anbar Province. Known as the "Western Missions" contract, it also called for producing radio and television advertisements, Web sites, posters, and for placing advertisements and opinion articles in Iraqi publications. In October, Lincoln was awarded a new contract by the Pentagon for work in Iraq, including continued contact with Muslim scholars.
Lincoln has also turned to American scholars and political consultants for advice on the content of the propaganda campaign in Iraq, records indicate. Michael Rubin, a Middle East scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research organization, said he had reviewed materials produced by the company during two trips to Iraq within the past two years.
"I visited Camp Victory and looked over some of their proposals or products and commented on their ideas," Mr. Rubin said in an e-mailed response to questions about his links to Lincoln. "I am not nor have I been an employee of the Lincoln Group. I do not receive a salary from them."
He added: "Normally, when I travel, I receive reimbursement of expenses including a per diem and/or honorarium." But Mr. Rubin would not comment further on how much in such payments he may have received from Lincoln.
Mr. Rubin was quoted last month in The New York Times about Lincoln's work for the Pentagon placing articles in Iraqi publications: "I'm not surprised this goes on," he said, without disclosing his work for Lincoln. "Especially in an atmosphere where terrorists and insurgents - replete with oil boom cash - do the same. We need an even playing field, but cannot fight with both hands tied behind our backs."
Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad, Iraq, for this article.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
New York Times
January 1, 2006
The Public Editor
Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence
By BYRON CALAME
THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency.
For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making. My queries concerned the timing of the exclusive Dec. 16 article about President Bush's secret decision in the months after 9/11 to authorize the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans in the United States.
I e-mailed a list of 28 questions to Bill Keller, the executive editor, on Dec. 19, three days after the article appeared. He promptly declined to respond to them. I then sent the same questions to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, who also declined to respond. They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future.
Despite this stonewalling, my objectives today are to assess the flawed handling of the original explanation of the article's path into print, and to offer a few thoughts on some factors that could have affected the timing of the article. My intention is to do so with special care, because my 40-plus years of newspapering leave me keenly aware that some of the toughest calls an editor can face are involved here - those related to intelligence gathering, election-time investigative articles and protection of sources. On these matters, reasonable disagreements can abound inside the newsroom.
(A word about my reporting for this column: With the top Times people involved in the final decisions refusing to talk and urging everyone else to remain silent, it seemed clear to me that chasing various editors and reporters probably would yield mostly anonymous comments that the ultimate decision-makers would not confirm or deny. So I decided not to pursue those who were not involved in the final decision to publish the article - or to refer to Times insiders quoted anonymously in others' reporting.)
At the outset, it's essential to acknowledge the far-reaching importance of the eavesdropping article's content to Times readers and to the rest of the nation. Whatever its path to publication, Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller deserve credit for its eventual appearance in the face of strong White House pressure to kill it. And the basic accuracy of the account of the eavesdropping stands unchallenged - a testament to the talent in the trenches.
But the explanation of the timing and editing of the front-page article by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau caused major concern for scores of Times readers. The terse one-paragraph explanation noted that the White House had asked for the article to be killed. "After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting," it said. "Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."
If Times editors hoped the brief mention of the one-year delay and the omitted sensitive information would assure readers that great caution had been exercised in publishing the article, I think they miscalculated. The mention of a one-year delay, almost in passing, cried out for a fuller explanation. And the gaps left by the explanation hardly matched the paper's recent bold commitments to readers to explain how news decisions are made.
At the very least, The Times should have told readers in the article why it could not address specific issues. At least some realization of this kicked in rather quickly after publication. When queried by reporters for other news media on Dec. 16, Mr. Keller offered two prepared statements that shed some additional light on the timing and handling of the article.
The longer of Mr. Keller's two prepared statements said the paper initially held the story based on national security considerations and assurances that everyone in government believed the expanded eavesdropping was legal. But when further reporting showed that legal questions loomed larger than The Times first thought and that a story could be written without certain genuinely sensitive technical details, he said, the paper decided to publish. (Mr. Keller's two prepared statements, as well as some thoughtful reader comments, are posted on the Public Editor's Web Journal.)
Times readers would have benefited if the explanation in the original article had simply been expanded to include the points Mr. Keller made after publication. And if the length of that proved too clunky for inclusion in the article, the explanation could have been published as a separate article near the main one. Even the sentence he provided me as to why he would not answer my questions offered some possible insight.
Protection of sources is the most plausible reason I've been able to identify for The Times's woeful explanation in the article and for the silence of Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller. I base this on Mr. Keller's response to me: "There is really no way to have a full discussion of the back story without talking about when and how we knew what we knew, and we can't do that."
Taken at face value, Mr. Keller seems to be contending that the sourcing for the eavesdropping article is so intertwined with the decisions about when and what to publish that a full explanation could risk revealing the sources. I have no trouble accepting the importance of confidential sourcing concerns here. The reporters' nearly one dozen confidential sources enabled them to produce a powerful article that I think served the public interest.
With confidential sourcing under attack and the reporters digging in the backyards of both intelligence and politics, The Times needs to guard the sources for the eavesdropping article with extra special care. Telling readers the time that the reporters got one specific fact, for instance, could turn out to be a dangling thread of information that the White House or the Justice Department could tug at until it leads them to the source. Indeed, word came Friday that the Justice Department has opened an investigation into the disclosure of classified information about the eavesdropping.
The most obvious and troublesome omission in the explanation was the failure to address whether The Times knew about the eavesdropping operation before the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election. That point was hard to ignore when the explanation in the article referred rather vaguely to having "delayed publication for a year." To me, this language means the article was fully confirmed and ready to publish a year ago - after perhaps weeks of reporting on the initial tip - and then was delayed.
Mr. Keller dealt directly with the timing of the initial tip in his later statements. The eavesdropping information "first became known to Times reporters" a year ago, he said. These two different descriptions of the article's status in the general vicinity of Election Day last year leave me puzzled.
For me, however, the most obvious question is still this: If no one at The Times was aware of the eavesdropping prior to the election, why wouldn't the paper have been eager to make that clear to readers in the original explanation and avoid that politically charged issue? The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts.
On the larger question of why the eavesdropping article finally appeared when it did, a couple of possibilities intrigue me.
One is that Times editors said they discovered there was more concern inside the government about the eavesdropping than they had initially been told. Mr. Keller's prepared statements said that "a year ago," officials "assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." So the paper "agreed not to publish at that time" and continued reporting.
But in the months that followed, Mr. Keller said, "we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program" and "it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood."
The impact of a new book about intelligence by Mr. Risen on the timing of the article is difficult to gauge. The book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," was not mentioned in the Dec. 16 article. Mr. Keller asserted in the shorter of his two statements that the article wasn't timed to the forthcoming book, and that "its origins and publication are completely independent of Jim's book."
The publication of Mr. Risen's book, with its discussion of the eavesdropping operation, was scheduled for mid-January - but has now been moved up to Tuesday. Despite Mr. Keller's distancing of The Times from "State of War," Mr. Risen's publisher told me on Dec. 21 that the paper's Washington bureau chief had talked to her twice in the previous 30 days about the book.
So it seems to me the paper was quite aware that it faced the possibility of being scooped by its own reporter's book in about four weeks. But the key question remains: To what extent did the book cause top editors to shrug off the concerns that had kept them from publishing the eavesdropping article for months?
A final note: If Mr. Risen's book or anything else of substance should open any cracks in the stone wall surrounding the handling of the eavesdropping article, I will have my list of 28 questions (35 now, actually) ready to e-mail again to Mr. Keller.
The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
January 1, 2006
The Public Editor
Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence
By BYRON CALAME
THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency.
For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making. My queries concerned the timing of the exclusive Dec. 16 article about President Bush's secret decision in the months after 9/11 to authorize the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans in the United States.
I e-mailed a list of 28 questions to Bill Keller, the executive editor, on Dec. 19, three days after the article appeared. He promptly declined to respond to them. I then sent the same questions to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, who also declined to respond. They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future.
Despite this stonewalling, my objectives today are to assess the flawed handling of the original explanation of the article's path into print, and to offer a few thoughts on some factors that could have affected the timing of the article. My intention is to do so with special care, because my 40-plus years of newspapering leave me keenly aware that some of the toughest calls an editor can face are involved here - those related to intelligence gathering, election-time investigative articles and protection of sources. On these matters, reasonable disagreements can abound inside the newsroom.
(A word about my reporting for this column: With the top Times people involved in the final decisions refusing to talk and urging everyone else to remain silent, it seemed clear to me that chasing various editors and reporters probably would yield mostly anonymous comments that the ultimate decision-makers would not confirm or deny. So I decided not to pursue those who were not involved in the final decision to publish the article - or to refer to Times insiders quoted anonymously in others' reporting.)
At the outset, it's essential to acknowledge the far-reaching importance of the eavesdropping article's content to Times readers and to the rest of the nation. Whatever its path to publication, Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller deserve credit for its eventual appearance in the face of strong White House pressure to kill it. And the basic accuracy of the account of the eavesdropping stands unchallenged - a testament to the talent in the trenches.
But the explanation of the timing and editing of the front-page article by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau caused major concern for scores of Times readers. The terse one-paragraph explanation noted that the White House had asked for the article to be killed. "After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting," it said. "Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."
If Times editors hoped the brief mention of the one-year delay and the omitted sensitive information would assure readers that great caution had been exercised in publishing the article, I think they miscalculated. The mention of a one-year delay, almost in passing, cried out for a fuller explanation. And the gaps left by the explanation hardly matched the paper's recent bold commitments to readers to explain how news decisions are made.
At the very least, The Times should have told readers in the article why it could not address specific issues. At least some realization of this kicked in rather quickly after publication. When queried by reporters for other news media on Dec. 16, Mr. Keller offered two prepared statements that shed some additional light on the timing and handling of the article.
The longer of Mr. Keller's two prepared statements said the paper initially held the story based on national security considerations and assurances that everyone in government believed the expanded eavesdropping was legal. But when further reporting showed that legal questions loomed larger than The Times first thought and that a story could be written without certain genuinely sensitive technical details, he said, the paper decided to publish. (Mr. Keller's two prepared statements, as well as some thoughtful reader comments, are posted on the Public Editor's Web Journal.)
Times readers would have benefited if the explanation in the original article had simply been expanded to include the points Mr. Keller made after publication. And if the length of that proved too clunky for inclusion in the article, the explanation could have been published as a separate article near the main one. Even the sentence he provided me as to why he would not answer my questions offered some possible insight.
Protection of sources is the most plausible reason I've been able to identify for The Times's woeful explanation in the article and for the silence of Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller. I base this on Mr. Keller's response to me: "There is really no way to have a full discussion of the back story without talking about when and how we knew what we knew, and we can't do that."
Taken at face value, Mr. Keller seems to be contending that the sourcing for the eavesdropping article is so intertwined with the decisions about when and what to publish that a full explanation could risk revealing the sources. I have no trouble accepting the importance of confidential sourcing concerns here. The reporters' nearly one dozen confidential sources enabled them to produce a powerful article that I think served the public interest.
With confidential sourcing under attack and the reporters digging in the backyards of both intelligence and politics, The Times needs to guard the sources for the eavesdropping article with extra special care. Telling readers the time that the reporters got one specific fact, for instance, could turn out to be a dangling thread of information that the White House or the Justice Department could tug at until it leads them to the source. Indeed, word came Friday that the Justice Department has opened an investigation into the disclosure of classified information about the eavesdropping.
The most obvious and troublesome omission in the explanation was the failure to address whether The Times knew about the eavesdropping operation before the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election. That point was hard to ignore when the explanation in the article referred rather vaguely to having "delayed publication for a year." To me, this language means the article was fully confirmed and ready to publish a year ago - after perhaps weeks of reporting on the initial tip - and then was delayed.
Mr. Keller dealt directly with the timing of the initial tip in his later statements. The eavesdropping information "first became known to Times reporters" a year ago, he said. These two different descriptions of the article's status in the general vicinity of Election Day last year leave me puzzled.
For me, however, the most obvious question is still this: If no one at The Times was aware of the eavesdropping prior to the election, why wouldn't the paper have been eager to make that clear to readers in the original explanation and avoid that politically charged issue? The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts.
On the larger question of why the eavesdropping article finally appeared when it did, a couple of possibilities intrigue me.
One is that Times editors said they discovered there was more concern inside the government about the eavesdropping than they had initially been told. Mr. Keller's prepared statements said that "a year ago," officials "assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." So the paper "agreed not to publish at that time" and continued reporting.
But in the months that followed, Mr. Keller said, "we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program" and "it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood."
The impact of a new book about intelligence by Mr. Risen on the timing of the article is difficult to gauge. The book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," was not mentioned in the Dec. 16 article. Mr. Keller asserted in the shorter of his two statements that the article wasn't timed to the forthcoming book, and that "its origins and publication are completely independent of Jim's book."
The publication of Mr. Risen's book, with its discussion of the eavesdropping operation, was scheduled for mid-January - but has now been moved up to Tuesday. Despite Mr. Keller's distancing of The Times from "State of War," Mr. Risen's publisher told me on Dec. 21 that the paper's Washington bureau chief had talked to her twice in the previous 30 days about the book.
So it seems to me the paper was quite aware that it faced the possibility of being scooped by its own reporter's book in about four weeks. But the key question remains: To what extent did the book cause top editors to shrug off the concerns that had kept them from publishing the eavesdropping article for months?
A final note: If Mr. Risen's book or anything else of substance should open any cracks in the stone wall surrounding the handling of the eavesdropping article, I will have my list of 28 questions (35 now, actually) ready to e-mail again to Mr. Keller.
The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663996/site/newsweek/
Full Speeed Ahead: After 9/11, Bush and Cheney pressed for more power and got it. Now, predictably, the questions begin. Behind the NSA spying furor
Full Speeed Ahead: After 9/11, Bush and Cheney pressed for more power and got it. Now, predictably, the questions begin. Behind the NSA spying furor
Explosion at W.Va. Coal Mine Traps 13 Forbes
A coal mine explosion that may have been sparked by lightning trapped 13 miners underground Monday, setting off an urgent rescue operation. The condition of the miners was not immediately known. Four co-workers tried to rescue them but were stopped by a wall of debris, and the blast knocked out the mine's communication equipment, preventing authorities from contacting the workers. It was not immediately known how much air they had or how big a space they were trapped in. Hours after the apparent methane blast, rescue teams had not been able to enter the Sago Mine because gases were still being vented and it was too dangerous to enter, said Sam Kitts, vice president of operations for International Coal Group Inc., which owns the mine.
West Virginia explosion traps 13 coal miners Reuters
Explosion Traps W. Va. Coal Miners Washington Post
Newsday - CNN International - ABC News - CBC News - all 425 related »
A coal mine explosion that may have been sparked by lightning trapped 13 miners underground Monday, setting off an urgent rescue operation. The condition of the miners was not immediately known. Four co-workers tried to rescue them but were stopped by a wall of debris, and the blast knocked out the mine's communication equipment, preventing authorities from contacting the workers. It was not immediately known how much air they had or how big a space they were trapped in. Hours after the apparent methane blast, rescue teams had not been able to enter the Sago Mine because gases were still being vented and it was too dangerous to enter, said Sam Kitts, vice president of operations for International Coal Group Inc., which owns the mine.
West Virginia explosion traps 13 coal miners Reuters
Explosion Traps W. Va. Coal Miners Washington Post
Newsday - CNN International - ABC News - CBC News - all 425 related »
Wind-Fueled Fires Threaten Oklahoma City Forbes
Weary firefighters worked through the night attempting to contain three major fires, including one 25-mile-long blaze that charred farm fields, barns and some homes in Eastland County. Grass fires elsewhere in the drought-stricken region had apparently destroyed a couple of tiny Texas towns. Other fires had destroyed homes and forced hundreds of people to evacuate in Oklahoma and New Mexico. Officials warned that the dry, gusty conditions and extreme fire danger would continue. "We don't know where we will be today," Oklahoma City Fire Department Maj. Brian Stanaland said Monday morning. "At this point, we consider the whole city a target for grass fires."
A 'perfect storm' for wildfires CNN
Dry Weather Drives Okla., Texas Wildfires Guardian Unlimited
Special Broadcasting Service - Reuters AlertNet - ABC News - CBC News - all 943 related »
Weary firefighters worked through the night attempting to contain three major fires, including one 25-mile-long blaze that charred farm fields, barns and some homes in Eastland County. Grass fires elsewhere in the drought-stricken region had apparently destroyed a couple of tiny Texas towns. Other fires had destroyed homes and forced hundreds of people to evacuate in Oklahoma and New Mexico. Officials warned that the dry, gusty conditions and extreme fire danger would continue. "We don't know where we will be today," Oklahoma City Fire Department Maj. Brian Stanaland said Monday morning. "At this point, we consider the whole city a target for grass fires."
A 'perfect storm' for wildfires CNN
Dry Weather Drives Okla., Texas Wildfires Guardian Unlimited
Special Broadcasting Service - Reuters AlertNet - ABC News - CBC News - all 943 related »
Coming to the Hill: lots of hearing-room drama
2006 will see investigations of war policy amid intense scrutiny on
ethics-related issues. By Gail Russell Chaddock
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0103/p01s03-uspo.html?s=hns
2006 will see investigations of war policy amid intense scrutiny on
ethics-related issues. By Gail Russell Chaddock
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0103/p01s03-uspo.html?s=hns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 3, 2006
Advocacy Groups Prepare New Ad Campaigns on Alito
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 - In the final days before hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., partisans on both sides are pulling out all the stops in an effort to sway public opinion.
Moving beyond Judge Alito's judicial record, a coalition of liberal groups is preparing commercials attacking his integrity and credibility instead, several people involved in the effort said Monday. They spoke only after being granted anonymity because the plans are supposed to be confidential until their formal announcement on Wednesday.
Conservatives, for their part, are capitalizing on ethnic pride to rally Italian-American support for Judge Alito with public events and newspaper advertisements. The efforts are aimed particularly at the Northeastern States, where some moderate Republican senators have expressed doubts about his confirmation.
And in Arkansas, home to two moderate Democratic senators whose votes are considered to be in play, another group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, is running Christmas-themed commercials beginning this week on African-American gospel radio stations. In them, the Rev. Bill Owens, a black pastor, urges support for Judge Alito to protect public displays of Nativity scenes and menorahs, and to uphold the right of schoolgirls to "draw pictures of our Savior, Jesus Christ, for class projects."
The advertising campaigns on both sides are the most visible components of a last-minute push by advocacy groups anticipating a potentially close Senate vote. With the hearings set to begin next Monday, both sides are seeking to open new fronts in their lobbying battle. The liberals are adding new issues to commercials about Judge Alito's judicial record that began months ago, while the conservatives are reaching out to groups usually found in the Democratic ranks.
People involved in the liberal coalition, which includes People for the American Way, the legal group Alliance for Justice, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the N.A.A.C.P., the Sierra Club and abortion rights groups, said it planned to run new commercials, beginning this week with radio and television advertisements in selected states intended to undercut Judge Alito's credibility.
These people said the first advertisements would focus on occasional lapses from a pledge Judge Alito made at the 1990 hearings for his confirmation to the appeals court that he would recuse himself from cases involving the companies that managed his mutual fund investments, Vanguard and Smith Barney.
Legal ethics experts say judges are not obliged to recuse themselves in such cases. There are very few known lapses during Judge Alito's 15 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Alito has said the lapses were inadvertent and occurred long after the initial period covered by his pledge. But the liberal groups plan to highlight differences in his explanations about the cases over time.
Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman handling the nomination, called the accusations "outrageous."
"Judge Alito has gone through his entire life with a sterling reputation for integrity," Mr. Schmidt said, declaring that the liberal coalition had "decided to throw mud against the wall and see if it sticks."
Leaders of the liberal coalition declined to comment on the advertisements. But they confirmed that they were seeking to raise new concerns about Judge Alito's credibility.
Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, said the group's goal was to persuade the public that Judge Alito and his supporters had tried to obscure his lifelong commitment to a "right-wing" legal philosophy.
And at a time when Congress will be debating renewal of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act and the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program, officials of the liberal groups said they hoped to call attention to Judge Alito's record of writings and opinions supporting law enforcement and presidential power.
"I think people's greatest fear is that Judge Alito would side with big government," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice. "He would side with allowing government to intrude on individual personal lives."
Mr. Schmidt of the White House said such claims distorted Judge Alito's record on the bench. "They might as well throw in that he was abducted by aliens when he was 15 years old," he said. "It just has no basis in reality."
On Tuesday, Progress for America, a group close to the Bush administration, is expected to announce its own new advertising campaign. And other conservatives have choreographed events intended to defend Judge Alito and undermine his attackers as the hearings begin.
Firing back against the formation of Law Students Against Alito at his predominantly liberal alma mater, Yale Law School, about 150 of its students and alumni signed a letter urging senators to support his confirmation. It is scheduled to run as an advertisement Wednesday in the Congressional publication The Hill, and versions of the letter will be sent to senators as well, said Keith Appell, a conservative publicist organizing efforts to support the nomination.
On Thursday, Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group, will hold a news conference to call attention to women supporting Judge Alito. A group of black conservatives and pastors calling for confirmation will hold a conference call for reporters the same day.
Italian-Americans for Judge Alito was organized mainly by Peter Secchia, a Republican donor and former ambassador to Italy under the first President Bush. The group works closely with the current White House, and paid for two advertisements in The New York Times in November urging support for Judge Alito's confirmation. In the next week, the group plans to hold public events with prominent Italian-Americans in Washington; Providence, R.I.; Jersey City; New York; and Wilmington, Del.
In a letter dated Dec. 19, Joseph R. Cerrell, a Democratic donor and vice chairman of the National Italian American Foundation, made the group's case personally to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat whose campaign he supported.
"While I realize that your philosophical concerns may not allow you to officially support this nomination," Mr. Cerrell wrote, "I can tell you that many within the Italian American community from both parties will be upset if this nominee does not have an opportunity to be considered by the full Senate."
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
January 3, 2006
Advocacy Groups Prepare New Ad Campaigns on Alito
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 - In the final days before hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., partisans on both sides are pulling out all the stops in an effort to sway public opinion.
Moving beyond Judge Alito's judicial record, a coalition of liberal groups is preparing commercials attacking his integrity and credibility instead, several people involved in the effort said Monday. They spoke only after being granted anonymity because the plans are supposed to be confidential until their formal announcement on Wednesday.
Conservatives, for their part, are capitalizing on ethnic pride to rally Italian-American support for Judge Alito with public events and newspaper advertisements. The efforts are aimed particularly at the Northeastern States, where some moderate Republican senators have expressed doubts about his confirmation.
And in Arkansas, home to two moderate Democratic senators whose votes are considered to be in play, another group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, is running Christmas-themed commercials beginning this week on African-American gospel radio stations. In them, the Rev. Bill Owens, a black pastor, urges support for Judge Alito to protect public displays of Nativity scenes and menorahs, and to uphold the right of schoolgirls to "draw pictures of our Savior, Jesus Christ, for class projects."
The advertising campaigns on both sides are the most visible components of a last-minute push by advocacy groups anticipating a potentially close Senate vote. With the hearings set to begin next Monday, both sides are seeking to open new fronts in their lobbying battle. The liberals are adding new issues to commercials about Judge Alito's judicial record that began months ago, while the conservatives are reaching out to groups usually found in the Democratic ranks.
People involved in the liberal coalition, which includes People for the American Way, the legal group Alliance for Justice, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the N.A.A.C.P., the Sierra Club and abortion rights groups, said it planned to run new commercials, beginning this week with radio and television advertisements in selected states intended to undercut Judge Alito's credibility.
These people said the first advertisements would focus on occasional lapses from a pledge Judge Alito made at the 1990 hearings for his confirmation to the appeals court that he would recuse himself from cases involving the companies that managed his mutual fund investments, Vanguard and Smith Barney.
Legal ethics experts say judges are not obliged to recuse themselves in such cases. There are very few known lapses during Judge Alito's 15 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Alito has said the lapses were inadvertent and occurred long after the initial period covered by his pledge. But the liberal groups plan to highlight differences in his explanations about the cases over time.
Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman handling the nomination, called the accusations "outrageous."
"Judge Alito has gone through his entire life with a sterling reputation for integrity," Mr. Schmidt said, declaring that the liberal coalition had "decided to throw mud against the wall and see if it sticks."
Leaders of the liberal coalition declined to comment on the advertisements. But they confirmed that they were seeking to raise new concerns about Judge Alito's credibility.
Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, said the group's goal was to persuade the public that Judge Alito and his supporters had tried to obscure his lifelong commitment to a "right-wing" legal philosophy.
And at a time when Congress will be debating renewal of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act and the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program, officials of the liberal groups said they hoped to call attention to Judge Alito's record of writings and opinions supporting law enforcement and presidential power.
"I think people's greatest fear is that Judge Alito would side with big government," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice. "He would side with allowing government to intrude on individual personal lives."
Mr. Schmidt of the White House said such claims distorted Judge Alito's record on the bench. "They might as well throw in that he was abducted by aliens when he was 15 years old," he said. "It just has no basis in reality."
On Tuesday, Progress for America, a group close to the Bush administration, is expected to announce its own new advertising campaign. And other conservatives have choreographed events intended to defend Judge Alito and undermine his attackers as the hearings begin.
Firing back against the formation of Law Students Against Alito at his predominantly liberal alma mater, Yale Law School, about 150 of its students and alumni signed a letter urging senators to support his confirmation. It is scheduled to run as an advertisement Wednesday in the Congressional publication The Hill, and versions of the letter will be sent to senators as well, said Keith Appell, a conservative publicist organizing efforts to support the nomination.
On Thursday, Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group, will hold a news conference to call attention to women supporting Judge Alito. A group of black conservatives and pastors calling for confirmation will hold a conference call for reporters the same day.
Italian-Americans for Judge Alito was organized mainly by Peter Secchia, a Republican donor and former ambassador to Italy under the first President Bush. The group works closely with the current White House, and paid for two advertisements in The New York Times in November urging support for Judge Alito's confirmation. In the next week, the group plans to hold public events with prominent Italian-Americans in Washington; Providence, R.I.; Jersey City; New York; and Wilmington, Del.
In a letter dated Dec. 19, Joseph R. Cerrell, a Democratic donor and vice chairman of the National Italian American Foundation, made the group's case personally to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat whose campaign he supported.
"While I realize that your philosophical concerns may not allow you to officially support this nomination," Mr. Cerrell wrote, "I can tell you that many within the Italian American community from both parties will be upset if this nominee does not have an opportunity to be considered by the full Senate."
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 3, 2006
Risks Ahead as Policies (and Money) Tighten in '06
By MARK LANDLER
FRANKFURT, Jan. 2 - This is the year that the world's major economies will have learn to live without easy money.
The Federal Reserve has already significantly tightened monetary policy in the United States. The European Central Bank raised interest rates last month for the first time since 2000, and will probably lift them again. And after nearly five years of zero percent interest rates, the Bank of Japan is expected to embark on a cautious tightening of policy - not necessarily by lifting rates, but by cutting back on its purchase of government bonds from Japanese banks, which pumps yen into the market.
These moves will have far-reaching consequences for the world economy, as well as for financial markets. Economic activity in the United States, Europe and Asia has been lubricated by loose credit since 2001, when the collapse of technology stocks led to an easing of monetary policy.
Removing this stimulus without choking off growth in Europe and Japan or taking the wind out of the housing market in the United States will be an exceedingly delicate, if not risky, task.
"This is a high-wire act," said Thomas Mayer, the chief European economist at Deutsche Bank in London. "The global economy has been propped up by huge liquidity. The question is, How do you take this liquidity out of the economy without the whole thing crashing down?"
Very carefully, central bankers in Washington, Frankfurt or Tokyo might well answer.
None of the three banks is acting aggressively, and two of them, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, seem prepared to rethink their plans if economic conditions suddenly deteriorate. While the Federal Reserve has left itself room for further rate increases, it is believed to be nearing the end of this cycle after raising the rate to 4.25 percent in 13 consecutive quarter-point increases.
The good news, analysts say, is that the world has a fair amount of momentum as it heads into 2006. Propelled by a fast-growing Asia and a still-vibrant United States, the global economy could expand 4.5 percent this year, according to Deutsche Bank. That is roughly on par with 2005.
While housing prices in the United States may have peaked, the economy remains vigorous, and consumer spending is likely to get a fillip from the easing of oil prices. Deutsche Bank forecasts that the American economy will expand 3.9 percent in 2006, a shade more than last year. Other economists expect less robust growth, on the order of around 3.3 percent, compared with this year's expected 3.7 percent.
Growth is also likely to accelerate in Asia, thanks to a reinvigorated Japan and the continuing boom in China. The Chinese economy will expand nearly 9 percent in 2006, only slightly less than last year, according to a forecast by the Asian Development Bank.
Even Europe, which fell short of expectations last year, may perk up in 2006, thanks to continued strong demand for its exports - from China, as well as from traditional markets like the United States - and signs that Germany's long-dormant consumers are stirring.
There are caveats to this upbeat scenario. A sharp decline in real estate prices in the United States, rather than the expected gradual softening, would crimp consumer spending. That would hurt both Europe and China, which ships 40 percent of its exports to the ravenous American market.
A slowdown in China's export-led economy, either because of internal political pressure or external resistance, would also reverberate globally. China's relentless rise as a low-cost manufacturer has helped the global economy in a number of ways, not least by driving down inflation.
"For the last three years, we've had a two-engine world: the Chinese producer and the American consumer," said Stephen S. Roach, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley. "Both engines are going to slow down. The debate will be whether this two-engine global 747 is in danger of stalling."
Sometimes regarded as an economic Cassandra, Mr. Roach is not actually predicting such a calamity. But he says that there are risks. If China's exports continue to boom, China will face rising pressure from the United States to further revalue its currency, the yuan - a move that could start to reorient its economy from exports to its vast domestic market.
"Everybody still embraces China as a perma-growth story," Mr. Roach said. "But that will be challenged in 2006."
A renewed weakness in the dollar, which Mr. Roach expects this year, would put pressure on American consumers because it would make imports more costly. That, in turn, could threaten the sky-high housing market, without which, he said, "the American consumer is toast."
In any case, the lopsided trade relationship between China and the United States will likely re-emerge as the decisive factor in the value of the dollar. The dollar's resilience proved to be one of the major surprises of last year. It declined sharply against the euro, yen and other currencies in 2004, and Mr. Roach and others expected it to fall further in 2005.
The United States, after all, is running a quarterly current-account deficit - the broadest measure of its balance of trade - of nearly $200 billion, which most economists view as unsustainable.
Instead, the dollar staged a rebound, driven in part by the widening gap in interest rates between the United States and Europe and Japan. The euro was also weaker because of Europe's anemic economic performance, the deadlocked German elections and the rejection of the European Union's proposed constitution by voters in France and the Netherlands.
Now, with Europe and Japan reviving and with the Federal Reserve perceived as nearing the end of its tightening cycle, analysts predict that the dollar will resume its downward course against the euro and the yen. They note, too, that the current-account deficit is coming back into focus.
"Investors will once again take this risk into account," said Michael Schubert, a currency analyst with Commerzbank. "The only thing we know about the current-account deficit is that it can't go on forever."
Mr. Schubert forecasts that the dollar will trade at $1.28 versus the euro by the end of this year; it is currently $1.185. He said the yen's value would hinge on the actions of the Bank of Japan, while the Chinese would modestly revalue the yuan, having done so once last summer.
A weaker dollar could help American stocks, Mr. Mayer said, because it would make American exporters more competitive. But with the uncertain prospects for consumer spending, it might be difficult for American markets to match their buoyant performance of recent years.
Conversely, a rising euro would not be welcome in Europe, which relies heavily on exports. Morgan Stanley expects European stock markets, after a remarkable rally in 2005, to stagnate this year, especially with corporate profits already high and interest rates starting to climb.
Repeating the performance of 2005 will be especially difficult in Germany. The DAX stock index, which includes big names like DaimlerChrysler, Volkswagen and Siemens, rose more than 30 percent - a sprightly pace utterly at odds with the country's sluggish economy.
Despite the muscular euro, Germany demonstrated in 2005 that it could maintain its title as the world's top exporter of manufactured goods. One factor was China's demand for heavy machinery and other products. But German companies, analysts said, also improved their competitiveness generally by cutting costs and keeping a lid on wage increases.
"The success of Germany's export sector has been remarkable, and I think it's quite likely to continue," said Michael Heise, the chief economist at Dresdner Bank and Allianz in Frankfurt.
The question is whether stricter monetary policy will strangle Europe. Despite a few rays of hope, consumer demand in Germany remains weak. Italy has been skirting recession and France is saddled with double-digit unemployment, which some blame for the recent surge of urban unrest there.
European politicians have vigorously protested the central bank's recent shift in policy, saying that the continent's economies are still too fragile. They say that the bank has also overestimated the threat of inflation, particularly since oil prices have moderated after surging for much of 2005.
In fact, tighter monetary policy on three continents could help keep the price of crude oil in check this year.
"Part of the run-up in oil prices was a reflection that there was a lot of monetary stimulus in the market," Mr. Mayer said. "Taking some of that out of the market could take the air out of oil prices."
Deutsche Bank forecasts that oil prices will ease after the winter, though the average price per barrel may end up the same this year as last. By the end of 2006, it projects a reduction in prices as demand moderates and OPEC members increase their production capacity.
With the retirement of Alan Greenspan this month - and the arrival of Ben S. Bernanke as the new Fed chairman - and with the major central banks moving in tandem to tighten credit, 2006 promises to be an eventful year for those who watch these institutions.
"The Greenspan era has coincided with a period when the global economy has made the job of a central banker easier," said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor of economics and public policy at Harvard.
The curse of high inflation has receded, he said, because the competition from low-cost producers like China has driven down the prices of so many goods. That is why the economic health of China - just like that of the United States - is a matter of concern to everybody.
"China has made everything run better," Mr. Rogoff said. "If it were to collapse, Ben Bernanke might be in the uncomfortable position of having to set interest rates much higher than he expected."
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
January 3, 2006
Risks Ahead as Policies (and Money) Tighten in '06
By MARK LANDLER
FRANKFURT, Jan. 2 - This is the year that the world's major economies will have learn to live without easy money.
The Federal Reserve has already significantly tightened monetary policy in the United States. The European Central Bank raised interest rates last month for the first time since 2000, and will probably lift them again. And after nearly five years of zero percent interest rates, the Bank of Japan is expected to embark on a cautious tightening of policy - not necessarily by lifting rates, but by cutting back on its purchase of government bonds from Japanese banks, which pumps yen into the market.
These moves will have far-reaching consequences for the world economy, as well as for financial markets. Economic activity in the United States, Europe and Asia has been lubricated by loose credit since 2001, when the collapse of technology stocks led to an easing of monetary policy.
Removing this stimulus without choking off growth in Europe and Japan or taking the wind out of the housing market in the United States will be an exceedingly delicate, if not risky, task.
"This is a high-wire act," said Thomas Mayer, the chief European economist at Deutsche Bank in London. "The global economy has been propped up by huge liquidity. The question is, How do you take this liquidity out of the economy without the whole thing crashing down?"
Very carefully, central bankers in Washington, Frankfurt or Tokyo might well answer.
None of the three banks is acting aggressively, and two of them, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, seem prepared to rethink their plans if economic conditions suddenly deteriorate. While the Federal Reserve has left itself room for further rate increases, it is believed to be nearing the end of this cycle after raising the rate to 4.25 percent in 13 consecutive quarter-point increases.
The good news, analysts say, is that the world has a fair amount of momentum as it heads into 2006. Propelled by a fast-growing Asia and a still-vibrant United States, the global economy could expand 4.5 percent this year, according to Deutsche Bank. That is roughly on par with 2005.
While housing prices in the United States may have peaked, the economy remains vigorous, and consumer spending is likely to get a fillip from the easing of oil prices. Deutsche Bank forecasts that the American economy will expand 3.9 percent in 2006, a shade more than last year. Other economists expect less robust growth, on the order of around 3.3 percent, compared with this year's expected 3.7 percent.
Growth is also likely to accelerate in Asia, thanks to a reinvigorated Japan and the continuing boom in China. The Chinese economy will expand nearly 9 percent in 2006, only slightly less than last year, according to a forecast by the Asian Development Bank.
Even Europe, which fell short of expectations last year, may perk up in 2006, thanks to continued strong demand for its exports - from China, as well as from traditional markets like the United States - and signs that Germany's long-dormant consumers are stirring.
There are caveats to this upbeat scenario. A sharp decline in real estate prices in the United States, rather than the expected gradual softening, would crimp consumer spending. That would hurt both Europe and China, which ships 40 percent of its exports to the ravenous American market.
A slowdown in China's export-led economy, either because of internal political pressure or external resistance, would also reverberate globally. China's relentless rise as a low-cost manufacturer has helped the global economy in a number of ways, not least by driving down inflation.
"For the last three years, we've had a two-engine world: the Chinese producer and the American consumer," said Stephen S. Roach, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley. "Both engines are going to slow down. The debate will be whether this two-engine global 747 is in danger of stalling."
Sometimes regarded as an economic Cassandra, Mr. Roach is not actually predicting such a calamity. But he says that there are risks. If China's exports continue to boom, China will face rising pressure from the United States to further revalue its currency, the yuan - a move that could start to reorient its economy from exports to its vast domestic market.
"Everybody still embraces China as a perma-growth story," Mr. Roach said. "But that will be challenged in 2006."
A renewed weakness in the dollar, which Mr. Roach expects this year, would put pressure on American consumers because it would make imports more costly. That, in turn, could threaten the sky-high housing market, without which, he said, "the American consumer is toast."
In any case, the lopsided trade relationship between China and the United States will likely re-emerge as the decisive factor in the value of the dollar. The dollar's resilience proved to be one of the major surprises of last year. It declined sharply against the euro, yen and other currencies in 2004, and Mr. Roach and others expected it to fall further in 2005.
The United States, after all, is running a quarterly current-account deficit - the broadest measure of its balance of trade - of nearly $200 billion, which most economists view as unsustainable.
Instead, the dollar staged a rebound, driven in part by the widening gap in interest rates between the United States and Europe and Japan. The euro was also weaker because of Europe's anemic economic performance, the deadlocked German elections and the rejection of the European Union's proposed constitution by voters in France and the Netherlands.
Now, with Europe and Japan reviving and with the Federal Reserve perceived as nearing the end of its tightening cycle, analysts predict that the dollar will resume its downward course against the euro and the yen. They note, too, that the current-account deficit is coming back into focus.
"Investors will once again take this risk into account," said Michael Schubert, a currency analyst with Commerzbank. "The only thing we know about the current-account deficit is that it can't go on forever."
Mr. Schubert forecasts that the dollar will trade at $1.28 versus the euro by the end of this year; it is currently $1.185. He said the yen's value would hinge on the actions of the Bank of Japan, while the Chinese would modestly revalue the yuan, having done so once last summer.
A weaker dollar could help American stocks, Mr. Mayer said, because it would make American exporters more competitive. But with the uncertain prospects for consumer spending, it might be difficult for American markets to match their buoyant performance of recent years.
Conversely, a rising euro would not be welcome in Europe, which relies heavily on exports. Morgan Stanley expects European stock markets, after a remarkable rally in 2005, to stagnate this year, especially with corporate profits already high and interest rates starting to climb.
Repeating the performance of 2005 will be especially difficult in Germany. The DAX stock index, which includes big names like DaimlerChrysler, Volkswagen and Siemens, rose more than 30 percent - a sprightly pace utterly at odds with the country's sluggish economy.
Despite the muscular euro, Germany demonstrated in 2005 that it could maintain its title as the world's top exporter of manufactured goods. One factor was China's demand for heavy machinery and other products. But German companies, analysts said, also improved their competitiveness generally by cutting costs and keeping a lid on wage increases.
"The success of Germany's export sector has been remarkable, and I think it's quite likely to continue," said Michael Heise, the chief economist at Dresdner Bank and Allianz in Frankfurt.
The question is whether stricter monetary policy will strangle Europe. Despite a few rays of hope, consumer demand in Germany remains weak. Italy has been skirting recession and France is saddled with double-digit unemployment, which some blame for the recent surge of urban unrest there.
European politicians have vigorously protested the central bank's recent shift in policy, saying that the continent's economies are still too fragile. They say that the bank has also overestimated the threat of inflation, particularly since oil prices have moderated after surging for much of 2005.
In fact, tighter monetary policy on three continents could help keep the price of crude oil in check this year.
"Part of the run-up in oil prices was a reflection that there was a lot of monetary stimulus in the market," Mr. Mayer said. "Taking some of that out of the market could take the air out of oil prices."
Deutsche Bank forecasts that oil prices will ease after the winter, though the average price per barrel may end up the same this year as last. By the end of 2006, it projects a reduction in prices as demand moderates and OPEC members increase their production capacity.
With the retirement of Alan Greenspan this month - and the arrival of Ben S. Bernanke as the new Fed chairman - and with the major central banks moving in tandem to tighten credit, 2006 promises to be an eventful year for those who watch these institutions.
"The Greenspan era has coincided with a period when the global economy has made the job of a central banker easier," said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor of economics and public policy at Harvard.
The curse of high inflation has receded, he said, because the competition from low-cost producers like China has driven down the prices of so many goods. That is why the economic health of China - just like that of the United States - is a matter of concern to everybody.
"China has made everything run better," Mr. Rogoff said. "If it were to collapse, Ben Bernanke might be in the uncomfortable position of having to set interest rates much higher than he expected."
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 3, 2006
News Analysis
A Dispute Underscores the New Power of Gas
By SIMON ROMERO
HOUSTON, Jan. 2 - The dispute between Russia and Ukraine over natural gas supplies has implications for the fast-evolving international trade in natural gas.
While Gazprom, Russia's state-controlled energy behemoth, said on Monday that it would resume pipeline shipments of natural gas across Ukraine to customers in Europe, its ability to rattle nerves during the European winter served as a reminder of the growing influence of countries rich in natural gas reserves.
Global demand for natural gas, which is generally cleaner-burning than other fossil fuels, is soaring.
Governments in gas-rich countries and international energy companies are racing to meet that demand with ambitious projects to transport natural gas to industrialized countries by pipeline or in tankers. The global oil market developed along similar lines decades ago, laying bare the risks in the United States and Europe of relying on imported oil from politically unpredictable countries.
"This further underlies the need for greater diversity of supply and more storage capacity for natural gas," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "Gas-importing countries will recognize the need to build in buffers."
At first glance, this newly robust international natural gas market would appear to put Russia in a strong bargaining position. Russia has the largest natural gas reserves, with 1,700 trillion cubic feet of the fuel, or 27 percent of the world's total, according to BP, the British oil and gas giant. Just two other countries rival Russia in natural gas reserves, Iran, with 971 trillion cubic feet, and Qatar, with 910 trillion cubic feet.
But analysts say concern over creating too much dependence on Russian gas - or natural gas from any one country, for that matter - may propel large gas-consuming nations to consider importing the fuel from a variety of sources or switching to other fuels for heat and electricity.
For instance, Finland, which shares a border with Russia, is moving ahead with plans to build the world's largest nuclear reactor, a move that would lessen its reliance on imported Russian natural gas.
The concentration of European natural gas imports from Russia may be why the threat of cutting off gas exports across the Ukraine evoked cold war-era fears, when the United States fretted about Europe's reliance on Russian gas. In fact, Russia, which has long viewed itself as a stable energy supplier to Europe, put energy security at the top of the agenda of the Group of 8, the club for the world's large developed economies. Russia assumed the chairmanship of the group this week.
A more contemporary concern is related to the dispute's impact on large gas-exporting projects in Russia and elsewhere. Gazprom, for instance, has been aggressively promoting projects to export Russian natural gas to the United States. In a move that focuses attention on the scramble for natural resources in Arctic areas, Gazprom has ambitious plans to develop the Shtokman field, a large natural gas field in the Barents Sea, and sell that fuel in American markets.
Two American energy companies, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, have been have been listed by Gazprom as possible partners in the Shtokman project, along with Total of France and Norsk Hydro and Statoil of Norway. Gazprom has also reached an agreement with Sempra Energy of San Diego to import Russian natural gas to markets in California and northern Mexico. Gazprom is believed to need the technical expertise and financial assistance of foreign partners to help develop the field.
Still, concerns in the United States about becoming reliant on imported natural gas from Russia are probably premature. The United States imports much of its natural gas from Canada by pipeline and is expected to increase tanker imports of the fuel soon from countries like Qatar, Egypt and Angola. Russia, despite the potential of its gas reserves, is also still struggling to lift its energy industry to Western standards.
"Russia is reminding people that they're the powerhouse of natural gas resources, but it's a false promise," said Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the energy program at Rice University. "They don't have their sector organized enough."
Indeed, the most immediate lesson of Russia's dispute with Ukraine may be that Russia and other natural gas producers are trying with varying degrees of success to raise the prices they charge for natural gas. This trend, which involves gas shipped by pipeline as well as in tankers, has to do with rising demand for the fuel in Britain, southern Europe and the United States.
Customers for natural gas in Europe have outbid buyers in the United States in recent weeks for cargoes of liquefied natural gas, illustrating the fierce competition for supplies even as natural gas prices in the United States flirted with records after the damage from last year's hurricanes to natural gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Until recently, the complexity and expense of cooling and condensing natural gas to a liquid so it can be transported in ships was an obstacle to the emergence of a vibrant market for liquefied natural gas. Signaling a shift in this market, though, a tanker of liquefied gas from Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean, the closest supplier of the fuel to the United States, was rerouted to Britain last month after its producer received a more attractive bid for its cargo despite relatively high transportation costs.
Still, whether exporters transport their gas in tankers or pipelines, it has long proved difficult for gas-rich countries to exert lasting leverage over importing nations. In one example from the early 1980's, Algeria briefly cut off supplies to Italy over a pipeline across the Mediterranean Sea. That effort soon backfired on Algeria, however, costing it billions of dollars in lost export revenue.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
January 3, 2006
News Analysis
A Dispute Underscores the New Power of Gas
By SIMON ROMERO
HOUSTON, Jan. 2 - The dispute between Russia and Ukraine over natural gas supplies has implications for the fast-evolving international trade in natural gas.
While Gazprom, Russia's state-controlled energy behemoth, said on Monday that it would resume pipeline shipments of natural gas across Ukraine to customers in Europe, its ability to rattle nerves during the European winter served as a reminder of the growing influence of countries rich in natural gas reserves.
Global demand for natural gas, which is generally cleaner-burning than other fossil fuels, is soaring.
Governments in gas-rich countries and international energy companies are racing to meet that demand with ambitious projects to transport natural gas to industrialized countries by pipeline or in tankers. The global oil market developed along similar lines decades ago, laying bare the risks in the United States and Europe of relying on imported oil from politically unpredictable countries.
"This further underlies the need for greater diversity of supply and more storage capacity for natural gas," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "Gas-importing countries will recognize the need to build in buffers."
At first glance, this newly robust international natural gas market would appear to put Russia in a strong bargaining position. Russia has the largest natural gas reserves, with 1,700 trillion cubic feet of the fuel, or 27 percent of the world's total, according to BP, the British oil and gas giant. Just two other countries rival Russia in natural gas reserves, Iran, with 971 trillion cubic feet, and Qatar, with 910 trillion cubic feet.
But analysts say concern over creating too much dependence on Russian gas - or natural gas from any one country, for that matter - may propel large gas-consuming nations to consider importing the fuel from a variety of sources or switching to other fuels for heat and electricity.
For instance, Finland, which shares a border with Russia, is moving ahead with plans to build the world's largest nuclear reactor, a move that would lessen its reliance on imported Russian natural gas.
The concentration of European natural gas imports from Russia may be why the threat of cutting off gas exports across the Ukraine evoked cold war-era fears, when the United States fretted about Europe's reliance on Russian gas. In fact, Russia, which has long viewed itself as a stable energy supplier to Europe, put energy security at the top of the agenda of the Group of 8, the club for the world's large developed economies. Russia assumed the chairmanship of the group this week.
A more contemporary concern is related to the dispute's impact on large gas-exporting projects in Russia and elsewhere. Gazprom, for instance, has been aggressively promoting projects to export Russian natural gas to the United States. In a move that focuses attention on the scramble for natural resources in Arctic areas, Gazprom has ambitious plans to develop the Shtokman field, a large natural gas field in the Barents Sea, and sell that fuel in American markets.
Two American energy companies, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, have been have been listed by Gazprom as possible partners in the Shtokman project, along with Total of France and Norsk Hydro and Statoil of Norway. Gazprom has also reached an agreement with Sempra Energy of San Diego to import Russian natural gas to markets in California and northern Mexico. Gazprom is believed to need the technical expertise and financial assistance of foreign partners to help develop the field.
Still, concerns in the United States about becoming reliant on imported natural gas from Russia are probably premature. The United States imports much of its natural gas from Canada by pipeline and is expected to increase tanker imports of the fuel soon from countries like Qatar, Egypt and Angola. Russia, despite the potential of its gas reserves, is also still struggling to lift its energy industry to Western standards.
"Russia is reminding people that they're the powerhouse of natural gas resources, but it's a false promise," said Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the energy program at Rice University. "They don't have their sector organized enough."
Indeed, the most immediate lesson of Russia's dispute with Ukraine may be that Russia and other natural gas producers are trying with varying degrees of success to raise the prices they charge for natural gas. This trend, which involves gas shipped by pipeline as well as in tankers, has to do with rising demand for the fuel in Britain, southern Europe and the United States.
Customers for natural gas in Europe have outbid buyers in the United States in recent weeks for cargoes of liquefied natural gas, illustrating the fierce competition for supplies even as natural gas prices in the United States flirted with records after the damage from last year's hurricanes to natural gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Until recently, the complexity and expense of cooling and condensing natural gas to a liquid so it can be transported in ships was an obstacle to the emergence of a vibrant market for liquefied natural gas. Signaling a shift in this market, though, a tanker of liquefied gas from Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean, the closest supplier of the fuel to the United States, was rerouted to Britain last month after its producer received a more attractive bid for its cargo despite relatively high transportation costs.
Still, whether exporters transport their gas in tankers or pipelines, it has long proved difficult for gas-rich countries to exert lasting leverage over importing nations. In one example from the early 1980's, Algeria briefly cut off supplies to Italy over a pipeline across the Mediterranean Sea. That effort soon backfired on Algeria, however, costing it billions of dollars in lost export revenue.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
US Rep. Murtha says he wouldn't join military now
03 Jan 2006 01:00:32 GMT
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON, Jan 2 (Reuters) - Rep. John Murtha, a key Democratic voice who favors pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, said in remarks airing on Monday that he would not join the U.S. military today.
A decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, Murtha told ABC News' "Nightline" program that Iraq "absolutely" was a wrong war for President George W. Bush to have launched.
"Would you join (the military) today?," he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.
"No," replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party's leading spokesmen on military issues.
"And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," the interviewer continued.
"Exactly right," said Murtha, who drew White House ire in November after becoming the first ranking Democrat to push for a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as it could be done safely.
At the time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan equated Murtha's position with surrendering to terrorists.
Since then, Bush has decried the "defeatism" of some of his political rivals. In an unusually direct appeal, he urged Americans on Dec. 18 not to give in to despair over Iraq, insisting that "we are winning" despite a tougher-than-expected fight.
Murtha did not respond directly when asked whether a lack of combat experience might have affected the decision-making of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their former top deputies.
"Let me tell you, war is a nasty business. It sears the soul," he said, choking up. "And it made a difference. The shadow of those killings stay with you the rest of your life."
Asked for comment, a Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col. John Skinner, said: "We have an all-volunteer military. People are free to choose whether they serve or not."
"Our freedom of speech in this country allows all of us the opportunity to voice an opinion. It's one of our great strengths as a nation," he added in an e-mailed reply.
The White House had no immediate comment.
03 Jan 2006 01:00:32 GMT
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON, Jan 2 (Reuters) - Rep. John Murtha, a key Democratic voice who favors pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, said in remarks airing on Monday that he would not join the U.S. military today.
A decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, Murtha told ABC News' "Nightline" program that Iraq "absolutely" was a wrong war for President George W. Bush to have launched.
"Would you join (the military) today?," he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.
"No," replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party's leading spokesmen on military issues.
"And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," the interviewer continued.
"Exactly right," said Murtha, who drew White House ire in November after becoming the first ranking Democrat to push for a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as it could be done safely.
At the time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan equated Murtha's position with surrendering to terrorists.
Since then, Bush has decried the "defeatism" of some of his political rivals. In an unusually direct appeal, he urged Americans on Dec. 18 not to give in to despair over Iraq, insisting that "we are winning" despite a tougher-than-expected fight.
Murtha did not respond directly when asked whether a lack of combat experience might have affected the decision-making of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their former top deputies.
"Let me tell you, war is a nasty business. It sears the soul," he said, choking up. "And it made a difference. The shadow of those killings stay with you the rest of your life."
Asked for comment, a Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col. John Skinner, said: "We have an all-volunteer military. People are free to choose whether they serve or not."
"Our freedom of speech in this country allows all of us the opportunity to voice an opinion. It's one of our great strengths as a nation," he added in an e-mailed reply.
The White House had no immediate comment.
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_main.php
Published:
January 3, 2006
Troops sound off
Military Times Poll finds high morale, but less support for Bush, war effort
2005 Poll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disconnect cited between troops, civilian leadership
Four years of combat have done little to dent the morale of the professional military, results of the 2005 Military Times Poll show. But there are also hints in the results that the wave of good feeling may have crested.
Poll results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Morale
• Iraq, Afghanistan and President Bush
• Military, Race and Religion
• Politics, Civilians and Policy
Past results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Annual year-end polls and special surveys
By Gordon Trowbridge
Times staff writer
Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military’s professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.
Approval of the president’s Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60 percent, among active-duty readers
of the Military Times newspapers. Though support both for President Bush and for the war in Iraq remains significantly higher than in the public as a whole, the drop is likely to add further fuel to the heated debate over Iraq policy. In 2003 and 2004, supporters of the war in Iraq pointed to high approval ratings in the Military Times Poll as a signal that military members were behind President Bush’s the president’s policy.
The poll also found diminished optimism that U.S. goals in Iraq can be accomplished, and a somewhat smaller drop in support for the decision to go to war in 2003.
The mail survey, conducted Nov. 14 through Dec. 23, is the third annual effort by the Military Times to measure the opinions of the active-duty military on political and morale issues. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the military population. But the numbers are among the best measures of opinion in a difficult-to-survey population. The professional military seems to be lessening in its certainty about the wisdom of the Iraq intervention and the way it has been handled,” said Richard Kohn, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina who studies civil-military relations. “This seems to be more and more in keeping with changes in public views, and that’s not surprising.”
The survey mirrors a similar shift in U.S. public opinion over the last year. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, for example, recorded an eight-point drop in public approval for Iraq policy, from 47 percent in November 2004 to 39 percent in December 2005.
The drops in support seen in the Military Times Poll are “real drops, but I see them as reflecting the tone of the country,” said David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland. “People in the military talk to folks back home. Eventually, the military does catch up [with public opinion].” Other changes from ’04
Opinions on the president and Iraq weren’t the only shifts in the 2005 poll:
• Positive feelings about Congress, civilian and uniformed Pentagon leaders and the media all fell.
• Respondents also were less likely than in the past to believe other segments of the country viewed the military favorably. In 2004, 37 percent said civilians viewed the military very favorably; that fell to 24 percent this year. Last year, 77 percent said politicians saw the military very or somewhat favorably; 63 percent said so this year.
• There was somewhat more support for opening military service to openly homosexual Americans: 59 percent said open homosexuals should not be allowed to serve, down six points from last year.
• Opposition to the draft fell slightly, from 75 percent last year to 68 percent this year.
• Nearly two-thirds said the military is stretched too thin to be effective, though that figure is down substantially from two years ago.
• Job satisfaction and approval of pay, health benefits, training and equipment remain high — though in many cases, the support is less enthusiastic than in past years, based on responses.
• For the first time in the three-year history of the poll, more than half of respondents said they had deployed in support of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
But few of those shifts appear as significant as those on the president.
Published:
January 3, 2006
2005 Poll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disconnect cited between troops, civilian leadership
Four years of combat have done little to dent the morale of the professional military, results of the 2005 Military Times Poll show. But there are also hints in the results that the wave of good feeling may have crested.
Past results to be sure, support for the president and his policies remains stronger in the Military Times Poll than in surveys of the general public: The president’s approval rating is as much as 20 percentage points higher than in the civilian population. Part of that difference is partisan: While roughly a third of Americans describe themselves as Democrats, just 13 percent of Military Times Poll respondents do so.
In follow-up interviews, most poll respondents said they remain solidly behind their commander in chief and his policy in Iraq.
“I think we’re fortunate as a country to have someone who has the focus and the persistence that he does because it’s so easy to get sidetracked,” said Navy Cmdr. Jeff Bohler. “The ability of the president to persevere in the face of overwhelming criticism is really impressive. It takes someone with a spine and courage.”
Many attributed the fall in support, both among the public and the military, withto a misguided lack of patience.
“We live in a society where … people want answers right away,” said Air Force Capt. Randall Carlson, a physics instructor at the Air Force Academy, who said he approves of the president’s policies. “Unfortunately with Iraq, there are no easy answers.”
‘They don’t report good news’ While 73 percent of respondents believe it’s likely the United States will succeed in Iraq, that’s down 10 points from a year ago.
“We’re losing a lot of troops. The suicide bombers are not stopping,” said Air Force Staff Sgt. Melida G. Castano. “It doesn’t look promising at this point.”
But others blamed the loss in confidence on the media, which many said has failed to report positive news in Iraq. Four of every five respondents said they believe media reports are often inaccurate.
“They don’t report the good news, and if they do, it’s on the back page,” said Marine Chief Warrant Officer-3 Michael Edmonson.
Though the number of respondents who have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan was up 17 percentage points from a year ago, to 61 percent, that does not seem to have significantly affected opinions on Iraq. There was no significant difference in opinions between those who have deployed and those who haven’t, and responses from the Army and Marine Corps — the services under the most strain in Iraq — were not much different from other services.
Kohn, the University of North Carolina researcher, said the shifting opinions on Iraq may simply reflect shifts in the rest of the country. But he said he believes military opinions are at least partially insulated from civilian trends.
“The military is very capable of drawing differing judgments from the general population,” he said. “Military people think about these things with considerable sophistication. That is also sometimes undermined by their instinct to be loyal to the administration — any administration — to the government and to the mission.”
As in the previous two years, Military Times Poll respondents were reluctant to express opinions, even anonymously, about the commander in chief or his policies. About one in five refused to say whether they approved of the president’s performance on Iraq or overall.
“That’s my boss,” Army Lt. Col. Earnestine Beatty said in a follow-up interview. “I can’t comment.” Kohn said he worried that asking such questions of military members and publishing the results could tarnish the military’s image as a nonpartisan institution.
The poll “tends to communicate to the American people that the military is just like any other interest group,” Kohn said. “We want the public image of the military to be decidedly apolitical."
Published:
January 3, 2006
Troops sound off
Military Times Poll finds high morale, but less support for Bush, war effort
2005 Poll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disconnect cited between troops, civilian leadership
Four years of combat have done little to dent the morale of the professional military, results of the 2005 Military Times Poll show. But there are also hints in the results that the wave of good feeling may have crested.
Poll results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Morale
• Iraq, Afghanistan and President Bush
• Military, Race and Religion
• Politics, Civilians and Policy
Past results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Annual year-end polls and special surveys
By Gordon Trowbridge
Times staff writer
Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military’s professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.
Approval of the president’s Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60 percent, among active-duty readers
of the Military Times newspapers. Though support both for President Bush and for the war in Iraq remains significantly higher than in the public as a whole, the drop is likely to add further fuel to the heated debate over Iraq policy. In 2003 and 2004, supporters of the war in Iraq pointed to high approval ratings in the Military Times Poll as a signal that military members were behind President Bush’s the president’s policy.
The poll also found diminished optimism that U.S. goals in Iraq can be accomplished, and a somewhat smaller drop in support for the decision to go to war in 2003.
The mail survey, conducted Nov. 14 through Dec. 23, is the third annual effort by the Military Times to measure the opinions of the active-duty military on political and morale issues. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the military population. But the numbers are among the best measures of opinion in a difficult-to-survey population. The professional military seems to be lessening in its certainty about the wisdom of the Iraq intervention and the way it has been handled,” said Richard Kohn, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina who studies civil-military relations. “This seems to be more and more in keeping with changes in public views, and that’s not surprising.”
The survey mirrors a similar shift in U.S. public opinion over the last year. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, for example, recorded an eight-point drop in public approval for Iraq policy, from 47 percent in November 2004 to 39 percent in December 2005.
The drops in support seen in the Military Times Poll are “real drops, but I see them as reflecting the tone of the country,” said David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland. “People in the military talk to folks back home. Eventually, the military does catch up [with public opinion].” Other changes from ’04
Opinions on the president and Iraq weren’t the only shifts in the 2005 poll:
• Positive feelings about Congress, civilian and uniformed Pentagon leaders and the media all fell.
• Respondents also were less likely than in the past to believe other segments of the country viewed the military favorably. In 2004, 37 percent said civilians viewed the military very favorably; that fell to 24 percent this year. Last year, 77 percent said politicians saw the military very or somewhat favorably; 63 percent said so this year.
• There was somewhat more support for opening military service to openly homosexual Americans: 59 percent said open homosexuals should not be allowed to serve, down six points from last year.
• Opposition to the draft fell slightly, from 75 percent last year to 68 percent this year.
• Nearly two-thirds said the military is stretched too thin to be effective, though that figure is down substantially from two years ago.
• Job satisfaction and approval of pay, health benefits, training and equipment remain high — though in many cases, the support is less enthusiastic than in past years, based on responses.
• For the first time in the three-year history of the poll, more than half of respondents said they had deployed in support of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
But few of those shifts appear as significant as those on the president.
Published:
January 3, 2006
2005 Poll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disconnect cited between troops, civilian leadership
Four years of combat have done little to dent the morale of the professional military, results of the 2005 Military Times Poll show. But there are also hints in the results that the wave of good feeling may have crested.
Past results to be sure, support for the president and his policies remains stronger in the Military Times Poll than in surveys of the general public: The president’s approval rating is as much as 20 percentage points higher than in the civilian population. Part of that difference is partisan: While roughly a third of Americans describe themselves as Democrats, just 13 percent of Military Times Poll respondents do so.
In follow-up interviews, most poll respondents said they remain solidly behind their commander in chief and his policy in Iraq.
“I think we’re fortunate as a country to have someone who has the focus and the persistence that he does because it’s so easy to get sidetracked,” said Navy Cmdr. Jeff Bohler. “The ability of the president to persevere in the face of overwhelming criticism is really impressive. It takes someone with a spine and courage.”
Many attributed the fall in support, both among the public and the military, withto a misguided lack of patience.
“We live in a society where … people want answers right away,” said Air Force Capt. Randall Carlson, a physics instructor at the Air Force Academy, who said he approves of the president’s policies. “Unfortunately with Iraq, there are no easy answers.”
‘They don’t report good news’ While 73 percent of respondents believe it’s likely the United States will succeed in Iraq, that’s down 10 points from a year ago.
“We’re losing a lot of troops. The suicide bombers are not stopping,” said Air Force Staff Sgt. Melida G. Castano. “It doesn’t look promising at this point.”
But others blamed the loss in confidence on the media, which many said has failed to report positive news in Iraq. Four of every five respondents said they believe media reports are often inaccurate.
“They don’t report the good news, and if they do, it’s on the back page,” said Marine Chief Warrant Officer-3 Michael Edmonson.
Though the number of respondents who have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan was up 17 percentage points from a year ago, to 61 percent, that does not seem to have significantly affected opinions on Iraq. There was no significant difference in opinions between those who have deployed and those who haven’t, and responses from the Army and Marine Corps — the services under the most strain in Iraq — were not much different from other services.
Kohn, the University of North Carolina researcher, said the shifting opinions on Iraq may simply reflect shifts in the rest of the country. But he said he believes military opinions are at least partially insulated from civilian trends.
“The military is very capable of drawing differing judgments from the general population,” he said. “Military people think about these things with considerable sophistication. That is also sometimes undermined by their instinct to be loyal to the administration — any administration — to the government and to the mission.”
As in the previous two years, Military Times Poll respondents were reluctant to express opinions, even anonymously, about the commander in chief or his policies. About one in five refused to say whether they approved of the president’s performance on Iraq or overall.
“That’s my boss,” Army Lt. Col. Earnestine Beatty said in a follow-up interview. “I can’t comment.” Kohn said he worried that asking such questions of military members and publishing the results could tarnish the military’s image as a nonpartisan institution.
The poll “tends to communicate to the American people that the military is just like any other interest group,” Kohn said. “We want the public image of the military to be decidedly apolitical."
Rescuers hunt for trapped miners Detroit Free Press
Anna McCoy, whose husband, Randall McCoy, is among the missing miners, waits for news Monday at the mine in Tallmansville, W.Va. (BOB BIRD/Associated Press). Underground mining is the nation's second most-dangerous occupation after a category that includes farming, forestry and commercial fishing, according to the U.S. Labor Department. There were 22 deaths at U.S. coal mines last year, the fewest in at least 10 years. The deadliest coal mining disaster in U.S. history was an explosion in 1907 in Monongah, W.Va., that killed 362 people.
Rescuers dig to reach 13 West Virginia miners Reuters
W.Va. Mine Explosion Traps 13 Washington Post
New York Daily News - Pittsburgh Post Gazette - Reuters.uk - Sydney Morning Herald - all 1,506 related »
Anna McCoy, whose husband, Randall McCoy, is among the missing miners, waits for news Monday at the mine in Tallmansville, W.Va. (BOB BIRD/Associated Press). Underground mining is the nation's second most-dangerous occupation after a category that includes farming, forestry and commercial fishing, according to the U.S. Labor Department. There were 22 deaths at U.S. coal mines last year, the fewest in at least 10 years. The deadliest coal mining disaster in U.S. history was an explosion in 1907 in Monongah, W.Va., that killed 362 people.
Rescuers dig to reach 13 West Virginia miners Reuters
W.Va. Mine Explosion Traps 13 Washington Post
New York Daily News - Pittsburgh Post Gazette - Reuters.uk - Sydney Morning Herald - all 1,506 related »
U.S. military 'shuts down' soldiers' blogs
Troops are detailing their experiences in online journals, but military says some are revealing too much
BY JOSEPH MALLIA
STAFF WRITER
January 2, 2006
Letters home filled with tales of death and danger, bravery and boredom are a wartime certainty.
And now, as hundreds of soldiers overseas have started keeping Internet journals about the heat, the homesickness, the bloodshed, word speeds from the battlefront faster than ever.
More and more, though, U.S. military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan are clamping down on these military Web logs, known as milblogs.
After all, digital photos of blown-up tanks and gritty comments on urban warfare don't just interest mom and dad.
The enemy, too, has a laptop and satellite link.
Nowadays, milbloggers "get shut down almost as fast as they're set up," said New York Army National Guard Spc. Jason Christopher Hartley, 31, of upstate New Paltz, who believes something is lost as the grunt's-eye take on Tikrit or Kabul is silenced or sanitized.
Hartley last January was among the first active-duty combat troops demoted and fined for security violations on his blog, justanothersoldier.com.
Throughout last year, the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy tightened control on bloggers by requiring them to register through the chain of command and by creating special security squads to monitor milblogs.
"The ones that stay up are completely patriotic and innocuous, and they're fine if you want to read the flag-waving and how everything's peachy keen in Iraq," said Hartley, who is back in New Paltz after two years stationed in Iraq.
The new emphasis on security, however, is welcome to some.
"When you put your blog out there, you cannot forget that not only the good guys, but the bad guys are accessing it, especially for TTPs," said Marine Capt. Don Caetano, of Mineola, referring to techniques, tactics and procedures. Now a recruiter in Garden City, Caetano was stationed in Fallujah, where he ran the embedded journalist program.
"The limitations on blogging basically mean, 'Don't make it easy for them. Don't readily give up information,' " that would endanger U.S. troops, Caetano said.
Revealing a minor aspect of strategy or tactics may seem insignificant, Caetano said, but, "If the bad guys take a piece from me, and a piece from you, and a piece from another guy, pretty soon they can gather some pretty good intel."
The military, at first unaware of the milblogging trend, last year began targeting bloggers with warnings, punctuated by high-profile disciplinary action.
The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, in August sent a videotaped admonition to overseas troops warning them of the dangers of carelessness on blogs.
And, echoing the World War II censorship slogan, "Loose lips sink ships," the Pentagon in November sent out an advisory titled "Loose blogs may blow up BCTs." A BCT is a brigade combat team.
Hartley was fined $1,000 and demoted from sergeant. Others also have been disciplined, including Pfc. Leonard Clark, an Arizona national guardsman serving in Iraq who was demoted from specialist and fined $1,640 in August for putting classified information on his blog.
'That's sorta the point'
Among security breaches in postings on soldiers' Web sites, the Army pointed to photos of an Abrams tank pierced by a rocket-propelled grenade, which could show Iraqi insurgents where to aim.
In Hartley's case, the Army said he should not have described his unit's flight route into Iraq because that could help the enemy shoot down U.S. aircraft. And, the Army said, Hartley should not have disclosed that the last three bullets he loaded into his weapon's magazine were always tracers, because that could tip an enemy to time an attack just as an American soldier is reloading.
Despite those charges, Hartley asserts he did not put any American troops at risk. He believes the Army's real concern was his satiric tone.
"Photos of the week of cute Iraqi kids who I want to shoot," he captioned one set of snapshots on his blog in 2004.
"Something I cannot reiterate often enough is how monumentally misbehaved Iraqi street kids are," Hartley's blog continued. "But some of them are just so darn cute, you can't help but want to squeeze their little faces - until they suffocate."
The Army took him literally, even though Hartley said he was aiming his satire at those who believe Iraqi civilians' lives have little value.
Some of Hartley's readers got the point. Others did not.
One of Hartley's Web entries on April 24, 2004, carried a photograph of an Iraqi man's partially burned corpse clothed in a bloodied white tunic. Hartley's photo caption was a take on the "I [heart] New York City" slogan. His version: "I [heart] Dead Civilians."
In response, a visitor wrote: "Is this a joke or what? This whole blogg gives a bad taste in the mouth."
Hartley replied, "It leaves a bad taste in your mouth? That's sorta the point."
Another blog reader, with the moniker Alberto, defended the shock-blog: "The point of being so graphic it's to see what a war really is. Good blog, keep it up!"
In general, observers say, soldiers' online musings are less and less compelling.
There's less of the informal, often coarse language - one soldier speaking to another - that gave a feeling of authenticity and attracted thousands of readers both in and out of the military, said Jon Peede, director of Operation Homecoming, a National Endowment for the Arts program that gives writing instruction to U.S. troops and is creating a collection of their blogs, letters and essays.
Yet one drawback to vivid, uncensored descriptions of combat on blogs was that the family of a wounded or killed soldier might get the news impersonally, or worry unnecessarily, Peede said.
"A blogger might say, 'We were in a firefight in a particular city, and a fellow Marine was wounded,' " Peede said, "and then 50 families might read that and think it's their son or brother."
Content concerns
Besides, wayward milblogs give the world a skewed view of U.S. troops, said Capt. Dan Rice, of Manhattan, who served in Tikrit for 18 months with the U.S. Army National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division. A West Point graduate, Rice served as a finance officer and is now back working as a vice president at the U.S. Trust Co. of New York.
Most bloggers are atypical soldiers, said Rice, who wrote a pro-military blog favored by his superior officers. "It will mostly be the risk-takers, the mavericks, and the one percent that's bitter, who will blog."
Readers also have taken up the debate.
"my only concern is the posting of troopers pics and info ... the jihadist moniter [sic] these blogs too," a visitor to adayiniraq.com wrote.
"these troops may have been compromised by these blogs," the visitor wrote. "i for one would rather have no blogs about our troopers if it needlessly endanger's 1 of thier [sic] lives."
Marine Cpl. Al Maldonado, 28, of West Hempstead, who saw combat in Iraq, said milblogs help maintain a connection between the troops and their friends, family and community back home. During weeks of supplying tons of ammunition to Marines in Fallujah in November, his family was cheered to find a humorous photo of him on a blog, Maldonado said.
Blogs also allow soldiers to simply describe their combat experiences, without feeling they are bragging, Maldonado said.
"Sometimes they want to tell everyone what they went through because they're afraid that when they go back, they won't be appreciated for what they've done," he said.
Maldonado, an ammo chief, criticized Hartley for blogging about the reloading technique. "To describe your method for loading tracers in a blog, that's pretty stupid. Now I know when three tracers go by me that's when he's reloading," he said.
A waste of time?
Seymour Hersh, the reporter who broke stories on the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War and torture at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, said military commanders can't control the flow of information by shutting down soldiers' blogs.
"There's a tremendous communication underground. [Soldiers] talk, they send e-mails, photos," Hersh said from his Washington, D.C., office. "The Army is wasting its time."
Milblogs remain popular. mudvillegazette.com claimed more than 700,000 page views in 2005, with blackfive.net not far behind. And michaelyon.blogspot is ranked in the top 100 (No. 81) of the 8 million blogs tracked by Technorati.com.
But with stricter controls now in place, the milblogosphere's freewheeling days likely are limited.
Some critics of the censorship say it could be harder for American soldiers to publicly raise questions about the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the success or failure of the war effort, and the "stop-loss" policy that forces soldiers to remain after enlistment contracts expire.
But a complete milblog blackout may never succeed.
"Is it over? No way, as long as there are soldiers and the Internet. People will always be starting blogs and get shut down, and then someone else starts one," Hartley said. "In my generation, or younger, everyone's all about spilling their guts on the Internet."
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
Troops are detailing their experiences in online journals, but military says some are revealing too much
BY JOSEPH MALLIA
STAFF WRITER
January 2, 2006
Letters home filled with tales of death and danger, bravery and boredom are a wartime certainty.
And now, as hundreds of soldiers overseas have started keeping Internet journals about the heat, the homesickness, the bloodshed, word speeds from the battlefront faster than ever.
More and more, though, U.S. military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan are clamping down on these military Web logs, known as milblogs.
After all, digital photos of blown-up tanks and gritty comments on urban warfare don't just interest mom and dad.
The enemy, too, has a laptop and satellite link.
Nowadays, milbloggers "get shut down almost as fast as they're set up," said New York Army National Guard Spc. Jason Christopher Hartley, 31, of upstate New Paltz, who believes something is lost as the grunt's-eye take on Tikrit or Kabul is silenced or sanitized.
Hartley last January was among the first active-duty combat troops demoted and fined for security violations on his blog, justanothersoldier.com.
Throughout last year, the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy tightened control on bloggers by requiring them to register through the chain of command and by creating special security squads to monitor milblogs.
"The ones that stay up are completely patriotic and innocuous, and they're fine if you want to read the flag-waving and how everything's peachy keen in Iraq," said Hartley, who is back in New Paltz after two years stationed in Iraq.
The new emphasis on security, however, is welcome to some.
"When you put your blog out there, you cannot forget that not only the good guys, but the bad guys are accessing it, especially for TTPs," said Marine Capt. Don Caetano, of Mineola, referring to techniques, tactics and procedures. Now a recruiter in Garden City, Caetano was stationed in Fallujah, where he ran the embedded journalist program.
"The limitations on blogging basically mean, 'Don't make it easy for them. Don't readily give up information,' " that would endanger U.S. troops, Caetano said.
Revealing a minor aspect of strategy or tactics may seem insignificant, Caetano said, but, "If the bad guys take a piece from me, and a piece from you, and a piece from another guy, pretty soon they can gather some pretty good intel."
The military, at first unaware of the milblogging trend, last year began targeting bloggers with warnings, punctuated by high-profile disciplinary action.
The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, in August sent a videotaped admonition to overseas troops warning them of the dangers of carelessness on blogs.
And, echoing the World War II censorship slogan, "Loose lips sink ships," the Pentagon in November sent out an advisory titled "Loose blogs may blow up BCTs." A BCT is a brigade combat team.
Hartley was fined $1,000 and demoted from sergeant. Others also have been disciplined, including Pfc. Leonard Clark, an Arizona national guardsman serving in Iraq who was demoted from specialist and fined $1,640 in August for putting classified information on his blog.
'That's sorta the point'
Among security breaches in postings on soldiers' Web sites, the Army pointed to photos of an Abrams tank pierced by a rocket-propelled grenade, which could show Iraqi insurgents where to aim.
In Hartley's case, the Army said he should not have described his unit's flight route into Iraq because that could help the enemy shoot down U.S. aircraft. And, the Army said, Hartley should not have disclosed that the last three bullets he loaded into his weapon's magazine were always tracers, because that could tip an enemy to time an attack just as an American soldier is reloading.
Despite those charges, Hartley asserts he did not put any American troops at risk. He believes the Army's real concern was his satiric tone.
"Photos of the week of cute Iraqi kids who I want to shoot," he captioned one set of snapshots on his blog in 2004.
"Something I cannot reiterate often enough is how monumentally misbehaved Iraqi street kids are," Hartley's blog continued. "But some of them are just so darn cute, you can't help but want to squeeze their little faces - until they suffocate."
The Army took him literally, even though Hartley said he was aiming his satire at those who believe Iraqi civilians' lives have little value.
Some of Hartley's readers got the point. Others did not.
One of Hartley's Web entries on April 24, 2004, carried a photograph of an Iraqi man's partially burned corpse clothed in a bloodied white tunic. Hartley's photo caption was a take on the "I [heart] New York City" slogan. His version: "I [heart] Dead Civilians."
In response, a visitor wrote: "Is this a joke or what? This whole blogg gives a bad taste in the mouth."
Hartley replied, "It leaves a bad taste in your mouth? That's sorta the point."
Another blog reader, with the moniker Alberto, defended the shock-blog: "The point of being so graphic it's to see what a war really is. Good blog, keep it up!"
In general, observers say, soldiers' online musings are less and less compelling.
There's less of the informal, often coarse language - one soldier speaking to another - that gave a feeling of authenticity and attracted thousands of readers both in and out of the military, said Jon Peede, director of Operation Homecoming, a National Endowment for the Arts program that gives writing instruction to U.S. troops and is creating a collection of their blogs, letters and essays.
Yet one drawback to vivid, uncensored descriptions of combat on blogs was that the family of a wounded or killed soldier might get the news impersonally, or worry unnecessarily, Peede said.
"A blogger might say, 'We were in a firefight in a particular city, and a fellow Marine was wounded,' " Peede said, "and then 50 families might read that and think it's their son or brother."
Content concerns
Besides, wayward milblogs give the world a skewed view of U.S. troops, said Capt. Dan Rice, of Manhattan, who served in Tikrit for 18 months with the U.S. Army National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division. A West Point graduate, Rice served as a finance officer and is now back working as a vice president at the U.S. Trust Co. of New York.
Most bloggers are atypical soldiers, said Rice, who wrote a pro-military blog favored by his superior officers. "It will mostly be the risk-takers, the mavericks, and the one percent that's bitter, who will blog."
Readers also have taken up the debate.
"my only concern is the posting of troopers pics and info ... the jihadist moniter [sic] these blogs too," a visitor to adayiniraq.com wrote.
"these troops may have been compromised by these blogs," the visitor wrote. "i for one would rather have no blogs about our troopers if it needlessly endanger's 1 of thier [sic] lives."
Marine Cpl. Al Maldonado, 28, of West Hempstead, who saw combat in Iraq, said milblogs help maintain a connection between the troops and their friends, family and community back home. During weeks of supplying tons of ammunition to Marines in Fallujah in November, his family was cheered to find a humorous photo of him on a blog, Maldonado said.
Blogs also allow soldiers to simply describe their combat experiences, without feeling they are bragging, Maldonado said.
"Sometimes they want to tell everyone what they went through because they're afraid that when they go back, they won't be appreciated for what they've done," he said.
Maldonado, an ammo chief, criticized Hartley for blogging about the reloading technique. "To describe your method for loading tracers in a blog, that's pretty stupid. Now I know when three tracers go by me that's when he's reloading," he said.
A waste of time?
Seymour Hersh, the reporter who broke stories on the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War and torture at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, said military commanders can't control the flow of information by shutting down soldiers' blogs.
"There's a tremendous communication underground. [Soldiers] talk, they send e-mails, photos," Hersh said from his Washington, D.C., office. "The Army is wasting its time."
Milblogs remain popular. mudvillegazette.com claimed more than 700,000 page views in 2005, with blackfive.net not far behind. And michaelyon.blogspot is ranked in the top 100 (No. 81) of the 8 million blogs tracked by Technorati.com.
But with stricter controls now in place, the milblogosphere's freewheeling days likely are limited.
Some critics of the censorship say it could be harder for American soldiers to publicly raise questions about the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the success or failure of the war effort, and the "stop-loss" policy that forces soldiers to remain after enlistment contracts expire.
But a complete milblog blackout may never succeed.
"Is it over? No way, as long as there are soldiers and the Internet. People will always be starting blogs and get shut down, and then someone else starts one," Hartley said. "In my generation, or younger, everyone's all about spilling their guts on the Internet."
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
We're in Iraq for a while yet, McCain tells PM
John Kerin
03jan06
US presidential hopeful John McCain has assured John Howard that his country's troops will remain in Iraq for the long haul.
In an informal 45-minute meeting at Kirribilli House yesterday, Senator McCain assured the Prime Minister that while the situation in Iraq was improving, there was still some way to go before US and other coalition troops could be withdrawn.
Senator McCain's views on abortion, immigration and global warming have put him at odds with President George W. Bush but he is considered one of the Republican Party's best hopes for a tilt at the presidency in 2008.
He pushed through a bill late last month that effectively bans the torture of all terrorists in US custody, claiming that incidents such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal were more harmful to the US than its enemies.
Senator McCain has also said more US troops are needed to help stabilise Iraq, despite Pentagon plans to withdraw as many as 20,000 in the wake of the December 15 parliamentary elections.
"Senator McCain's view was that while the situation in Iraq was improving, there is still some distance to go," a spokesman for Mr Howard said.
Mr Howard indicated last month that Australia's mission in Iraq could be extended and Canberra could face pressure from Washington to send more troops to help reconstruction later in the year.
Australia has 1320 troops in the Iraq theatre, including 450 at al-Muthanna guarding Japanese engineers and training the Iraqi army.
Mr Howard's spokesman said the two men had also discussed climate change, which was an area of particular interest for the senator. Their talks come ahead of an Australian-hosted international meeting on the topic.
Australia, the US, China, India and South Korea have formed a pact to reduce greenhouse emissions outside the auspices of the Kyoto protocol.
The first meeting of the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate is to be staged in Sydney in two weeks' time.
A Zogby poll in the US has suggested that Senator McCain could win the 2008 presidential election if it turns into a head-to-head contest with Democrat senator Hillary Clinton.
The poll of 1000 Americans conducted last month found that 52 per cent of respondents would vote for the Republican in such a contest.
Senator McCain won seven Republican presidential primaries in 2000 but stood down when Mr Bush took the lead in the fight to represent the party.
© The Australian
John Kerin
03jan06
US presidential hopeful John McCain has assured John Howard that his country's troops will remain in Iraq for the long haul.
In an informal 45-minute meeting at Kirribilli House yesterday, Senator McCain assured the Prime Minister that while the situation in Iraq was improving, there was still some way to go before US and other coalition troops could be withdrawn.
Senator McCain's views on abortion, immigration and global warming have put him at odds with President George W. Bush but he is considered one of the Republican Party's best hopes for a tilt at the presidency in 2008.
He pushed through a bill late last month that effectively bans the torture of all terrorists in US custody, claiming that incidents such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal were more harmful to the US than its enemies.
Senator McCain has also said more US troops are needed to help stabilise Iraq, despite Pentagon plans to withdraw as many as 20,000 in the wake of the December 15 parliamentary elections.
"Senator McCain's view was that while the situation in Iraq was improving, there is still some distance to go," a spokesman for Mr Howard said.
Mr Howard indicated last month that Australia's mission in Iraq could be extended and Canberra could face pressure from Washington to send more troops to help reconstruction later in the year.
Australia has 1320 troops in the Iraq theatre, including 450 at al-Muthanna guarding Japanese engineers and training the Iraqi army.
Mr Howard's spokesman said the two men had also discussed climate change, which was an area of particular interest for the senator. Their talks come ahead of an Australian-hosted international meeting on the topic.
Australia, the US, China, India and South Korea have formed a pact to reduce greenhouse emissions outside the auspices of the Kyoto protocol.
The first meeting of the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate is to be staged in Sydney in two weeks' time.
A Zogby poll in the US has suggested that Senator McCain could win the 2008 presidential election if it turns into a head-to-head contest with Democrat senator Hillary Clinton.
The poll of 1000 Americans conducted last month found that 52 per cent of respondents would vote for the Republican in such a contest.
Senator McCain won seven Republican presidential primaries in 2000 but stood down when Mr Bush took the lead in the fight to represent the party.
© The Australian
January 3, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.
Debate over eavesdropping grows
Bush defends program again, but critics in Senate still vow hearings.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The debate over whether it was appropriate or legal for President Bush to authorize wiretaps without warrants continued over the New Year's weekend. As President Bush was strongly defending his actions and the decision to allow the wiretapping in the name of national security, two new twists to the story have given his critics more ammunition.
On Sunday The New York Times reported that an extraordinary meeting had taken place in a Washington hospital in 2004. Two of President Bush's top aides – Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general – had gone to John Ashcroft, then attorney general, in his hospital room to ask him to overturn the decision of his deputy, James B. Comey. Mr. Comey, the Times reported, had refused to sign off on the central aspects of the domestic spying program because he had concerns about its legality and oversight.
Newsweek reports that Mr. Ashcroft refused to overturn his deputy's decision, which means the White House may have gone ahead with the program without the support of the Justice Department at that time.
The Washington Post reported Sunday that information captured by the National Security Agency in the program authorized by the President had been shared with other agencies in the US government.
At least one of those organizations, the [Defense Intelligence Agency], has used NSA information as the basis for carrying out surveillance of people in the country suspected of posing a threat, according to two sources. A DIA spokesman said the agency does not conduct such domestic surveillance but would not comment further. Spokesmen for the FBI, the CIA and the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, declined to comment on the use of NSA data.
The Post points out it was the revelation in the 1970s that the US military was using NSA intercepts to maintain files on US peace activists that led to Congress restricting the NSA's ability to intercept American's communications. Jason Leopold, writing on the progressive site truthout.org, notes Monday that the first hint that domestic spying was taking place actually came several months ago, during the confirmation hearings for John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations.
At the hearing in late April, Bolton, a former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, told Congress that since 2001 he had asked the NSA on 10 different occasions to reveal to him the identities of American citizens who were caught in the NSA's raw intelligence reports in what appears to be a routine circumventing of the rules governing eavesdropping on the American public. It turned out that Bolton was just one of many government officials who learned the identities of Americans caught in the NSA intercepts. The State Department asked the NSA to unmask the identities of American citizens 500 times since May 2001.
Newsweek revealed earlier this year that the NSA disclosed to senior White House officials and other policymakers at federal agencies the names of as many as 10,000 American citizens the agency obtained while eavesdropping on foreigners. The Americans weren't involved in any sort of terrorist activity, nor did they pose any sort of threat to national security, but had simply been named while the NSA was conducting wiretaps.
But over the weekend President Bush once again strongly defended his actions and the spying program. The Associated Press reports that Mr. Bush called the program vital to thwarting terrorist attacks and said that making the leak about the program public had caused "great harm to the nation."
“This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America and, I repeat, limited,” Bush told reporters after visiting wounded troops at Brooke Army Medical Center [in San Antonio, Texas]. “I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy’s thinking.”
AP reported last week that the Justice Department will hold an investigation into the leak about the classified spying program that formed the basis of the original story in The New York Times in mid-December. The Christian Science Monitor reports that moderate Senate Republicans are teaming up with Democrats to increase congressional oversight of these programs and to hold hearings on this and other similar issues of presidential power.
"When the Bill of Rights is involved, it's time to go into it very deeply," says [Sen. Arlen] Specter [® of Pennslyvania, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee]. "The public has a right to know as much as possible. It's hard to see how a resolution on the use of force can be extended to the conduct involved here."
Time magazine reported Sunday that even some of the President's staunchest supporters are questioning the decision to eavesdrop without warrants, not only in the short-term, but because of the long-term implications.
"There is a test of Republicans on this," says activist Grover Norquist, normally a White House ally. "The country will let you get away with this in the wake of 9/11, but that doesn't make it right." And even if Republicans are prepared to bless Bush's program, they know it theoretically would have to mean extending such sweeping Executive power to, say, a President Hillary Clinton.
Newsweek notes that US presidents have a history of choosing to "violate individual rights over the risk of losing a war."
When the French threatened American sovereignty on the high seas in 1798, John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, blatantly punishing free speech as traitorous. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (the rule giving citizens a right to take their grievances to court). During World War I, Woodrow Wilson allowed officials to prosecute anyone for criticizing the government. During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt allowed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to promiscuously wiretap, and ordered Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps. As the Vietnam War dragged on and domestic dissent arose, Richard Nixon—citing his Democratic predecessors FDR and Lyndon Johnson—authorized bugging and wiretapping against domestic "subversives." None of these steps, it should be pointed out, made the nation appreciably safer.
Debate over eavesdropping grows
Bush defends program again, but critics in Senate still vow hearings.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The debate over whether it was appropriate or legal for President Bush to authorize wiretaps without warrants continued over the New Year's weekend. As President Bush was strongly defending his actions and the decision to allow the wiretapping in the name of national security, two new twists to the story have given his critics more ammunition.
On Sunday The New York Times reported that an extraordinary meeting had taken place in a Washington hospital in 2004. Two of President Bush's top aides – Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general – had gone to John Ashcroft, then attorney general, in his hospital room to ask him to overturn the decision of his deputy, James B. Comey. Mr. Comey, the Times reported, had refused to sign off on the central aspects of the domestic spying program because he had concerns about its legality and oversight.
Newsweek reports that Mr. Ashcroft refused to overturn his deputy's decision, which means the White House may have gone ahead with the program without the support of the Justice Department at that time.
The Washington Post reported Sunday that information captured by the National Security Agency in the program authorized by the President had been shared with other agencies in the US government.
At least one of those organizations, the [Defense Intelligence Agency], has used NSA information as the basis for carrying out surveillance of people in the country suspected of posing a threat, according to two sources. A DIA spokesman said the agency does not conduct such domestic surveillance but would not comment further. Spokesmen for the FBI, the CIA and the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, declined to comment on the use of NSA data.
The Post points out it was the revelation in the 1970s that the US military was using NSA intercepts to maintain files on US peace activists that led to Congress restricting the NSA's ability to intercept American's communications. Jason Leopold, writing on the progressive site truthout.org, notes Monday that the first hint that domestic spying was taking place actually came several months ago, during the confirmation hearings for John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations.
At the hearing in late April, Bolton, a former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, told Congress that since 2001 he had asked the NSA on 10 different occasions to reveal to him the identities of American citizens who were caught in the NSA's raw intelligence reports in what appears to be a routine circumventing of the rules governing eavesdropping on the American public. It turned out that Bolton was just one of many government officials who learned the identities of Americans caught in the NSA intercepts. The State Department asked the NSA to unmask the identities of American citizens 500 times since May 2001.
Newsweek revealed earlier this year that the NSA disclosed to senior White House officials and other policymakers at federal agencies the names of as many as 10,000 American citizens the agency obtained while eavesdropping on foreigners. The Americans weren't involved in any sort of terrorist activity, nor did they pose any sort of threat to national security, but had simply been named while the NSA was conducting wiretaps.
But over the weekend President Bush once again strongly defended his actions and the spying program. The Associated Press reports that Mr. Bush called the program vital to thwarting terrorist attacks and said that making the leak about the program public had caused "great harm to the nation."
“This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America and, I repeat, limited,” Bush told reporters after visiting wounded troops at Brooke Army Medical Center [in San Antonio, Texas]. “I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy’s thinking.”
AP reported last week that the Justice Department will hold an investigation into the leak about the classified spying program that formed the basis of the original story in The New York Times in mid-December. The Christian Science Monitor reports that moderate Senate Republicans are teaming up with Democrats to increase congressional oversight of these programs and to hold hearings on this and other similar issues of presidential power.
"When the Bill of Rights is involved, it's time to go into it very deeply," says [Sen. Arlen] Specter [® of Pennslyvania, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee]. "The public has a right to know as much as possible. It's hard to see how a resolution on the use of force can be extended to the conduct involved here."
Time magazine reported Sunday that even some of the President's staunchest supporters are questioning the decision to eavesdrop without warrants, not only in the short-term, but because of the long-term implications.
"There is a test of Republicans on this," says activist Grover Norquist, normally a White House ally. "The country will let you get away with this in the wake of 9/11, but that doesn't make it right." And even if Republicans are prepared to bless Bush's program, they know it theoretically would have to mean extending such sweeping Executive power to, say, a President Hillary Clinton.
Newsweek notes that US presidents have a history of choosing to "violate individual rights over the risk of losing a war."
When the French threatened American sovereignty on the high seas in 1798, John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, blatantly punishing free speech as traitorous. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (the rule giving citizens a right to take their grievances to court). During World War I, Woodrow Wilson allowed officials to prosecute anyone for criticizing the government. During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt allowed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to promiscuously wiretap, and ordered Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps. As the Vietnam War dragged on and domestic dissent arose, Richard Nixon—citing his Democratic predecessors FDR and Lyndon Johnson—authorized bugging and wiretapping against domestic "subversives." None of these steps, it should be pointed out, made the nation appreciably safer.
Bush Pushes for Patriot Act Renewal By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
As the clock runs on Congress' short-term extension of the Patriot Act, President Bush met with federal prosecutors Tuesday and contended that the domestic anti-terror law is vital to keeping Americans safe.
Many key provisions of the law were to expire Dec. 31. Amid a debate over whether the act sufficiently protects civil liberties, most Senate Democrats and a few Republicans united against legislation that would have renewed several provisions permanently while extending others for four years.
In a move the White House adamantly opposed but later accepted, Congress approved a one-month extension of the law in its current form to allow the debate to continue. The new measure expires Feb. 3.
Bush, his voice rising in apparent irritation, said lawmakers must act on a permanent renewal of the law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers. Noting the Patriot Act was overwhelmingly approved not long after the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, he said political considerations now were getting in the way.
"When it came time to renew the act, for partisan reasons, in my mind, people have not stepped up and have agreed that it's still necessary to protect the country," said the president, sitting at a table in the Roosevelt Room with federal officials and 19 district attorneys from around the country.
"The enemy has not gone away. They're still there. And I expect Congress to understand that we're still at war, and they got to give us the tools necessary to win this war," he said.
Later, outside the West Wing, district attorneys cited several cases in which the Patriot Act had played a crucial role, from staging an undercover sting on California weapons dealers attempting to sell Stinger missiles to securing convictions of major terrorist financiers in New York.
"We use it each and every day to protect our country against terrorists and criminals," said Ken Wainstein, district attorney for the District of Columbia.
"We believe this provides adequate safeguards in every respect," said Mary Beth Buchanan, the district attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The White House event drew 19 of the country's 93 U.S. attorneys. They were contacted by officials at the Justice Department to attend, Wainstein said.
Among the provisions the renewal would make permanent are those that allow roving wiretaps so that investigators can listen in on any telephone and tap any computer they think a terrorist might use.
Copyright © 2006 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 © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
As the clock runs on Congress' short-term extension of the Patriot Act, President Bush met with federal prosecutors Tuesday and contended that the domestic anti-terror law is vital to keeping Americans safe.
Many key provisions of the law were to expire Dec. 31. Amid a debate over whether the act sufficiently protects civil liberties, most Senate Democrats and a few Republicans united against legislation that would have renewed several provisions permanently while extending others for four years.
In a move the White House adamantly opposed but later accepted, Congress approved a one-month extension of the law in its current form to allow the debate to continue. The new measure expires Feb. 3.
Bush, his voice rising in apparent irritation, said lawmakers must act on a permanent renewal of the law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers. Noting the Patriot Act was overwhelmingly approved not long after the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, he said political considerations now were getting in the way.
"When it came time to renew the act, for partisan reasons, in my mind, people have not stepped up and have agreed that it's still necessary to protect the country," said the president, sitting at a table in the Roosevelt Room with federal officials and 19 district attorneys from around the country.
"The enemy has not gone away. They're still there. And I expect Congress to understand that we're still at war, and they got to give us the tools necessary to win this war," he said.
Later, outside the West Wing, district attorneys cited several cases in which the Patriot Act had played a crucial role, from staging an undercover sting on California weapons dealers attempting to sell Stinger missiles to securing convictions of major terrorist financiers in New York.
"We use it each and every day to protect our country against terrorists and criminals," said Ken Wainstein, district attorney for the District of Columbia.
"We believe this provides adequate safeguards in every respect," said Mary Beth Buchanan, the district attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The White House event drew 19 of the country's 93 U.S. attorneys. They were contacted by officials at the Justice Department to attend, Wainstein said.
Among the provisions the renewal would make permanent are those that allow roving wiretaps so that investigators can listen in on any telephone and tap any computer they think a terrorist might use.
Copyright © 2006 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 © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...nationworld-hed
President regroups, looks ahead
After setbacks, Bush expected to focus on economy, federal tax relief
By Mark Silva and William Neikirk
Washington Bureau
Published January 3, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush will strive to focus public attention on a growing economy and tax relief in the new year as he struggles to reclaim political capital lost after his most bruising year and revive a stalled domestic agenda.
For Bush, a president under siege early in his second term, the challenge is daunting. It involves drawing the American public's eye toward the nation's economic successes--low unemployment and an expanding job market--while overcoming public concern about the death toll in an unpopular war in Iraq.
Rising interest rates, the cost of energy and a staggering federal deficit will complicate the positive picture the president attempts to portray of an economy still vulnerable to trouble. The White House also is bracing for painful cuts in the new budget that Bush will propose in February.
Analysts also say American military forces will have to start coming home from Iraq in greater numbers in 2006 if Bush is to regain political clout with the public, and with a fractured Congress, which he lost during the tumultuous first year of his second term.
"To a startling degree, the political capital and momentum that he had at the start of 2005 have been dissipated almost entirely," said Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. "The administration is reactive and in a defensive posture, really. You have a Congress that is splintering and rebellious. . . . Republicans are in a survival mode."
Bush back in Chicago
The president plans to focus on economic successes as he tours the Chicago Board of Trade on Friday and addresses a noon luncheon of the Economic Club of Chicago.
Bush's political fortunes also will have a bearing on his party's ability to withstand challenges in November's midterm elections and maintain control of the House and Senate. Republicans have suffered scandals involving a former leader, Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, and rank and file members of Congress. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, remains under investigation in the disclosure of a CIA operative's identity.
Nearly half of all Americans surveyed--49 percent--would like to see Democrats in control of Congress after November's elections, according to a recent poll by RT Strategies, a joint venture of Republican Lance Tarrance and Democrat Thomas Riehle. Just 38 percent said they want to see Republicans remain in control.
Bush has suffered a precipitous slump, and he enjoyed only a slight "uptick" in public approval at year's end, according to a Gallup Poll. His job approval stood at 42 percent in Gallup's latest survey in mid-December, after reaching a nadir of 37 percent in November. His approval ratings took a double-digit fall from February 2005.
"It appears that the president's job approval ratings have stopped their downward slide," Gallup Editor in Chief Frank Newport has written, "but there are no signs of a major uptick."
The new year opens with a significant dispute over domestic wiretapping after it was revealed that Bush secretly permitted the National Security Agency to conduct it without warrants.
The old year was framed with stunning natural calamity, the tsunami that claimed an estimated 216,000 lives, including the missing, in Southeast Asia at the end of 2004 and into 2005, and Hurricane Katrina's summertime toll of more than 1,300 along the Gulf Coast.
In both instances, the Bush administration was faulted for an initially sluggish response. And in New Orleans, the response left Bush vulnerable to charges of racial insensitivity, undermining years of Republican Party efforts to court black voters.
But most important, Republicans and Democrats agree, the president's trouble is compounded by the rising American casualties in Iraq--now exceeding 2,100--as a majority of Americans in opinion polls now deem the war a mistake.
Bush also has lost his strongest hand in his argument for "completing the mission" in Iraq--that the conflict represents the central front in a war against terrorism. A majority of responding Americans, 55 percent, told Gallup that the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror, and 56 percent said Bush has no plan for victory in Iraq.
The president has confronted his challenge, supporters say, by acknowledging more directly the mistakes in intelligence made in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. And he has started campaigning more heavily on the strength of the nation's economy.
"The president will begin the new year very much in the way he left . . . 2005, which is to discuss the country's two top priorities--keeping our economy strong and growing stronger and creating jobs, and also winning the war on terrorism," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said last week in Crawford, Texas, where the president spent the year-end holiday with his family and some books.
The president's ranch reading was said to include a legacy-minded book by Patricia O'Toole, "When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House."
The framework of Bush's legacy already is written in his response to 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, as well as in the tax cuts and education reform he won during his first year in office.
But a 25-state, five-month campaign for Social Security reform with which he launched his second term, claiming his re-election had given him new capital and he intended to spend it, ended in failure.
If Bush can regain leverage, he still hopes to make permanent his first-term tax cuts. Administration officials privately acknowledge, however, that any hope of broad tax reform--making good on Bush's long-stated promise to simplify an arcane federal tax code--will be lost in a year of tough budget-cutting.
Bush, some say, has lost any standing to swing for the fences.
"People judge you on whether you won or lost the last game," said Kevin Hassett, director of economic studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "I think that's why he will play small ball in the coming year."
Daniel Mitchell, chief expert on taxes for the conservative Heritage Foundation, envisions Bush continuing to make a case for tax reform without pressing Congress for a vote in 2006.
"They have to have an agenda," Mitchell said. "Politics abhors a vacuum, and they are going to have to talk about something."
And as much as Bush touts the economy, it still will "play second fiddle" to foreign policy, Mitchell said. Despite problems in Iraq, Republicans are confident that they can counter Democrats as soft on terrorism. "They think that is their trump card," he said.
Scott Reed, a Republican strategist in Washington, suggested Bush will have a chance to "break through" the shroud that Iraq has placed over his presidency with his State of the Union address at the end of January.
"The president has regrouped and has begun to set a new direction," Reed said. "It's talking about the economy, the real backbone of his strength, and recognizing some of the real shortcomings in Iraq, which everyone recognizes."
Grover Norquist, a Washington conservative close to the White House, said he is optimistic that Bush's standing will rise in 2006. Many of the problems he faced toward the end of 2005--such as Iraq, gasoline prices and investigations of administration officials--will improve over the year and enable the GOP to maintain control of Congress, Norquist said.
The president's weakness has created an opening for other leaders. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of the Republican Party's favorites for the 2008 presidential nomination, already has claimed a signal victory with a ban against torture that the White House resisted.
And the campaigns of such Democratic presidential hopefuls as former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York likely will start soon after the dust has settled from the midterm elections.
Waiting in the wings
"This environment is tailor-made for John McCain," said Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster for former President Bill Clinton. "But if it's good news for McCain, it's even better news for Hillary Clinton. . . . If Bush is at or near 40 percent [in '08], we will have a Democratic president."
"There is nothing overnight that the White House can do," said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster. "It's not like a football game where you make that Hail Mary pass. It's a long battle back."
----------
mdsilva@tribune.com
wneikirk@tribune.com
President regroups, looks ahead
After setbacks, Bush expected to focus on economy, federal tax relief
By Mark Silva and William Neikirk
Washington Bureau
Published January 3, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush will strive to focus public attention on a growing economy and tax relief in the new year as he struggles to reclaim political capital lost after his most bruising year and revive a stalled domestic agenda.
For Bush, a president under siege early in his second term, the challenge is daunting. It involves drawing the American public's eye toward the nation's economic successes--low unemployment and an expanding job market--while overcoming public concern about the death toll in an unpopular war in Iraq.
Rising interest rates, the cost of energy and a staggering federal deficit will complicate the positive picture the president attempts to portray of an economy still vulnerable to trouble. The White House also is bracing for painful cuts in the new budget that Bush will propose in February.
Analysts also say American military forces will have to start coming home from Iraq in greater numbers in 2006 if Bush is to regain political clout with the public, and with a fractured Congress, which he lost during the tumultuous first year of his second term.
"To a startling degree, the political capital and momentum that he had at the start of 2005 have been dissipated almost entirely," said Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. "The administration is reactive and in a defensive posture, really. You have a Congress that is splintering and rebellious. . . . Republicans are in a survival mode."
Bush back in Chicago
The president plans to focus on economic successes as he tours the Chicago Board of Trade on Friday and addresses a noon luncheon of the Economic Club of Chicago.
Bush's political fortunes also will have a bearing on his party's ability to withstand challenges in November's midterm elections and maintain control of the House and Senate. Republicans have suffered scandals involving a former leader, Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, and rank and file members of Congress. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, remains under investigation in the disclosure of a CIA operative's identity.
Nearly half of all Americans surveyed--49 percent--would like to see Democrats in control of Congress after November's elections, according to a recent poll by RT Strategies, a joint venture of Republican Lance Tarrance and Democrat Thomas Riehle. Just 38 percent said they want to see Republicans remain in control.
Bush has suffered a precipitous slump, and he enjoyed only a slight "uptick" in public approval at year's end, according to a Gallup Poll. His job approval stood at 42 percent in Gallup's latest survey in mid-December, after reaching a nadir of 37 percent in November. His approval ratings took a double-digit fall from February 2005.
"It appears that the president's job approval ratings have stopped their downward slide," Gallup Editor in Chief Frank Newport has written, "but there are no signs of a major uptick."
The new year opens with a significant dispute over domestic wiretapping after it was revealed that Bush secretly permitted the National Security Agency to conduct it without warrants.
The old year was framed with stunning natural calamity, the tsunami that claimed an estimated 216,000 lives, including the missing, in Southeast Asia at the end of 2004 and into 2005, and Hurricane Katrina's summertime toll of more than 1,300 along the Gulf Coast.
In both instances, the Bush administration was faulted for an initially sluggish response. And in New Orleans, the response left Bush vulnerable to charges of racial insensitivity, undermining years of Republican Party efforts to court black voters.
But most important, Republicans and Democrats agree, the president's trouble is compounded by the rising American casualties in Iraq--now exceeding 2,100--as a majority of Americans in opinion polls now deem the war a mistake.
Bush also has lost his strongest hand in his argument for "completing the mission" in Iraq--that the conflict represents the central front in a war against terrorism. A majority of responding Americans, 55 percent, told Gallup that the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror, and 56 percent said Bush has no plan for victory in Iraq.
The president has confronted his challenge, supporters say, by acknowledging more directly the mistakes in intelligence made in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. And he has started campaigning more heavily on the strength of the nation's economy.
"The president will begin the new year very much in the way he left . . . 2005, which is to discuss the country's two top priorities--keeping our economy strong and growing stronger and creating jobs, and also winning the war on terrorism," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said last week in Crawford, Texas, where the president spent the year-end holiday with his family and some books.
The president's ranch reading was said to include a legacy-minded book by Patricia O'Toole, "When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House."
The framework of Bush's legacy already is written in his response to 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, as well as in the tax cuts and education reform he won during his first year in office.
But a 25-state, five-month campaign for Social Security reform with which he launched his second term, claiming his re-election had given him new capital and he intended to spend it, ended in failure.
If Bush can regain leverage, he still hopes to make permanent his first-term tax cuts. Administration officials privately acknowledge, however, that any hope of broad tax reform--making good on Bush's long-stated promise to simplify an arcane federal tax code--will be lost in a year of tough budget-cutting.
Bush, some say, has lost any standing to swing for the fences.
"People judge you on whether you won or lost the last game," said Kevin Hassett, director of economic studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "I think that's why he will play small ball in the coming year."
Daniel Mitchell, chief expert on taxes for the conservative Heritage Foundation, envisions Bush continuing to make a case for tax reform without pressing Congress for a vote in 2006.
"They have to have an agenda," Mitchell said. "Politics abhors a vacuum, and they are going to have to talk about something."
And as much as Bush touts the economy, it still will "play second fiddle" to foreign policy, Mitchell said. Despite problems in Iraq, Republicans are confident that they can counter Democrats as soft on terrorism. "They think that is their trump card," he said.
Scott Reed, a Republican strategist in Washington, suggested Bush will have a chance to "break through" the shroud that Iraq has placed over his presidency with his State of the Union address at the end of January.
"The president has regrouped and has begun to set a new direction," Reed said. "It's talking about the economy, the real backbone of his strength, and recognizing some of the real shortcomings in Iraq, which everyone recognizes."
Grover Norquist, a Washington conservative close to the White House, said he is optimistic that Bush's standing will rise in 2006. Many of the problems he faced toward the end of 2005--such as Iraq, gasoline prices and investigations of administration officials--will improve over the year and enable the GOP to maintain control of Congress, Norquist said.
The president's weakness has created an opening for other leaders. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of the Republican Party's favorites for the 2008 presidential nomination, already has claimed a signal victory with a ban against torture that the White House resisted.
And the campaigns of such Democratic presidential hopefuls as former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York likely will start soon after the dust has settled from the midterm elections.
Waiting in the wings
"This environment is tailor-made for John McCain," said Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster for former President Bill Clinton. "But if it's good news for McCain, it's even better news for Hillary Clinton. . . . If Bush is at or near 40 percent [in '08], we will have a Democratic president."
"There is nothing overnight that the White House can do," said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster. "It's not like a football game where you make that Hail Mary pass. It's a long battle back."
----------
mdsilva@tribune.com
wneikirk@tribune.com
Bush entering a tough time for two-termers
By David Jackson and Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — For President Bush, 2005 was a year of growing public impatience with the Iraq war, angst over record gas prices, devastation from Hurricane Katrina, the collapse of his Social Security plan and, finally, a firestorm over his decision to authorize targeted domestic spying without court warrants.
Top aides say President Bush aims to travel more often and speak out more forcefully during his sixth year in office.
Mandel Ngan, AFP/Getty Images
Now he faces a challenge that's upended the best-laid plans of his predecessors.
His sixth year in office.
It was in the sixth year of their presidencies that Bill Clinton was impeached and Richard Nixon was forced to resign, that Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower faced the worst scandals of their tenures and that Franklin Roosevelt encountered increased resistance to New Deal legislation.
The White House and its allies see opportunities, though, sixth year or not. "This president has a real pattern of defying conventional wisdom," says Mark McKinnon, media adviser for Bush's presidential campaigns.
Top aides say Bush aims to travel more often and speak out more forcefully, touting the economy as underappreciated good news. The Pentagon already has canceled the deployment to Iraq of two brigades, or about 7,000 soldiers, the first small step in a hoped-for drawdown of U.S. troops there. To avoid the sort of stalemate that undermined his Social Security proposal, Bush will downsize his domestic agenda, proposing changes in immigration law but shelving, at least for now, plans for a tax overhaul.
"I've been thinking long and hard about 2006," Bush told reporters Sunday. White House spokesman Scott McClellan says the basic game plan is simple: "The economy and progress in Iraq."
The president's most powerful aide, Karl Rove, has invited think-tank analysts, authors and others to the White House for ideas to help reinvigorate the president's domestic agenda. Bush launched a more aggressive communications campaign last month, defending the war in Iraq and his policies on terrorism in speeches and at a year-end news conference.
But there is trouble on the horizon, too, and events that are outside White House control.
In Iraq, sectarian strife is complicating efforts to form a coalition government after December's elections. At home, the trial of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case could bring damaging disclosures, and Rove remains in jeopardy in the inquiry. The Justice Department ethics investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff threatens to ensnare more officeholders, most of them Republicans.
After five years of extraordinary party discipline, Republican members of Congress have begun defying the administration more often. On spending and taxes, deficit hawks are increasingly vocal. And Bush's job-approval rating was an anemic 41% in the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Dec. 16-18.
Thomas Mann, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution in Washington, warns that Bush lacks "a compelling agenda for the year that might switch the focus" from bad news. His choice of immigration as a centerpiece "is filled with the potential for division within his own party."
All in all, Mann says, "I think the year is filled with peril for him."
The comeback strategy
White House officials began meeting months ago to devise a plan for the year. Steps on the road back that they've mapped:
•Start fast. Bush wants to start the year by scoring a quick victory with Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Judiciary Committee hearings begin on Monday. Barring new disclosures, Democrats now seem unlikely to filibuster, the procedural maneuver that could block a vote.
Then, at the end of month, Bush gets an hour of prime time to deliver his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress.
Congressional Democrats won't be idle, though. They are pushing for hearings this month on the president's decision to authorize domestic electronic surveillance of people suspected of links to terrorism without the court warrants normally required by federal law and the Constitution.
•Stay aggressive. Allies say the administration was slow last year to respond to attacks on Iraq, including allegations officials manipulated intelligence to justify the invasion.
When attacked in 2006, "we'll aggressively set the record straight," says White House counselor Dan Bartlett. GOP strategist Terry Holt says, "If we learned anything this year, it's 'hit back, hit back hard and fast.' "
Case in point: When The New York Times broke the story on domestic surveillance last month, Bush immediately defended it as essential for national security. The next day, he devoted his Saturday radio address to the subject, and he later called disclosure of the program "a shameful act."
Bush also has been more pointed toward Democrats. When Senate Democrats joined with four Republicans to block re-authorization of the USA Patriot Act in December, he said their action would "endanger America."
Nonetheless, after a last-minute scramble, the House and Senate agreed only to a five-week extension of the law. The debate will resurface before the measure lapses again on Feb. 3.
•Bring some troops home — or at least keep them safer. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced during a surprise pre-Christmas visit to Fallujah, Iraq, that the administration would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq this year. Bush emphasizes that how many and how fast will depend on how well Iraqi security forces progress. "The conditions on the ground will dictate our force level," he said Sunday after visiting injured veterans at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio.
Even so, Bush has noted that U.S. forces gradually are turning over military bases to Iraqis, putting them in the forefront and providing some insulation for American troops. "You're beginning to see our troops step back from the fight," he said last month.
That presumably would reduce U.S. casualties, which remained steady last year. In 2005, the number of U.S. troops who died in Iraq was 841, four fewer than in 2004.
Reducing the U.S. presence could be difficult, however, if Iraqis can't form a new government or if the country spirals into civil war. Bush said a precipitous withdrawal "would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us."
•Talk up the economy. In Chicago on Friday, Bush is slated to deliver the first in a series of speeches touting the economy. He credits tax cuts passed in his first term for strong economic growth and job creation last year — "the envy of the world," he said in his radio address on Saturday. Some of those cuts are due to expire soon, and he pledges to make them permanent.
The White House also plans to put forward programs designed to bolster what it calls economic security: tax-free health savings accounts, pension changes and help for the Katrina-ravaged Gulf Coast. Bush will spotlight the start of the prescription-drug program for Medicare recipients, though the sign-up period got off to a rocky start amid complaints of confusion from some seniors.
Potential problem: The expensive drug program and hurricane relief will add to the federal budget deficit, already a source of concern.
•Scale back big promises. Bush's top domestic agenda item in 2005 was an ambitious plan to "transform" Social Security by adding individual investment accounts to the nation's retirement system. The plan drew powerful opposition from the AARP — the behemoth seniors' advocacy group — and from AFL-CIO unions. Even most congressional Republicans shied from embracing it.
A commission Bush named to study the tax system submitted a 272-page report in November, proposing a simplification scheme that included scaling back popular deductions for home mortgage interest and state and local taxes. Treasury Secretary John Snow says the report is still under study. Republicans who work with the administration say the White House is likely to push limited changes this year, not a controversial revamp.
"A lot of the goals are going to relate to spending, as opposed to going after a radical tax-reform package," says Charlie Black, a Republican strategist with ties to the White House. One reason for caution: Every tax break has protectors in Congress.
•Keep the Republican family together. Republicans generally stuck with Bush this year, despite some erosion among voters in the aftermath of Katrina and protests from conservative activists after the nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Bush withdrew Miers' name before the Judiciary Committee began hearings.
Even with an approval rating of 41%, Bush has the support of a solid 86% of Republicans — critical since only 31% of independents and 10% of Democrats approve of the job he's doing. Republicans need to hold the base together to retain control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections.
But that cohesion could be imperiled by Bush's plan to focus on immigration, an issue that divides major factions in the GOP coalition. A business-oriented coalition led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports provisions to permit immigrant "guest workers," while many conservatives, including outspoken Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, demand tighter borders.
Former Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie is trying to bridge those differences through an advocacy group called Americans for Border and Economic Security, formed at the impetus of the White House. "It's important for us as a party that we handle the issue right," Gillespie says.
Back on the stump
Bush plans to campaign as extensively for Republican candidates in 2006 as he did in 2002. He remains the party's most effective fundraiser, and he can generate enthusiasm among Republican stalwarts even if his standing with swing voters has weakened.
Still, history isn't on his side. In modern times, the president's party usually suffers significant losses in the congressional elections held in his sixth year in office. Democrats lost a stunning 71 House seats during FDR's sixth year; Republicans lost eight seats and control of the Senate in Reagan's sixth year.
The exception was in 1998, when Democrats gained four House seats during Clinton's sixth year. But during the midterm elections in his first term, in 1994, Democratic losses were so severe that the party lost control of both houses of Congress.
The challenge for the GOP in 2006 is that "voters want change," Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman says. "They not only want the changes we're offering, they want more change, and we have to continue to be the party of change."
Allies predict Bush's sixth year will be better than his fifth, though that's not a high bar. Of modern-day presidents, Bush had the most disastrous start of a second term of any except Nixon, caught in the Watergate scandal.
"A perfect storm of problems" for Bush, says Grover Norquist, president of the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform and an activist close to Rove. "No one or two of them were fatal, but seven of them? They made life rough."
The good news, he says, is that many of those troubles have reversed: Gas prices have declined. Memories of Katrina are fading with time. While violence continues in Iraq, a constitution has been ratified and elections held.
"We don't have to be out of Iraq by September" to boost Americans' views of the war and help Republicans fare well in November's elections, Norquist says. "What we have to do is: Iraq with an elected leadership. Iraq every two months with some announcement that more U.S. troops are coming back — a steady sense of that."
It is the war that carries the highest risks for Bush this year, he warns. "If somehow he got off the track of Iraq being solved, that would be problematic."
Bartlett agrees: "The public wants to see tangible progress."
Why is the sixth year of a presidency typically so troubled?
"Presidents by six years have been there long enough for the media and the country to see their flaws," says presidential historian Robert Dallek, author of books about FDR, Nixon and Reagan, among others. The initiatives launched with such promise when they first took office have had time to succeed or fail. The advisers who helped them win the White House are often exhausted or have moved on. Years in power sometimes breed arrogance or isolation.
No modern two-term president has escaped the six-year itch. But some have recovered more successfully than others.
Roosevelt dealt with the approach of World War II and won third and fourth terms. Reagan replaced the top aides implicated in the Iran-contra scandal and negotiated arms control with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Their dialogue help speed the end of the Cold War.
"If circumstances favor you and you're pragmatic enough to respond to those circumstances, it's not impossible" to recover, Dallek says. "But it's hard."
And time is short.
By November of a president's sixth year, voters usually seem eager for new faces and policies; that's why the party that has held the White House typically suffers big losses in the midterm elections. Many members of Congress, even friendly ones, begin worrying more about their own re-election and less about loyalty to the president.
And the seventh year? By then, the focus begins to turn to who will be the next president.
THE SIX-YEAR ITCH IN THE WHITE HOUSE
The sixth year of modern presidencies has been marked by major setbacks. A look at how the year went for the past five two-term presidents.
Franklin Roosevelt Dwight Eisenhower Richard Nixon Ronald Reagan Bill Clinton
Sixth year 1938 1958 1974 1986 1998
Major setbacks Reverberations from 1937 effort to pack Supreme Court stall New Deal; Depression continues Chief of staff Sherman Adams forced to resign over gifts in "vicuna coat scandal"; recession hits First presidential resignation, in wake of Watergate scandal Iran-contra scandal disclosed Impeached by the House in Monica Lewinsky scandal
Major initiatives in State of the Union Establish a minimum wage; other steps to help agriculture, industry Increase military strength against Soviets in Cold War Address energy crisis; reduce dependence on foreign oil Balance the federal budget; reduce top income-tax rate to 35% "Save Social Security first" by devoting budget surplus to it
Approval rating, beginning of year Not available 60% 27% 64% 59%
Approval rating, end of year 58% 57% 24% (August) 48% 73%
Midterm congressional elections for president's party Democrats lose 6 seats in Senate, 71 in House Republicans lose 13 seats in Senate, 49 in House Republicans lose 4 seats in Senate, 48 in House Republicans lose 8 seats in Senate, 48 in House Democrats gain 4 seats in House; no change in Senate
Source: Reported by Susan Page
By David Jackson and Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — For President Bush, 2005 was a year of growing public impatience with the Iraq war, angst over record gas prices, devastation from Hurricane Katrina, the collapse of his Social Security plan and, finally, a firestorm over his decision to authorize targeted domestic spying without court warrants.
Top aides say President Bush aims to travel more often and speak out more forcefully during his sixth year in office.
Mandel Ngan, AFP/Getty Images
Now he faces a challenge that's upended the best-laid plans of his predecessors.
His sixth year in office.
It was in the sixth year of their presidencies that Bill Clinton was impeached and Richard Nixon was forced to resign, that Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower faced the worst scandals of their tenures and that Franklin Roosevelt encountered increased resistance to New Deal legislation.
The White House and its allies see opportunities, though, sixth year or not. "This president has a real pattern of defying conventional wisdom," says Mark McKinnon, media adviser for Bush's presidential campaigns.
Top aides say Bush aims to travel more often and speak out more forcefully, touting the economy as underappreciated good news. The Pentagon already has canceled the deployment to Iraq of two brigades, or about 7,000 soldiers, the first small step in a hoped-for drawdown of U.S. troops there. To avoid the sort of stalemate that undermined his Social Security proposal, Bush will downsize his domestic agenda, proposing changes in immigration law but shelving, at least for now, plans for a tax overhaul.
"I've been thinking long and hard about 2006," Bush told reporters Sunday. White House spokesman Scott McClellan says the basic game plan is simple: "The economy and progress in Iraq."
The president's most powerful aide, Karl Rove, has invited think-tank analysts, authors and others to the White House for ideas to help reinvigorate the president's domestic agenda. Bush launched a more aggressive communications campaign last month, defending the war in Iraq and his policies on terrorism in speeches and at a year-end news conference.
But there is trouble on the horizon, too, and events that are outside White House control.
In Iraq, sectarian strife is complicating efforts to form a coalition government after December's elections. At home, the trial of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case could bring damaging disclosures, and Rove remains in jeopardy in the inquiry. The Justice Department ethics investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff threatens to ensnare more officeholders, most of them Republicans.
After five years of extraordinary party discipline, Republican members of Congress have begun defying the administration more often. On spending and taxes, deficit hawks are increasingly vocal. And Bush's job-approval rating was an anemic 41% in the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Dec. 16-18.
Thomas Mann, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution in Washington, warns that Bush lacks "a compelling agenda for the year that might switch the focus" from bad news. His choice of immigration as a centerpiece "is filled with the potential for division within his own party."
All in all, Mann says, "I think the year is filled with peril for him."
The comeback strategy
White House officials began meeting months ago to devise a plan for the year. Steps on the road back that they've mapped:
•Start fast. Bush wants to start the year by scoring a quick victory with Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Judiciary Committee hearings begin on Monday. Barring new disclosures, Democrats now seem unlikely to filibuster, the procedural maneuver that could block a vote.
Then, at the end of month, Bush gets an hour of prime time to deliver his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress.
Congressional Democrats won't be idle, though. They are pushing for hearings this month on the president's decision to authorize domestic electronic surveillance of people suspected of links to terrorism without the court warrants normally required by federal law and the Constitution.
•Stay aggressive. Allies say the administration was slow last year to respond to attacks on Iraq, including allegations officials manipulated intelligence to justify the invasion.
When attacked in 2006, "we'll aggressively set the record straight," says White House counselor Dan Bartlett. GOP strategist Terry Holt says, "If we learned anything this year, it's 'hit back, hit back hard and fast.' "
Case in point: When The New York Times broke the story on domestic surveillance last month, Bush immediately defended it as essential for national security. The next day, he devoted his Saturday radio address to the subject, and he later called disclosure of the program "a shameful act."
Bush also has been more pointed toward Democrats. When Senate Democrats joined with four Republicans to block re-authorization of the USA Patriot Act in December, he said their action would "endanger America."
Nonetheless, after a last-minute scramble, the House and Senate agreed only to a five-week extension of the law. The debate will resurface before the measure lapses again on Feb. 3.
•Bring some troops home — or at least keep them safer. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced during a surprise pre-Christmas visit to Fallujah, Iraq, that the administration would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq this year. Bush emphasizes that how many and how fast will depend on how well Iraqi security forces progress. "The conditions on the ground will dictate our force level," he said Sunday after visiting injured veterans at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio.
Even so, Bush has noted that U.S. forces gradually are turning over military bases to Iraqis, putting them in the forefront and providing some insulation for American troops. "You're beginning to see our troops step back from the fight," he said last month.
That presumably would reduce U.S. casualties, which remained steady last year. In 2005, the number of U.S. troops who died in Iraq was 841, four fewer than in 2004.
Reducing the U.S. presence could be difficult, however, if Iraqis can't form a new government or if the country spirals into civil war. Bush said a precipitous withdrawal "would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us."
•Talk up the economy. In Chicago on Friday, Bush is slated to deliver the first in a series of speeches touting the economy. He credits tax cuts passed in his first term for strong economic growth and job creation last year — "the envy of the world," he said in his radio address on Saturday. Some of those cuts are due to expire soon, and he pledges to make them permanent.
The White House also plans to put forward programs designed to bolster what it calls economic security: tax-free health savings accounts, pension changes and help for the Katrina-ravaged Gulf Coast. Bush will spotlight the start of the prescription-drug program for Medicare recipients, though the sign-up period got off to a rocky start amid complaints of confusion from some seniors.
Potential problem: The expensive drug program and hurricane relief will add to the federal budget deficit, already a source of concern.
•Scale back big promises. Bush's top domestic agenda item in 2005 was an ambitious plan to "transform" Social Security by adding individual investment accounts to the nation's retirement system. The plan drew powerful opposition from the AARP — the behemoth seniors' advocacy group — and from AFL-CIO unions. Even most congressional Republicans shied from embracing it.
A commission Bush named to study the tax system submitted a 272-page report in November, proposing a simplification scheme that included scaling back popular deductions for home mortgage interest and state and local taxes. Treasury Secretary John Snow says the report is still under study. Republicans who work with the administration say the White House is likely to push limited changes this year, not a controversial revamp.
"A lot of the goals are going to relate to spending, as opposed to going after a radical tax-reform package," says Charlie Black, a Republican strategist with ties to the White House. One reason for caution: Every tax break has protectors in Congress.
•Keep the Republican family together. Republicans generally stuck with Bush this year, despite some erosion among voters in the aftermath of Katrina and protests from conservative activists after the nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Bush withdrew Miers' name before the Judiciary Committee began hearings.
Even with an approval rating of 41%, Bush has the support of a solid 86% of Republicans — critical since only 31% of independents and 10% of Democrats approve of the job he's doing. Republicans need to hold the base together to retain control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections.
But that cohesion could be imperiled by Bush's plan to focus on immigration, an issue that divides major factions in the GOP coalition. A business-oriented coalition led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports provisions to permit immigrant "guest workers," while many conservatives, including outspoken Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, demand tighter borders.
Former Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie is trying to bridge those differences through an advocacy group called Americans for Border and Economic Security, formed at the impetus of the White House. "It's important for us as a party that we handle the issue right," Gillespie says.
Back on the stump
Bush plans to campaign as extensively for Republican candidates in 2006 as he did in 2002. He remains the party's most effective fundraiser, and he can generate enthusiasm among Republican stalwarts even if his standing with swing voters has weakened.
Still, history isn't on his side. In modern times, the president's party usually suffers significant losses in the congressional elections held in his sixth year in office. Democrats lost a stunning 71 House seats during FDR's sixth year; Republicans lost eight seats and control of the Senate in Reagan's sixth year.
The exception was in 1998, when Democrats gained four House seats during Clinton's sixth year. But during the midterm elections in his first term, in 1994, Democratic losses were so severe that the party lost control of both houses of Congress.
The challenge for the GOP in 2006 is that "voters want change," Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman says. "They not only want the changes we're offering, they want more change, and we have to continue to be the party of change."
Allies predict Bush's sixth year will be better than his fifth, though that's not a high bar. Of modern-day presidents, Bush had the most disastrous start of a second term of any except Nixon, caught in the Watergate scandal.
"A perfect storm of problems" for Bush, says Grover Norquist, president of the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform and an activist close to Rove. "No one or two of them were fatal, but seven of them? They made life rough."
The good news, he says, is that many of those troubles have reversed: Gas prices have declined. Memories of Katrina are fading with time. While violence continues in Iraq, a constitution has been ratified and elections held.
"We don't have to be out of Iraq by September" to boost Americans' views of the war and help Republicans fare well in November's elections, Norquist says. "What we have to do is: Iraq with an elected leadership. Iraq every two months with some announcement that more U.S. troops are coming back — a steady sense of that."
It is the war that carries the highest risks for Bush this year, he warns. "If somehow he got off the track of Iraq being solved, that would be problematic."
Bartlett agrees: "The public wants to see tangible progress."
Why is the sixth year of a presidency typically so troubled?
"Presidents by six years have been there long enough for the media and the country to see their flaws," says presidential historian Robert Dallek, author of books about FDR, Nixon and Reagan, among others. The initiatives launched with such promise when they first took office have had time to succeed or fail. The advisers who helped them win the White House are often exhausted or have moved on. Years in power sometimes breed arrogance or isolation.
No modern two-term president has escaped the six-year itch. But some have recovered more successfully than others.
Roosevelt dealt with the approach of World War II and won third and fourth terms. Reagan replaced the top aides implicated in the Iran-contra scandal and negotiated arms control with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Their dialogue help speed the end of the Cold War.
"If circumstances favor you and you're pragmatic enough to respond to those circumstances, it's not impossible" to recover, Dallek says. "But it's hard."
And time is short.
By November of a president's sixth year, voters usually seem eager for new faces and policies; that's why the party that has held the White House typically suffers big losses in the midterm elections. Many members of Congress, even friendly ones, begin worrying more about their own re-election and less about loyalty to the president.
And the seventh year? By then, the focus begins to turn to who will be the next president.
THE SIX-YEAR ITCH IN THE WHITE HOUSE
The sixth year of modern presidencies has been marked by major setbacks. A look at how the year went for the past five two-term presidents.
Franklin Roosevelt Dwight Eisenhower Richard Nixon Ronald Reagan Bill Clinton
Sixth year 1938 1958 1974 1986 1998
Major setbacks Reverberations from 1937 effort to pack Supreme Court stall New Deal; Depression continues Chief of staff Sherman Adams forced to resign over gifts in "vicuna coat scandal"; recession hits First presidential resignation, in wake of Watergate scandal Iran-contra scandal disclosed Impeached by the House in Monica Lewinsky scandal
Major initiatives in State of the Union Establish a minimum wage; other steps to help agriculture, industry Increase military strength against Soviets in Cold War Address energy crisis; reduce dependence on foreign oil Balance the federal budget; reduce top income-tax rate to 35% "Save Social Security first" by devoting budget surplus to it
Approval rating, beginning of year Not available 60% 27% 64% 59%
Approval rating, end of year 58% 57% 24% (August) 48% 73%
Midterm congressional elections for president's party Democrats lose 6 seats in Senate, 71 in House Republicans lose 13 seats in Senate, 49 in House Republicans lose 4 seats in Senate, 48 in House Republicans lose 8 seats in Senate, 48 in House Democrats gain 4 seats in House; no change in Senate
Source: Reported by Susan Page
Abramoff Pleads Guilty, Will Cooperate By MARK SHERMAN and CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writers
Embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, agreeing to cooperate in an influence-peddling investigation that threatens powerful members of Congress.
In a heavily scripted court appearance, Abramoff agreed with U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle when she said he had engaged in a conspiracy involving "corruption of public officials." The lobbyist also agreed when she said he and others had engaged in a scheme to provide campaign contributions, trips and other items "in exchange for certain official acts."
"Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for all my actions and mistakes," Abramoff said, addressing the judge. "I hope I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and those I've wronged or caused to suffer."
To each of the three charges, Abramoff said, "I plead guilty, your honor." Huvelle and lawyers in the case said Abramoff had agreed to make an estimated $25 million in restitution to his victims and pay $1.7 million to the Internal Revenue Service for taxes he evaded. As is typically the case in such pleadings, what happened in the courtroom Tuesday was arranged in advance between lawyers for the defendant and the prosecutors.
According to the plea agreement, prosecutors will recommend a sentence of 9 1/2 to 11 years, providing he cooperates with federal prosecutors in a wide-ranging corruption investigation that is believed to be focusing on as many as 20 members of Congress and aides.
Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher said the Justice Department will pursue the investigation "wherever it goes."
"We're going to expend the resources to make sure people know that government is not for sale," she said at a news conference.
Abramoff's activities went "far beyond lawful lobbying to the illegal practice of paying for official acts," she said. "The Justice Department will aggressively investigate and prosecute these types of cases which have a devastating impact on the public's trust of government."
Abramoff's travels with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay are already under criminal investigation. The lobbyist's interactions with the Texas Republican's congressional office frequently came around the time of campaign donations, golf outings or other trips provided or arranged by Abramoff for DeLay and other lawmakers. In all, DeLay received at least $57,000 in political contributions from Abramoff, his lobbying associates or his tribal clients between 2001 and 2004.
Court papers released Tuesday also detailed lavish gifts and contributions that Abramoff gave an unnamed House member, identified elsewhere as Rep. Bob Ney (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee, in return for Ney's agreement to use his office to aid Abramoff clients.
Ney said Tuesday, "At the time I dealt with Jack Abramoff, I obviously did not know, and had no way of knowing, the self-serving and fraudulent nature of Abramoff's activities."
Abramoff also was expected to plead guilty in Florida to two of the six charges in a federal indictment, according to his lawyer there, Neal Sonnett. A change of plea hearing has been scheduled in Miami for Wednesday afternoon, Justice officials said.
Abramoff attorney Abbe Lowell said that 18 months ago Abramoff made contact with prosecutors "to admit his wrongdoing and to seek forgiveness from those he has wronged. He intends to continue to work with the Justice Department and others to fully resolve all matters of interest, to provide restitution to anyone he has harmed, and to seek absolution from all."
Prosecutors say Abramoff and Scanlon conspired to defraud Indian tribes in Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas of millions of dollars. Abramoff reaped roughly $20 million in hidden profits from the scheme, according to the information. Lobbying partner Michael Scanlon pleaded guilty in November.
Abramoff and Scanlon also lavished a golf trip to Scotland and other things of value on Ney, the court document said. Ney has denied doing anything wrong.
The Bush administration's former chief procurement official, David H. Safavian, was charged this fall with making false statements and obstructing investigations into the 2002 golf outing. Safavian, former chief of staff of the General Services Administration, the government's procurement arm, has pleaded innocent to those charges.
Court documents also said Abramoff solicited $50,000 from a wireless telephone company and got Ney's agreement to push the company's application to install a wireless telephone infrastructure in the House of Representatives, a job Ney's committee would have overseen.
Pressure had been intensifying on Abramoff to strike a deal with prosecutors since another former partner, Adam Kidan, pleaded guilty earlier this month to fraud and conspiracy in connection with the 2000 SunCruz boat deal in Florida.
The continuing saga of Abramoff's legal problems has caused anxiety at high levels in Washington, in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for President Bush's 2004 re-election effort, earning the honorary title "pioneer" from the campaign.
In Bush's first 10 months in office in 2001, Abramoff and other members of his lobbying team logged at least 200 contacts with the administration on behalf of at least one client, the Northern Mariana Islands. The meetings included some with high-ranking officials such as then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and policy advisers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office. The Marianas' agenda included seeking friendly hires at federal agencies and preservation of its exemption from the U.S. minimum wage.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan could not say Tuesday whether Abramoff ever met President Bush. But when asked at the White House about this, the spokesman said that "what he is reportedly acknowledging doing is unacceptable and outrageous."
"If laws were broken, he must be held to account for what he did," McClellan said.
For months, prosecutors in Washington have focused on whether Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribal clients of millions of dollars and used improper influence on members of Congress.
In a five-year span ending in early 2004, tribes represented by the lobbyist contributed millions of dollars in casino income to congressional campaigns, often routing the money through political action committees for conservative lawmakers who opposed gambling.
Abramoff also provided trips, sports skybox fundraisers, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment and jobs for lawmakers' relatives and aides.
In Florida, Abramoff and Kidan were indicted in August on charges of conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud in connection with their purchase of the SunCruz fleet for $147.5 million from Miami businessman Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis.
Prosecutors said the pair faked a $23 million wire transfer to make it appear that they were making a significant contribution of their own money into the deal. Based on that transfer, lenders Foothill Capital Corp. and Citadel Equity Fund Ltd. agreed to provide $60 million in financing for the purchase.
Kidan pleaded guilty Dec. 15 to one count of conspiracy and one count of wire fraud. He faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and up to $500,000 in fines at sentencing scheduled for March 1.
___
Associated Press reporters Michael J. Sniffen, Pete Yost and David Hammer in Washington and Curt Anderson in Miami contributed to this story.
Copyright © 2006 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 © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, agreeing to cooperate in an influence-peddling investigation that threatens powerful members of Congress.
In a heavily scripted court appearance, Abramoff agreed with U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle when she said he had engaged in a conspiracy involving "corruption of public officials." The lobbyist also agreed when she said he and others had engaged in a scheme to provide campaign contributions, trips and other items "in exchange for certain official acts."
"Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for all my actions and mistakes," Abramoff said, addressing the judge. "I hope I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and those I've wronged or caused to suffer."
To each of the three charges, Abramoff said, "I plead guilty, your honor." Huvelle and lawyers in the case said Abramoff had agreed to make an estimated $25 million in restitution to his victims and pay $1.7 million to the Internal Revenue Service for taxes he evaded. As is typically the case in such pleadings, what happened in the courtroom Tuesday was arranged in advance between lawyers for the defendant and the prosecutors.
According to the plea agreement, prosecutors will recommend a sentence of 9 1/2 to 11 years, providing he cooperates with federal prosecutors in a wide-ranging corruption investigation that is believed to be focusing on as many as 20 members of Congress and aides.
Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher said the Justice Department will pursue the investigation "wherever it goes."
"We're going to expend the resources to make sure people know that government is not for sale," she said at a news conference.
Abramoff's activities went "far beyond lawful lobbying to the illegal practice of paying for official acts," she said. "The Justice Department will aggressively investigate and prosecute these types of cases which have a devastating impact on the public's trust of government."
Abramoff's travels with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay are already under criminal investigation. The lobbyist's interactions with the Texas Republican's congressional office frequently came around the time of campaign donations, golf outings or other trips provided or arranged by Abramoff for DeLay and other lawmakers. In all, DeLay received at least $57,000 in political contributions from Abramoff, his lobbying associates or his tribal clients between 2001 and 2004.
Court papers released Tuesday also detailed lavish gifts and contributions that Abramoff gave an unnamed House member, identified elsewhere as Rep. Bob Ney (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee, in return for Ney's agreement to use his office to aid Abramoff clients.
Ney said Tuesday, "At the time I dealt with Jack Abramoff, I obviously did not know, and had no way of knowing, the self-serving and fraudulent nature of Abramoff's activities."
Abramoff also was expected to plead guilty in Florida to two of the six charges in a federal indictment, according to his lawyer there, Neal Sonnett. A change of plea hearing has been scheduled in Miami for Wednesday afternoon, Justice officials said.
Abramoff attorney Abbe Lowell said that 18 months ago Abramoff made contact with prosecutors "to admit his wrongdoing and to seek forgiveness from those he has wronged. He intends to continue to work with the Justice Department and others to fully resolve all matters of interest, to provide restitution to anyone he has harmed, and to seek absolution from all."
Prosecutors say Abramoff and Scanlon conspired to defraud Indian tribes in Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas of millions of dollars. Abramoff reaped roughly $20 million in hidden profits from the scheme, according to the information. Lobbying partner Michael Scanlon pleaded guilty in November.
Abramoff and Scanlon also lavished a golf trip to Scotland and other things of value on Ney, the court document said. Ney has denied doing anything wrong.
The Bush administration's former chief procurement official, David H. Safavian, was charged this fall with making false statements and obstructing investigations into the 2002 golf outing. Safavian, former chief of staff of the General Services Administration, the government's procurement arm, has pleaded innocent to those charges.
Court documents also said Abramoff solicited $50,000 from a wireless telephone company and got Ney's agreement to push the company's application to install a wireless telephone infrastructure in the House of Representatives, a job Ney's committee would have overseen.
Pressure had been intensifying on Abramoff to strike a deal with prosecutors since another former partner, Adam Kidan, pleaded guilty earlier this month to fraud and conspiracy in connection with the 2000 SunCruz boat deal in Florida.
The continuing saga of Abramoff's legal problems has caused anxiety at high levels in Washington, in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for President Bush's 2004 re-election effort, earning the honorary title "pioneer" from the campaign.
In Bush's first 10 months in office in 2001, Abramoff and other members of his lobbying team logged at least 200 contacts with the administration on behalf of at least one client, the Northern Mariana Islands. The meetings included some with high-ranking officials such as then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and policy advisers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office. The Marianas' agenda included seeking friendly hires at federal agencies and preservation of its exemption from the U.S. minimum wage.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan could not say Tuesday whether Abramoff ever met President Bush. But when asked at the White House about this, the spokesman said that "what he is reportedly acknowledging doing is unacceptable and outrageous."
"If laws were broken, he must be held to account for what he did," McClellan said.
For months, prosecutors in Washington have focused on whether Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribal clients of millions of dollars and used improper influence on members of Congress.
In a five-year span ending in early 2004, tribes represented by the lobbyist contributed millions of dollars in casino income to congressional campaigns, often routing the money through political action committees for conservative lawmakers who opposed gambling.
Abramoff also provided trips, sports skybox fundraisers, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment and jobs for lawmakers' relatives and aides.
In Florida, Abramoff and Kidan were indicted in August on charges of conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud in connection with their purchase of the SunCruz fleet for $147.5 million from Miami businessman Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis.
Prosecutors said the pair faked a $23 million wire transfer to make it appear that they were making a significant contribution of their own money into the deal. Based on that transfer, lenders Foothill Capital Corp. and Citadel Equity Fund Ltd. agreed to provide $60 million in financing for the purchase.
Kidan pleaded guilty Dec. 15 to one count of conspiracy and one count of wire fraud. He faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and up to $500,000 in fines at sentencing scheduled for March 1.
___
Associated Press reporters Michael J. Sniffen, Pete Yost and David Hammer in Washington and Curt Anderson in Miami contributed to this story.
Copyright © 2006 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 © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Book: CIA Ignored Info Iraq Had No WMD
A new book on the government's secret anti-terrorism operations describes how the CIA recruited an Iraqi-American anesthesiologist in 2002 to obtain information from her brother, who was a figure in Saddam Hussein's nuclear program.
Dr. Sawsan Alhaddad of Cleveland made the dangerous trip to Iraq on the CIA's behalf. The book said her brother was stunned by her questions about the nuclear program because — he said — it had been dead for a decade.
New York Times reporter James Risen uses the anecdote to illustrate how the CIA ignored information that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction. His book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" describes secret operations of the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
The major revelation in the book has already been the subject of extensive reporting by Risen's newspaper: the National Security Agency's eavesdropping of Americans' conversations without obtaining warrants from a special court.
The book said Dr. Alhaddad flew home in mid-September 2002 and had a series of meetings with CIA analysts. She relayed her brother's information that there was no nuclear program.
A CIA operative later told Dr. Alhaddad's husband that the agency believed her brother was lying. In all, the book says, some 30 family members of Iraqis made trips to their native country to contact Iraqi weapons scientists, and all of them reported that the programs had been abandoned.
In October 2002, a month after the doctor's trip to Baghdad, the U.S intelligence community issued a National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.
In the book, which quotes extensively from anonymous sources, Risen said the NSA spying program was launched in 2002 after the CIA began to capture high-ranking al-Qaida operatives overseas, and took their computers, cell phones and personal phone directories.
The CIA turned the telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from the material over to the NSA, which then began monitoring the phone numbers — in addition to anyone in contact with the telephone subscribers, the book said, saying this led to an expansion of the monitoring, both overseas and in the United States.
The book said the NSA does not need approval from the White House, the Justice Department or anyone else in the Bush administration before it begins eavesdropping on a specific phone line in the United States.
In another chapter on a "rogue operation," the book said a CIA officer mistakenly sent one of its Iranian agents information that could be used to identify virtually every spy the agency had in Iran. The book said the Iranian was a double agent who turned over the data to Iranian security officials.
The book said the information severely damaged the CIA's Iranian network, and quoted CIA sources as saying several of the U.S. agents were arrested and jailed.
Copyright © 2006 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 © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
A new book on the government's secret anti-terrorism operations describes how the CIA recruited an Iraqi-American anesthesiologist in 2002 to obtain information from her brother, who was a figure in Saddam Hussein's nuclear program.
Dr. Sawsan Alhaddad of Cleveland made the dangerous trip to Iraq on the CIA's behalf. The book said her brother was stunned by her questions about the nuclear program because — he said — it had been dead for a decade.
New York Times reporter James Risen uses the anecdote to illustrate how the CIA ignored information that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction. His book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" describes secret operations of the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
The major revelation in the book has already been the subject of extensive reporting by Risen's newspaper: the National Security Agency's eavesdropping of Americans' conversations without obtaining warrants from a special court.
The book said Dr. Alhaddad flew home in mid-September 2002 and had a series of meetings with CIA analysts. She relayed her brother's information that there was no nuclear program.
A CIA operative later told Dr. Alhaddad's husband that the agency believed her brother was lying. In all, the book says, some 30 family members of Iraqis made trips to their native country to contact Iraqi weapons scientists, and all of them reported that the programs had been abandoned.
In October 2002, a month after the doctor's trip to Baghdad, the U.S intelligence community issued a National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.
In the book, which quotes extensively from anonymous sources, Risen said the NSA spying program was launched in 2002 after the CIA began to capture high-ranking al-Qaida operatives overseas, and took their computers, cell phones and personal phone directories.
The CIA turned the telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from the material over to the NSA, which then began monitoring the phone numbers — in addition to anyone in contact with the telephone subscribers, the book said, saying this led to an expansion of the monitoring, both overseas and in the United States.
The book said the NSA does not need approval from the White House, the Justice Department or anyone else in the Bush administration before it begins eavesdropping on a specific phone line in the United States.
In another chapter on a "rogue operation," the book said a CIA officer mistakenly sent one of its Iranian agents information that could be used to identify virtually every spy the agency had in Iran. The book said the Iranian was a double agent who turned over the data to Iranian security officials.
The book said the information severely damaged the CIA's Iranian network, and quoted CIA sources as saying several of the U.S. agents were arrested and jailed.
Copyright © 2006 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 © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 3, 2006
G.O.P. Lobbyist Pleads Guilty in Deal With Prosecutors
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to three felony counts in Washington today as part of a settlement with federal prosecutors, ending an intense, months-long negotiation over whether the Republican lobbyist would testify against his former colleagues.
Mr. Abramoff, 46, pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion, setting the stage for prosecutors to begin using him as a cooperating witness against his former business and political colleagues. In exchange, Mr. Abramoff faces a maximum of about 10 years in prison in the Washington case.
The conspiracy charge included Mr. Abramoff's effort to influence at least one member of Congress and a Congressional staff member.
As United States District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle read each of the charges today, Mr. Abramoff answered softly, "I plead guilty, your honor."
"Your honor, words will not be able to ever express how sorry I am for this, and I have profound regret and sorrow for the multitude of mistakes and harm I have caused," he said. "All of my remaining days, I will feel tremendous sadness and regret for my conduct and for what I have done. I only hope that I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and from those I have wronged or caused to suffer. I will work hard to earn that redemption."
Official Washington has been on edge for months awaiting word of Mr. Abramoff's legal future. Once a masterful Republican lobbyist with close ties to the former House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, Mr. Abramoff earned tens of millions of dollars representing Indian casino interests and farflung entities like the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands.
Through a complicated web of financial arrangements, he helped funnel donations to his lawmaker friends' and their campaigns, and took members of Congress, mainly the Republicans in power, on lavish trips.
Mr. Abramoff is also scheduled to appear in Florida Wednesday in a related case, in which he was indicted last year. In that case, he is expected to plead guilty to fraud and conspiracy in connection with his purchase of the SunCruz casino boat line, and will face a maximum of about seven years' prison time.
Mr. Abramoff has been talking to investigators in the corruption case for many months, his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said.
"Eighteen months ago, Mr. Abramoff first made contact with prosecutors to admit his wrongdoing and to seek forgiveness from those he has wronged," Mr. Lowell said today. "He intends to continue to work with the Justice Department and others to fully resolve all matters of interest, to provide restitution to anyone he has harmed, and to seek absolution from all."
Participants in the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation, said Mr. Abramoff had provided a full picture of what evidence he could offer against other suspects.
On the corruption charge, prosecutors said in documents filed with the court today that Mr. Abramoff and his partner, Michael Scanlon, who reached a plea agreement with officials last year, conspired to "corruptly give, offer and promise things of value, including money, meals, trips and entertainment, to public officials and their relatives with the intent to influence, and in return for agreements to perform official acts benefiting" them and their clients.
The document details lavish gifts and contributions that Mr. Abramoff gave a House member, identified here only as "Representative #1."
Representative Bob Ney, a Republican of Ohio, acknowledged at the time of Mr. Scanlon's plea agreement that he was the person represented as Representative No. 1 in the documents in that case, but he has dismissed any suggestion that he was persuaded to do Mr. Scanlon's bidding because of campaign aid or perks like meals, entertainment or overseas travel.
Mr. Ney said in a statement today, "At the time I dealt with Jack Abramoff, I obviously did not know, and had no way of knowing, the self-serving and fraudulent nature of Abramoff's activities," Reuters reported. Mr. Ney has not been charged.
The document also alleges that Mr. Abramoff bribed public officials, including "Representative #1," and his staff, when he funded a golfing trip to Scotland in exchange for the congressman's official actions to benefit his clients.
He is also accused of tax evasion for filing false documents and false entries to financial books and records, and filing a false income tax return in 2002, "all for the purpose of concealing additional unreported taxable income received by or on behalf of" himself, the documents state.
Mr. Abramoff is also accused of hiring congressional staffers and conspiring with them to lobby their former employers - including members of Congress - in violation of a one-year federal ban on such lobbying.
Mr. Abramoff's participation in Washington has taken place mostly below the radar, as prosecutors made the Miami case the focus of their public work and as Mr. Abramoff and his associates claimed they were preparing to stand trial, facing up to as many as 30 years in prison.
Though Mr. Abramoff's pleas in each location are separate, the deal reached with the Justice Department is all-encompassing, reducing the severe penalties Mr. Abramoff could have faced in either investigation, in exchange for his inside knowledge of certain lobbying work and legislative actions. One element of the deal is that he can serve prison time in the two cases concurrently, although the sentencing will not take place until much further along in the investigation.
The deal, a so-called "global" arrangement because it encompasses separate prosecutions in Florida and Washington, comes less than a week before Mr. Abramoff was scheduled to stand trial in the Miami case.
With Mr. Abramoff's cooperation, the Justice Department will have a potentially critical witness to alleged patterns of corruption or bribery within the Republican leadership ranks, which in some cases they believe also took the form of campaign donations and free meals at Mr. Abramoff's downtown restaurant, Signatures.
After more than two years of investigations, prosecutors have developed a list of at least a dozen lawmakers, congressional aides and lobbyists whose work appears suspect and who are now at the core of the case.
Already, prosecutors had a key witness in Mr. Scanlon, once press secretary to Mr. DeLay. When Mr. Scanlon reached a plea agreement last year, it put pressure on Mr. Abramoff to reach his own deal.
Now that Mr. Abramoff has done the same, one person involved in the case said: "When some people hear about this, they will clamor to cut a deal of their own."
Maria Newman contributed reporting from New York for this article.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
January 3, 2006
G.O.P. Lobbyist Pleads Guilty in Deal With Prosecutors
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to three felony counts in Washington today as part of a settlement with federal prosecutors, ending an intense, months-long negotiation over whether the Republican lobbyist would testify against his former colleagues.
Mr. Abramoff, 46, pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion, setting the stage for prosecutors to begin using him as a cooperating witness against his former business and political colleagues. In exchange, Mr. Abramoff faces a maximum of about 10 years in prison in the Washington case.
The conspiracy charge included Mr. Abramoff's effort to influence at least one member of Congress and a Congressional staff member.
As United States District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle read each of the charges today, Mr. Abramoff answered softly, "I plead guilty, your honor."
"Your honor, words will not be able to ever express how sorry I am for this, and I have profound regret and sorrow for the multitude of mistakes and harm I have caused," he said. "All of my remaining days, I will feel tremendous sadness and regret for my conduct and for what I have done. I only hope that I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and from those I have wronged or caused to suffer. I will work hard to earn that redemption."
Official Washington has been on edge for months awaiting word of Mr. Abramoff's legal future. Once a masterful Republican lobbyist with close ties to the former House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, Mr. Abramoff earned tens of millions of dollars representing Indian casino interests and farflung entities like the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands.
Through a complicated web of financial arrangements, he helped funnel donations to his lawmaker friends' and their campaigns, and took members of Congress, mainly the Republicans in power, on lavish trips.
Mr. Abramoff is also scheduled to appear in Florida Wednesday in a related case, in which he was indicted last year. In that case, he is expected to plead guilty to fraud and conspiracy in connection with his purchase of the SunCruz casino boat line, and will face a maximum of about seven years' prison time.
Mr. Abramoff has been talking to investigators in the corruption case for many months, his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said.
"Eighteen months ago, Mr. Abramoff first made contact with prosecutors to admit his wrongdoing and to seek forgiveness from those he has wronged," Mr. Lowell said today. "He intends to continue to work with the Justice Department and others to fully resolve all matters of interest, to provide restitution to anyone he has harmed, and to seek absolution from all."
Participants in the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation, said Mr. Abramoff had provided a full picture of what evidence he could offer against other suspects.
On the corruption charge, prosecutors said in documents filed with the court today that Mr. Abramoff and his partner, Michael Scanlon, who reached a plea agreement with officials last year, conspired to "corruptly give, offer and promise things of value, including money, meals, trips and entertainment, to public officials and their relatives with the intent to influence, and in return for agreements to perform official acts benefiting" them and their clients.
The document details lavish gifts and contributions that Mr. Abramoff gave a House member, identified here only as "Representative #1."
Representative Bob Ney, a Republican of Ohio, acknowledged at the time of Mr. Scanlon's plea agreement that he was the person represented as Representative No. 1 in the documents in that case, but he has dismissed any suggestion that he was persuaded to do Mr. Scanlon's bidding because of campaign aid or perks like meals, entertainment or overseas travel.
Mr. Ney said in a statement today, "At the time I dealt with Jack Abramoff, I obviously did not know, and had no way of knowing, the self-serving and fraudulent nature of Abramoff's activities," Reuters reported. Mr. Ney has not been charged.
The document also alleges that Mr. Abramoff bribed public officials, including "Representative #1," and his staff, when he funded a golfing trip to Scotland in exchange for the congressman's official actions to benefit his clients.
He is also accused of tax evasion for filing false documents and false entries to financial books and records, and filing a false income tax return in 2002, "all for the purpose of concealing additional unreported taxable income received by or on behalf of" himself, the documents state.
Mr. Abramoff is also accused of hiring congressional staffers and conspiring with them to lobby their former employers - including members of Congress - in violation of a one-year federal ban on such lobbying.
Mr. Abramoff's participation in Washington has taken place mostly below the radar, as prosecutors made the Miami case the focus of their public work and as Mr. Abramoff and his associates claimed they were preparing to stand trial, facing up to as many as 30 years in prison.
Though Mr. Abramoff's pleas in each location are separate, the deal reached with the Justice Department is all-encompassing, reducing the severe penalties Mr. Abramoff could have faced in either investigation, in exchange for his inside knowledge of certain lobbying work and legislative actions. One element of the deal is that he can serve prison time in the two cases concurrently, although the sentencing will not take place until much further along in the investigation.
The deal, a so-called "global" arrangement because it encompasses separate prosecutions in Florida and Washington, comes less than a week before Mr. Abramoff was scheduled to stand trial in the Miami case.
With Mr. Abramoff's cooperation, the Justice Department will have a potentially critical witness to alleged patterns of corruption or bribery within the Republican leadership ranks, which in some cases they believe also took the form of campaign donations and free meals at Mr. Abramoff's downtown restaurant, Signatures.
After more than two years of investigations, prosecutors have developed a list of at least a dozen lawmakers, congressional aides and lobbyists whose work appears suspect and who are now at the core of the case.
Already, prosecutors had a key witness in Mr. Scanlon, once press secretary to Mr. DeLay. When Mr. Scanlon reached a plea agreement last year, it put pressure on Mr. Abramoff to reach his own deal.
Now that Mr. Abramoff has done the same, one person involved in the case said: "When some people hear about this, they will clamor to cut a deal of their own."
Maria Newman contributed reporting from New York for this article.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
Abramoff deals, Congress quakes
In pleading guilty, the lobbyist agrees to help prosecutors nab others.
By Linda Feldmann and Gail Russell Chaddock
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p01s03-uspo.html?s=hns
In pleading guilty, the lobbyist agrees to help prosecutors nab others.
By Linda Feldmann and Gail Russell Chaddock
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p01s03-uspo.html?s=hns
Battle over property rights goes on, despite ruling
A mediator will decide if homes in New London, Conn., will be razed to
make way for private development. By Warren Richey
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p02s01-ussc.html?s=hns
A mediator will decide if homes in New London, Conn., will be razed to
make way for private development. By Warren Richey
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p02s01-ussc.html?s=hns
In US mines, the safety record has been on an upswing
Vigils like the one for 13 trapped coal miners are much less common
today, after 25 years of closer government oversight. By Mark Clayton
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p02s02-ussc.html?s=hns
Vigils like the one for 13 trapped coal miners are much less common
today, after 25 years of closer government oversight. By Mark Clayton
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p02s02-ussc.html?s=hns
US allies in Iraq: valuable but dwindling
Bulgaria, Ukraine, Spain, and the Netherlands have withdrawn troops,
with Poland and South Korea not far behind. By Mark Sappenfield
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p03s03-usfp.html?s=hns
Bulgaria, Ukraine, Spain, and the Netherlands have withdrawn troops,
with Poland and South Korea not far behind. By Mark Sappenfield
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p03s03-usfp.html?s=hns
Bush's 2006 Agenda Squeezed by Iraq War Costs, Lost Popularity
Jan. 3 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush began his second term a year ago with ambitious goals to create private Social Security accounts, overhaul the federal tax code and reshape the nation's immigration laws.
Bush enters 2006 with those grand plans unfulfilled, set aside for a modest agenda reminiscent of predecessor Bill Clinton. The political and financial costs of the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina may limit him this year to adjustments of existing programs on job training, energy policy and grants to religious charities.
The president's shrinking agenda reflects job-approval ratings hovering at about 45 percent, federal budget deficits and the difficulty of winning congressional approval for bold plans in a year when lawmakers are running for re-election.
``He is on the defensive, answering charges about Iraq and struggling to come up with domestic policies he can turn into law,'' says Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas in Austin who has followed Bush's career. ``He has squandered opportunities to build consensus and momentum.''
This year Bush will embrace a proposal by Representative Jack Kingston to promote energy independence through tax credits and breaks for the purchases of hybrid vehicles or the use of alternative energy sources, Republicans familiar with the administration's plans say. The plan probably will cost less than $10 million, estimates David All, a spokesman for Kingston, a Georgia Republican.
Job Training
The president also wants to expand grants for job training by religious charities, at a cost of about $5 billion, according to two Republicans familiar with the plan who spoke on condition of anonymity because the White House hasn't announced it. Religious charities received more than $2 billion in federal money in fiscal 2004, according to the White House Web site.
Bush also will hold a one-day ``summit'' in Washington in March with corporate leaders and foundation executives to encourage them to give more money to churches or religious charities, says Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. ``This is really important to him; he doesn't convene that many summits,'' Towey said in a Dec. 27 interview.
Bush will lay out his goals in his annual State of the Union address to Congress late this month and the fiscal 2007 budget plan he sends lawmakers in early February.
War, Economy
``The issues Americans care most about are the war in Iraq and the economy, and those are the priorities the president is acting on,'' White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says.
Bush's ability to offer new initiatives is constrained by his goal of cutting the deficit in half as a percentage of gross domestic product by the time he leaves office in early 2009. Bush has ordered his administration to be ``extraordinarily disciplined on spending'' to pursue that goal, Treasury Secretary John Snow said in a Dec. 14 interview.
The official federal budget deficit was $319 billion in fiscal 2005, down from $412 billion the previous year. The administration's goal is a deficit of no more than $260 billion by 2009.
The official budget numbers don't include spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been funded through ``emergency spending'' measures totaling $326 billion since September 2001. The administration has projected $50 billion for war costs this year. One critic, Democratic Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, says the real level will probably be double that.
Big Goals Fade
Bush, who in his first term had a higher proportion of his proposals passed by Congress than any president since Lyndon Johnson, began his second term heralding the appointment of a bipartisan panel to recommend changes to the tax code and setting out on a 60-day campaign to promote his Social Security plans.
Both goals have now been put off until at least 2007 after running up against public skepticism and concern about the conflict in Iraq. ``Regardless of what we want to talk about, the thing we have to talk about is Iraq,'' says former Republican Representative Vin Weber, a lobbyist who is close to the administration. ``That's not going to change.''
Bush's situation parallels that of Clinton during his second term. Because of problems including the Monica Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives, Clinton was forced to forgo large initiatives and instead pursue smaller programs or expand on prior ones, such as adding police in urban areas.
Lost Capital
After a long slump, public approval of Bush's handling of the war recovered somewhat in the past month, buoyed by Iraqi elections on Dec. 15 and five presidential speeches on U.S. strategy. Even so, 53 percent of adults still said they disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq in a Dec. 15-18 Washington Post/ABC News poll.
The president's job-approval rating stood at 43 percent in a poll released Dec. 23 by CNN, USA Today and the Gallup Organization, up from 38 percent earlier in the month.
Representative Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican, says Bush has done a ``miserable job of helping the American people see the progress, for example, we're making in Iraq.''
To recover some of the political capital he lost, Bush changed his tone in his five recent Iraq speeches, acknowledging missteps, warning Americans to expect ``more testing and sacrifice'' and telling the public to ``not give in to despair.''
Republicans Step Up
The administration plans speeches and other events this year to lay the groundwork for reintroducing proposals for Social Security, taxes and immigration in 2007. Bush will also spend time in 2006 pressing for congressional approval of some of his earlier plans still in limbo, such as making permanent his first-term income tax cuts and expanding job training and health-care savings accounts, McClellan says.
With all 435 House members and 33 senators up for election in November, congressional Republicans are stepping in with their own priorities. With Bush's backing, they will probably focus on ``some significant tax issues,'' such as limiting the reach of the alternative minimum tax, says Charles Black, a Republican political consultant with ties to the administration.
Bush supports legislation to prevent the AMT from imposing a $30 billion increase on about 15 million middle-income households next year. Dealing with the AMT is the one proposal from Bush's tax overhaul commission that Congress probably will debate this year.
`Risk-Averse'
Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, says the administration has become ``risk-averse,'' which he says may threaten the party's majority in Congress. ``If we don't go out with bold inspirational ideas and convince the American people that we're going to make the future better than today, I think we're going to lose big-time,'' he said in a Dec. 15 interview.
Republican lawmakers will push on their own for a tax-code overhaul, said Representative Scott Garrett, a Republican from New Jersey. ``Congress is going to be taking the lead more this time than we did in the first administration,'' he says.
Minnesota's Gutknecht agrees, especially as lawmakers look ahead to the November election. ``I'm going to run on my agenda,'' he said. ``I'm not going to run on theirs.''
To contact the reporter on this story:
Richard Keil in Washington at dkeil@bloomberg.net
Jan. 3 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush began his second term a year ago with ambitious goals to create private Social Security accounts, overhaul the federal tax code and reshape the nation's immigration laws.
Bush enters 2006 with those grand plans unfulfilled, set aside for a modest agenda reminiscent of predecessor Bill Clinton. The political and financial costs of the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina may limit him this year to adjustments of existing programs on job training, energy policy and grants to religious charities.
The president's shrinking agenda reflects job-approval ratings hovering at about 45 percent, federal budget deficits and the difficulty of winning congressional approval for bold plans in a year when lawmakers are running for re-election.
``He is on the defensive, answering charges about Iraq and struggling to come up with domestic policies he can turn into law,'' says Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas in Austin who has followed Bush's career. ``He has squandered opportunities to build consensus and momentum.''
This year Bush will embrace a proposal by Representative Jack Kingston to promote energy independence through tax credits and breaks for the purchases of hybrid vehicles or the use of alternative energy sources, Republicans familiar with the administration's plans say. The plan probably will cost less than $10 million, estimates David All, a spokesman for Kingston, a Georgia Republican.
Job Training
The president also wants to expand grants for job training by religious charities, at a cost of about $5 billion, according to two Republicans familiar with the plan who spoke on condition of anonymity because the White House hasn't announced it. Religious charities received more than $2 billion in federal money in fiscal 2004, according to the White House Web site.
Bush also will hold a one-day ``summit'' in Washington in March with corporate leaders and foundation executives to encourage them to give more money to churches or religious charities, says Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. ``This is really important to him; he doesn't convene that many summits,'' Towey said in a Dec. 27 interview.
Bush will lay out his goals in his annual State of the Union address to Congress late this month and the fiscal 2007 budget plan he sends lawmakers in early February.
War, Economy
``The issues Americans care most about are the war in Iraq and the economy, and those are the priorities the president is acting on,'' White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says.
Bush's ability to offer new initiatives is constrained by his goal of cutting the deficit in half as a percentage of gross domestic product by the time he leaves office in early 2009. Bush has ordered his administration to be ``extraordinarily disciplined on spending'' to pursue that goal, Treasury Secretary John Snow said in a Dec. 14 interview.
The official federal budget deficit was $319 billion in fiscal 2005, down from $412 billion the previous year. The administration's goal is a deficit of no more than $260 billion by 2009.
The official budget numbers don't include spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been funded through ``emergency spending'' measures totaling $326 billion since September 2001. The administration has projected $50 billion for war costs this year. One critic, Democratic Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, says the real level will probably be double that.
Big Goals Fade
Bush, who in his first term had a higher proportion of his proposals passed by Congress than any president since Lyndon Johnson, began his second term heralding the appointment of a bipartisan panel to recommend changes to the tax code and setting out on a 60-day campaign to promote his Social Security plans.
Both goals have now been put off until at least 2007 after running up against public skepticism and concern about the conflict in Iraq. ``Regardless of what we want to talk about, the thing we have to talk about is Iraq,'' says former Republican Representative Vin Weber, a lobbyist who is close to the administration. ``That's not going to change.''
Bush's situation parallels that of Clinton during his second term. Because of problems including the Monica Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives, Clinton was forced to forgo large initiatives and instead pursue smaller programs or expand on prior ones, such as adding police in urban areas.
Lost Capital
After a long slump, public approval of Bush's handling of the war recovered somewhat in the past month, buoyed by Iraqi elections on Dec. 15 and five presidential speeches on U.S. strategy. Even so, 53 percent of adults still said they disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq in a Dec. 15-18 Washington Post/ABC News poll.
The president's job-approval rating stood at 43 percent in a poll released Dec. 23 by CNN, USA Today and the Gallup Organization, up from 38 percent earlier in the month.
Representative Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican, says Bush has done a ``miserable job of helping the American people see the progress, for example, we're making in Iraq.''
To recover some of the political capital he lost, Bush changed his tone in his five recent Iraq speeches, acknowledging missteps, warning Americans to expect ``more testing and sacrifice'' and telling the public to ``not give in to despair.''
Republicans Step Up
The administration plans speeches and other events this year to lay the groundwork for reintroducing proposals for Social Security, taxes and immigration in 2007. Bush will also spend time in 2006 pressing for congressional approval of some of his earlier plans still in limbo, such as making permanent his first-term income tax cuts and expanding job training and health-care savings accounts, McClellan says.
With all 435 House members and 33 senators up for election in November, congressional Republicans are stepping in with their own priorities. With Bush's backing, they will probably focus on ``some significant tax issues,'' such as limiting the reach of the alternative minimum tax, says Charles Black, a Republican political consultant with ties to the administration.
Bush supports legislation to prevent the AMT from imposing a $30 billion increase on about 15 million middle-income households next year. Dealing with the AMT is the one proposal from Bush's tax overhaul commission that Congress probably will debate this year.
`Risk-Averse'
Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, says the administration has become ``risk-averse,'' which he says may threaten the party's majority in Congress. ``If we don't go out with bold inspirational ideas and convince the American people that we're going to make the future better than today, I think we're going to lose big-time,'' he said in a Dec. 15 interview.
Republican lawmakers will push on their own for a tax-code overhaul, said Representative Scott Garrett, a Republican from New Jersey. ``Congress is going to be taking the lead more this time than we did in the first administration,'' he says.
Minnesota's Gutknecht agrees, especially as lawmakers look ahead to the November election. ``I'm going to run on my agenda,'' he said. ``I'm not going to run on theirs.''
To contact the reporter on this story:
Richard Keil in Washington at dkeil@bloomberg.net
January 3, 2006
ABC News
Iraq Vote Results May Take Another 2 WeeksIraqi Elections Official Says Parliamentary Results May Not Be Ready for Two More Weeks
\
A member of Maram, a coalition of 48 political entities who oppose the results of the Dec. 15. elections, holds a ballot paper which Maram claims is fake, during a press conference in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday Jan. 3, 2006. The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has completed its investigation of almost 2,000 election complaints and will announce the findings on Wednesday Jan. 4, but the commission will not announce final election results until an international team finishes its work, with results not expected for two weeks. (AP Photo/Mohammed Hato)
By JASON STRAZIUSO Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq Jan 3, 2006 — An international team began reviewing the hundreds of complaints filed over Iraq's parliamentary elections, and an Iraqi elections official said Tuesday that results might not be ready for two more weeks.
U.S. aircraft, meanwhile, bombed a building where suspected insurgents were hiding north of Baghdad, killing seven people, Iraqi police said.
In the capital, the sister of Iraq's interior minister was kidnapped by gunmen who killed one of her bodyguards and seriously wounded another, an Interior Ministry official said.
The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has completed its investigation of almost 2,000 election complaints and will announce the findings Wednesday, commission member Hussein Hindawi told The Associated Press.
But the commission won't announce final election results until an international team finishes its work, meaning they might not be ready for two weeks, said commission member Safwat Rashid. Officials previously said final results of the Dec. 15 vote would be announced in early January.
The commission investigated 1,980 complaints, including 50 that were considered serious enough to alter results in some districts, an election official said.
The international team, which began its work Monday, agreed to review Iraq's elections after protests by Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups that the polls were tainted with fraud.
Preliminary results give the governing Shiite religious bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, a big lead, but one that would still require forming a coalition with other groups.
U.S. aircraft bombed a house late Monday in Beiji, site of Iraq's largest oil refinery, killing seven people and wounding four, Iraqi police Capt. Arkan Jassim said. The U.S. military said an unmanned aircraft spotted three men planting a roadside bomb in the city 155 miles north of Baghdad, and that Navy F-14s bombed a nearby building the three had entered.
In other violence, eight people were killed Tuesday in three attacks in Baghdad.
ABC News Home
Contact ABC News . ABC.com . Help & Info . Advertising Info . Terms of Use . Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
ABC News
Iraq Vote Results May Take Another 2 WeeksIraqi Elections Official Says Parliamentary Results May Not Be Ready for Two More Weeks
\
A member of Maram, a coalition of 48 political entities who oppose the results of the Dec. 15. elections, holds a ballot paper which Maram claims is fake, during a press conference in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday Jan. 3, 2006. The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has completed its investigation of almost 2,000 election complaints and will announce the findings on Wednesday Jan. 4, but the commission will not announce final election results until an international team finishes its work, with results not expected for two weeks. (AP Photo/Mohammed Hato)
By JASON STRAZIUSO Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq Jan 3, 2006 — An international team began reviewing the hundreds of complaints filed over Iraq's parliamentary elections, and an Iraqi elections official said Tuesday that results might not be ready for two more weeks.
U.S. aircraft, meanwhile, bombed a building where suspected insurgents were hiding north of Baghdad, killing seven people, Iraqi police said.
In the capital, the sister of Iraq's interior minister was kidnapped by gunmen who killed one of her bodyguards and seriously wounded another, an Interior Ministry official said.
The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has completed its investigation of almost 2,000 election complaints and will announce the findings Wednesday, commission member Hussein Hindawi told The Associated Press.
But the commission won't announce final election results until an international team finishes its work, meaning they might not be ready for two weeks, said commission member Safwat Rashid. Officials previously said final results of the Dec. 15 vote would be announced in early January.
The commission investigated 1,980 complaints, including 50 that were considered serious enough to alter results in some districts, an election official said.
The international team, which began its work Monday, agreed to review Iraq's elections after protests by Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups that the polls were tainted with fraud.
Preliminary results give the governing Shiite religious bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, a big lead, but one that would still require forming a coalition with other groups.
U.S. aircraft bombed a house late Monday in Beiji, site of Iraq's largest oil refinery, killing seven people and wounding four, Iraqi police Capt. Arkan Jassim said. The U.S. military said an unmanned aircraft spotted three men planting a roadside bomb in the city 155 miles north of Baghdad, and that Navy F-14s bombed a nearby building the three had entered.
In other violence, eight people were killed Tuesday in three attacks in Baghdad.
ABC News Home
Contact ABC News . ABC.com . Help & Info . Advertising Info . Terms of Use . Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
Iraq Vote Results May Take Another 2 Weeks
By JASON STRAZIUSO
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 3, 2006; 5:20 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- An international team began reviewing the hundreds of complaints filed over Iraq's parliamentary elections, and an Iraqi elections official said Tuesday that results might not be ready for two more weeks.
U.S. aircraft, meanwhile, bombed a building where suspected insurgents were hiding north of Baghdad, killing seven people, Iraqi police said.
Students rally against the hikes in prices for fuel during a small demonstration near the main gate of the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday Jan. 3, 2006. The banners express disappointment in Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and demand an explanation for the government's reason for firing the oil minister. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed) (Khalid Mohammed - AP)
In the capital, the sister of Iraq's interior minister was kidnapped by gunmen who killed one of her bodyguards and seriously wounded another, an Interior Ministry official said.
The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has completed its investigation of almost 2,000 election complaints and will announce the findings Wednesday, commission member Hussein Hindawi told The Associated Press.
But the commission won't announce final election results until an international team finishes its work, meaning they might not be ready for two weeks, said commission member Safwat Rashid. Officials previously said final results of the Dec. 15 vote would be announced in early January.
The commission investigated 1,980 complaints, including 50 that were considered serious enough to alter results in some districts, an election official said.
The international team, which began its work Monday, agreed to review Iraq's elections after protests by Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups that the polls were tainted with fraud.
Preliminary results give the governing Shiite religious bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, a big lead, but one that would still require forming a coalition with other groups.
U.S. aircraft bombed a house late Monday in Beiji, site of Iraq's largest oil refinery, killing seven people and wounding four, Iraqi police Capt. Arkan Jassim said. The U.S. military said an unmanned aircraft spotted three men planting a roadside bomb in the city 155 miles north of Baghdad, and that Navy F-14s bombed a nearby building the three had entered.
In other violence, eight people were killed Tuesday in three attacks in Baghdad.
Gunmen attacked a car carrying construction workers in a western neighborhood, killing three, police Capt. Qasim Hussein said. Another car carrying civilians was fired on in the same area, killing two people, said police 1st Lt. Thair Mahmoud. Three civilians elsewhere in Baghdad were shot to death, police said.
Interior Minister Bayan Jabr's sister was kidnapped in northeastern Baghdad, said Adnan Thabet, commander of the Interior Ministry's special forces. He did not provide any other details about the kidnapping or the minister's sister _ including her name or age.
Jabr is a member of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq _ the country's largest Shiite party, also known as SCIRI. He was formerly a senior official of the Badr Brigade, a militia that belongs to SCIRI.
Jabr has in recent weeks been the focus of criticism over allegations of torture and abuse at Interior Ministry prisons. Many of the those abused were Sunnis, the group thought to fuel the insurgency.
Also Tuesday, the nephew of Maj. Gen. Ali Al-Yasiri, commander of the Baghdad rescue police, was kidnapped, Hussein said.
Members of the International Mission for Iraqi Elections were in Baghdad to investigate fraud complaints, verify vote counts and review the decision by Iraq's election commission to remove 90 people from Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party from the tickets of political parties, Rashid said. It wasn't known how many of the 2,000 complaints the team would investigate.
The Iraqi election commission, which is separate from the international team, will study the international team's findings before it announces final results of the Dec. 15 elections, Rashid said.
"If they work hard they might finish within a week," he said.
It took about two weeks to announce final results from interim parliamentary elections on Jan. 30, 2005.
In other developments:
_ Oil Minister Ahmad Chalabi met with coalition officials to discuss ways to bring the oil refinery in Beiji _ Iraq's largest _ back on line after it stopped production Dec. 18 because tanker truck drivers refused to make deliveries across dangerous desert roads. Chalabi said recent attacks on the country's oil pipelines make it clear that insurgents are trying to prevent the refinery from operating.
_ The satellite news channel Al-Arabiya showed footage of Jordanian hostage Mahmoud Suleiman Saidat. His captors said they had given Jordan's government more time to meet demands that it cut ties with the Baghdad government and free a female would-be suicide bomber whose explosives belt failed to go off during Nov. 9 attacks that killed 60 people in Amman.
___
Associated Press reporter Qassim Abdul-Zahra contributed to this report from Baghdad.
By JASON STRAZIUSO
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 3, 2006; 5:20 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- An international team began reviewing the hundreds of complaints filed over Iraq's parliamentary elections, and an Iraqi elections official said Tuesday that results might not be ready for two more weeks.
U.S. aircraft, meanwhile, bombed a building where suspected insurgents were hiding north of Baghdad, killing seven people, Iraqi police said.
Students rally against the hikes in prices for fuel during a small demonstration near the main gate of the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday Jan. 3, 2006. The banners express disappointment in Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and demand an explanation for the government's reason for firing the oil minister. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed) (Khalid Mohammed - AP)
In the capital, the sister of Iraq's interior minister was kidnapped by gunmen who killed one of her bodyguards and seriously wounded another, an Interior Ministry official said.
The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has completed its investigation of almost 2,000 election complaints and will announce the findings Wednesday, commission member Hussein Hindawi told The Associated Press.
But the commission won't announce final election results until an international team finishes its work, meaning they might not be ready for two weeks, said commission member Safwat Rashid. Officials previously said final results of the Dec. 15 vote would be announced in early January.
The commission investigated 1,980 complaints, including 50 that were considered serious enough to alter results in some districts, an election official said.
The international team, which began its work Monday, agreed to review Iraq's elections after protests by Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups that the polls were tainted with fraud.
Preliminary results give the governing Shiite religious bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, a big lead, but one that would still require forming a coalition with other groups.
U.S. aircraft bombed a house late Monday in Beiji, site of Iraq's largest oil refinery, killing seven people and wounding four, Iraqi police Capt. Arkan Jassim said. The U.S. military said an unmanned aircraft spotted three men planting a roadside bomb in the city 155 miles north of Baghdad, and that Navy F-14s bombed a nearby building the three had entered.
In other violence, eight people were killed Tuesday in three attacks in Baghdad.
Gunmen attacked a car carrying construction workers in a western neighborhood, killing three, police Capt. Qasim Hussein said. Another car carrying civilians was fired on in the same area, killing two people, said police 1st Lt. Thair Mahmoud. Three civilians elsewhere in Baghdad were shot to death, police said.
Interior Minister Bayan Jabr's sister was kidnapped in northeastern Baghdad, said Adnan Thabet, commander of the Interior Ministry's special forces. He did not provide any other details about the kidnapping or the minister's sister _ including her name or age.
Jabr is a member of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq _ the country's largest Shiite party, also known as SCIRI. He was formerly a senior official of the Badr Brigade, a militia that belongs to SCIRI.
Jabr has in recent weeks been the focus of criticism over allegations of torture and abuse at Interior Ministry prisons. Many of the those abused were Sunnis, the group thought to fuel the insurgency.
Also Tuesday, the nephew of Maj. Gen. Ali Al-Yasiri, commander of the Baghdad rescue police, was kidnapped, Hussein said.
Members of the International Mission for Iraqi Elections were in Baghdad to investigate fraud complaints, verify vote counts and review the decision by Iraq's election commission to remove 90 people from Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party from the tickets of political parties, Rashid said. It wasn't known how many of the 2,000 complaints the team would investigate.
The Iraqi election commission, which is separate from the international team, will study the international team's findings before it announces final results of the Dec. 15 elections, Rashid said.
"If they work hard they might finish within a week," he said.
It took about two weeks to announce final results from interim parliamentary elections on Jan. 30, 2005.
In other developments:
_ Oil Minister Ahmad Chalabi met with coalition officials to discuss ways to bring the oil refinery in Beiji _ Iraq's largest _ back on line after it stopped production Dec. 18 because tanker truck drivers refused to make deliveries across dangerous desert roads. Chalabi said recent attacks on the country's oil pipelines make it clear that insurgents are trying to prevent the refinery from operating.
_ The satellite news channel Al-Arabiya showed footage of Jordanian hostage Mahmoud Suleiman Saidat. His captors said they had given Jordan's government more time to meet demands that it cut ties with the Baghdad government and free a female would-be suicide bomber whose explosives belt failed to go off during Nov. 9 attacks that killed 60 people in Amman.
___
Associated Press reporter Qassim Abdul-Zahra contributed to this report from Baghdad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 3, 2006
With Search Ongoing, Owner of Mine Says Air Quality Is Poor
By JAMES DAO
SAGO, W.Va., Jan. 3 - Carbon monoxide levels near the site of where 13 coal miners are believed trapped 260 feet underground are three times higher than breathable levels, the mine's owner said today, as rescuers continued the search for workers who have been trapped since early Monday.
By late this morning, a search team had re-entered the shaft to try to find the coal miners and they "are moving forward at an accelerated pace," Ben Hatfield, president and chief executive of the International Coal Group, said at a televised news conference.Sensors monitoring air quality in the shaft at the Sago Mine have found carbon monoxide levels at 1,300 parts per million. Federal standards put the ceiling of acceptable levels of the poisonous gas at 400 parts per million for about 15 minutes.
"That's not an environment that can sustain life," said Mr. Hatfield. "We're very disturbed by the information we've received so far."
Rescue crews drilled a 6 1/4-inch hole into the mine this morning and lowered a camera inside, but Mr. Hatfield said video from the camera showed neither any sign of the miners, nor significant damage to the mine shaft.
Officials said they hoped that either the miners are in a different part of the mine or had been able to barricade themselves into a section of the shaft that has sufficient levels of oxygen.
Mr. Hatfield said that by the end of the day, crews would have drilled three holes into the mine shaft to try to find signs of life and measure the levels of carbon monoxide and other toxic gases. The drilling has gone more slowly than expected, Mr. Hatfield said, because ground water is leaking into the holes.
A 1,300-lb. robot equipped with a camera with a telescopic lens and sensors that analyzes air quality was lowered into the shaft this morning, but has gotten bogged down in mud inside the shaft. The robot, which operates on a track and is controlled remotely, can reach depths of 3,500-feet. Rescue crews have moved ahead of the robot in the search for the miners. Gov. Joe Manchin III said Monday that the 13 miners had just entered the mine for the start of their shift shortly after 6 a.m. when an explosion occurred.
A crew behind them fled, then tried to go back, but were unable to reach the miners, Mr. Manchin said.
"We're really just with our families and all the families in West Virginia right now hoping and praying for a speedy recovery," Mr. Manchin said.
Throughout the day Monday, scores of friends and relatives of the trapped miners, most of whom live in hollows near the mine, gathered at a white-frame Baptist church awaiting reports on the rescue effort and receiving briefings from Mr. Manchin.
"I know first hand how agonizing waiting can be," said Mr. Manchin, a Democrat, who lost an uncle in a mining disaster in Farmington in 1968.
He called the mood inside the church "very prayerful and very hopeful."
It was unclear what caused the explosion, though there were unconfirmed reports that lightning might have ignited volatile gases inside the mine, which mine officials said had been closed Saturday and Sunday for the New Year's holiday.
Sharp drops in barometric pressure can cause potentially explosive methane gas to migrate into work areas, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The explosion that led to the miners becoming trapped occurred during a thunderstorm.
Officials said concerns about dangerous gases prevented the first rescue teams from entering the mine until about 5 p.m. on Monday. A rotation of 13 six- or eight-member teams, specially trained for underground rescues and carrying oxygen, worked all night trying to find the trapped miners.
"We'll be here until we get to them," said Jim Farry, deputy director for the Upshur County Office of Emergency Management.
One rescue worker, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to reporters, said teams spent much of the afternoon on Monday pouring water into the mine, trying to douse a fire.
Gene Kitts, senior vice president of International Coal Group, said one rescue team had reached nearly 9,000 feet into the mine and had found no evidence of a roof cave-in. But he said he did not know the condition of the mine farther in. Those workers resurfaced this morning before the hole was being bored because officials worried that the rescuers might be harmed if the drilling of the hole caused toxic gases to circulate throughout the mine shaft.
The mine had an underground telephone system, but it was disabled by the explosion.
Emergency supplies were also stored in 55 gallon barrels inside the mine, making it possible for the miners to survive for many hours, the worker said.
The mine, in north-central West Virginia about 100 miles east of Charleston, is owned by Anker West Virginia Mining Company, which was recently bought by International Coal Group, The Associated Press reported.
People who lived around the mine said the explosion shook their homes, rocked them out of their sleep.
"It was like somebody had set off a powder keg," said Clifford Rice, a truck driver who lives a few hundred feet from the mine's entrance. "I thought a bolt of lightning had hit the house."
Anxious residents began gathering at the Sago Baptist Church just hours after the explosion. By the afternoon, neighbors had begun arriving with pizza, hams and shopping bags filled with food. By early evening Monday there were more than 200 people sitting inside, milling about on the church lawn or praying quietly in an adjacent chapel.
One woman sitting on the deck outside the church said her brother was trapped in the mine. She said that he had been a miner for 35 years and that he had two children and four grandchildren.
"I just want people to be praying for them, is all," said the woman, who declined to give her name.
Experts said Monday that blasts like the one that trapped the men were a risk of mining, especially at this time of year.
"During the winter," said Bruce Dial, a former inspector for the Mine Safety and Health Administration, "there are a lot more of them because there is far less moisture in the air, which means that the coal dust has nothing keeping it down and a small spark and a small amount of methane can trigger it. If there is a spark and if there is methane in the air, the coal dust catches fire and sends a fireball down the tunnel."
According to the agency, the Sago mine received 208 citations in 2005, up from 68 in 2004. Sixteen of those were for violations that the mine operators knew about but did not repair before inspectors caught them, the agency said. The company said those numbers were not out of the ordinary.
Reporting for this article was contributed by Cynthia McCloud and Jen McCaffery from Tallmansville, W.Va., Ian Urbina from Washington, and Timothy Williams from New York..
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
January 3, 2006
With Search Ongoing, Owner of Mine Says Air Quality Is Poor
By JAMES DAO
SAGO, W.Va., Jan. 3 - Carbon monoxide levels near the site of where 13 coal miners are believed trapped 260 feet underground are three times higher than breathable levels, the mine's owner said today, as rescuers continued the search for workers who have been trapped since early Monday.
By late this morning, a search team had re-entered the shaft to try to find the coal miners and they "are moving forward at an accelerated pace," Ben Hatfield, president and chief executive of the International Coal Group, said at a televised news conference.Sensors monitoring air quality in the shaft at the Sago Mine have found carbon monoxide levels at 1,300 parts per million. Federal standards put the ceiling of acceptable levels of the poisonous gas at 400 parts per million for about 15 minutes.
"That's not an environment that can sustain life," said Mr. Hatfield. "We're very disturbed by the information we've received so far."
Rescue crews drilled a 6 1/4-inch hole into the mine this morning and lowered a camera inside, but Mr. Hatfield said video from the camera showed neither any sign of the miners, nor significant damage to the mine shaft.
Officials said they hoped that either the miners are in a different part of the mine or had been able to barricade themselves into a section of the shaft that has sufficient levels of oxygen.
Mr. Hatfield said that by the end of the day, crews would have drilled three holes into the mine shaft to try to find signs of life and measure the levels of carbon monoxide and other toxic gases. The drilling has gone more slowly than expected, Mr. Hatfield said, because ground water is leaking into the holes.
A 1,300-lb. robot equipped with a camera with a telescopic lens and sensors that analyzes air quality was lowered into the shaft this morning, but has gotten bogged down in mud inside the shaft. The robot, which operates on a track and is controlled remotely, can reach depths of 3,500-feet. Rescue crews have moved ahead of the robot in the search for the miners. Gov. Joe Manchin III said Monday that the 13 miners had just entered the mine for the start of their shift shortly after 6 a.m. when an explosion occurred.
A crew behind them fled, then tried to go back, but were unable to reach the miners, Mr. Manchin said.
"We're really just with our families and all the families in West Virginia right now hoping and praying for a speedy recovery," Mr. Manchin said.
Throughout the day Monday, scores of friends and relatives of the trapped miners, most of whom live in hollows near the mine, gathered at a white-frame Baptist church awaiting reports on the rescue effort and receiving briefings from Mr. Manchin.
"I know first hand how agonizing waiting can be," said Mr. Manchin, a Democrat, who lost an uncle in a mining disaster in Farmington in 1968.
He called the mood inside the church "very prayerful and very hopeful."
It was unclear what caused the explosion, though there were unconfirmed reports that lightning might have ignited volatile gases inside the mine, which mine officials said had been closed Saturday and Sunday for the New Year's holiday.
Sharp drops in barometric pressure can cause potentially explosive methane gas to migrate into work areas, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The explosion that led to the miners becoming trapped occurred during a thunderstorm.
Officials said concerns about dangerous gases prevented the first rescue teams from entering the mine until about 5 p.m. on Monday. A rotation of 13 six- or eight-member teams, specially trained for underground rescues and carrying oxygen, worked all night trying to find the trapped miners.
"We'll be here until we get to them," said Jim Farry, deputy director for the Upshur County Office of Emergency Management.
One rescue worker, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to reporters, said teams spent much of the afternoon on Monday pouring water into the mine, trying to douse a fire.
Gene Kitts, senior vice president of International Coal Group, said one rescue team had reached nearly 9,000 feet into the mine and had found no evidence of a roof cave-in. But he said he did not know the condition of the mine farther in. Those workers resurfaced this morning before the hole was being bored because officials worried that the rescuers might be harmed if the drilling of the hole caused toxic gases to circulate throughout the mine shaft.
The mine had an underground telephone system, but it was disabled by the explosion.
Emergency supplies were also stored in 55 gallon barrels inside the mine, making it possible for the miners to survive for many hours, the worker said.
The mine, in north-central West Virginia about 100 miles east of Charleston, is owned by Anker West Virginia Mining Company, which was recently bought by International Coal Group, The Associated Press reported.
People who lived around the mine said the explosion shook their homes, rocked them out of their sleep.
"It was like somebody had set off a powder keg," said Clifford Rice, a truck driver who lives a few hundred feet from the mine's entrance. "I thought a bolt of lightning had hit the house."
Anxious residents began gathering at the Sago Baptist Church just hours after the explosion. By the afternoon, neighbors had begun arriving with pizza, hams and shopping bags filled with food. By early evening Monday there were more than 200 people sitting inside, milling about on the church lawn or praying quietly in an adjacent chapel.
One woman sitting on the deck outside the church said her brother was trapped in the mine. She said that he had been a miner for 35 years and that he had two children and four grandchildren.
"I just want people to be praying for them, is all," said the woman, who declined to give her name.
Experts said Monday that blasts like the one that trapped the men were a risk of mining, especially at this time of year.
"During the winter," said Bruce Dial, a former inspector for the Mine Safety and Health Administration, "there are a lot more of them because there is far less moisture in the air, which means that the coal dust has nothing keeping it down and a small spark and a small amount of methane can trigger it. If there is a spark and if there is methane in the air, the coal dust catches fire and sends a fireball down the tunnel."
According to the agency, the Sago mine received 208 citations in 2005, up from 68 in 2004. Sixteen of those were for violations that the mine operators knew about but did not repair before inspectors caught them, the agency said. The company said those numbers were not out of the ordinary.
Reporting for this article was contributed by Cynthia McCloud and Jen McCaffery from Tallmansville, W.Va., Ian Urbina from Washington, and Timothy Williams from New York..
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 3, 2006
Fed Indicates It Is Getting Ready to Stop Raising Rates
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - The Federal Reserve set the stage today for ending its 18-month campaign of raising interest rates, closing out a major chapter in its monetary policy just a few weeks before Alan Greenspan retires as the Fed's chairman.
According to minutes released today from the Fed's policy meeting in December, officials agreed that they would have to push short-term rates only a little bit higher before stopping.
Policymakers agreed that monetary policy was no longer "accommodative," given that they had raised the benchmark federal funds rate on overnight bank loans to 4.25 percent today from 1 percent in June 2004.
And while officials were careful to say they were not quite finished, they explicitly indicated that they were close.
"Given the information now in hand, the number of additional firming steps required probably would not be large," the Fed's minutes said, ascribing that view to "most members" of the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee.
The summary of last month's deliberations provides a wealth of new insights into the central bank's thinking as it prepares for its transition from Mr. Greenspan to Ben S. Bernanke, President Bush's nominee as the next Fed chairman.
The meeting minutes confirmed that Fed officials became slightly less worried about inflationary pressures, even though they expected high energy prices to push overall inflation somewhat higher for awhile.
"Participants indicated that their concerns about near-term inflation pressures had eased somewhat," the minutes said. Policymakers said prices were being held in check by competition from foreign producers.
They also noted that wages and other labor costs climbed only moderately, despite strong economic growth. And they drew comfort from the fact that last year's spike in oil prices had only a "muted" impact on overall consumer prices.
But Fed officials also hinted that they might be entering a new period of uncertainty and perhaps disagreement.
The uncertainties are both about the potential course of the economy as well as about the best way for the Fed to communicate its intentions now that interest rates are more in line with historical patterns.
"Views differed on how much further tightening would be required," according to the minutes. "Members thought the policy outlook was becoming considerably less certain and that policy decisions going forward would depend to an increased extent on the implications of incoming economic data."
Mr. Greenspan, who is set to retire on Jan. 31 after 18 years as chairman of the Federal Reserve, has long warned that the Fed would not always tip its hand on future policy as it has in the past two years.
But Mr. Bernanke, a former Fed governor who is expected to win easy approval in the Senate as the next Fed chairman, has argued for years that the central bank needs to be more open and "transparent" in communicating policy to the public.
Both Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Greenspan have been careful to couch any advance guidance from the Fed with the caution that policy decisions would always depend on patterns of new economic data.
But most analysts agree that the last two years have been unusually predictable. One major reason was that inflation has remained low, allowing the Fed to adjust policy gradually.
The other reason was that the Fed slashed interest rates to historic lows from 2001 through 2004 in order to support a stalling economy, and virtually all policymakers agreed that they had to push rates back up to more normal levels in order to prevent a new outbreak of inflation.
But with the federal funds rate now up to 4.25 percent, four times its level of just 18 months ago, the distinction between an "easy" and "tight" monetary policy is no longer clear.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
January 3, 2006
Fed Indicates It Is Getting Ready to Stop Raising Rates
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - The Federal Reserve set the stage today for ending its 18-month campaign of raising interest rates, closing out a major chapter in its monetary policy just a few weeks before Alan Greenspan retires as the Fed's chairman.
According to minutes released today from the Fed's policy meeting in December, officials agreed that they would have to push short-term rates only a little bit higher before stopping.
Policymakers agreed that monetary policy was no longer "accommodative," given that they had raised the benchmark federal funds rate on overnight bank loans to 4.25 percent today from 1 percent in June 2004.
And while officials were careful to say they were not quite finished, they explicitly indicated that they were close.
"Given the information now in hand, the number of additional firming steps required probably would not be large," the Fed's minutes said, ascribing that view to "most members" of the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee.
The summary of last month's deliberations provides a wealth of new insights into the central bank's thinking as it prepares for its transition from Mr. Greenspan to Ben S. Bernanke, President Bush's nominee as the next Fed chairman.
The meeting minutes confirmed that Fed officials became slightly less worried about inflationary pressures, even though they expected high energy prices to push overall inflation somewhat higher for awhile.
"Participants indicated that their concerns about near-term inflation pressures had eased somewhat," the minutes said. Policymakers said prices were being held in check by competition from foreign producers.
They also noted that wages and other labor costs climbed only moderately, despite strong economic growth. And they drew comfort from the fact that last year's spike in oil prices had only a "muted" impact on overall consumer prices.
But Fed officials also hinted that they might be entering a new period of uncertainty and perhaps disagreement.
The uncertainties are both about the potential course of the economy as well as about the best way for the Fed to communicate its intentions now that interest rates are more in line with historical patterns.
"Views differed on how much further tightening would be required," according to the minutes. "Members thought the policy outlook was becoming considerably less certain and that policy decisions going forward would depend to an increased extent on the implications of incoming economic data."
Mr. Greenspan, who is set to retire on Jan. 31 after 18 years as chairman of the Federal Reserve, has long warned that the Fed would not always tip its hand on future policy as it has in the past two years.
But Mr. Bernanke, a former Fed governor who is expected to win easy approval in the Senate as the next Fed chairman, has argued for years that the central bank needs to be more open and "transparent" in communicating policy to the public.
Both Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Greenspan have been careful to couch any advance guidance from the Fed with the caution that policy decisions would always depend on patterns of new economic data.
But most analysts agree that the last two years have been unusually predictable. One major reason was that inflation has remained low, allowing the Fed to adjust policy gradually.
The other reason was that the Fed slashed interest rates to historic lows from 2001 through 2004 in order to support a stalling economy, and virtually all policymakers agreed that they had to push rates back up to more normal levels in order to prevent a new outbreak of inflation.
But with the federal funds rate now up to 4.25 percent, four times its level of just 18 months ago, the distinction between an "easy" and "tight" monetary policy is no longer clear.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
After Reports to the Contrary, Only One Miner Survives New York Times
In a heartbreaking turnaround, officials this morning first announced that 12 of 13 miners trapped in a West Virginia coal mine had been found alive, and then three hours later disclosed that all but one of them in fact had died. The reversal left relatives who had gathered at the mine in Sago, W. Va., stunned and furious. One miner was rescued. A doctor told The Associated Press that the survivor, Randal McCloy Jr., 27, was hospitalized in critical condition. The miners had been trapped 260 feet below the surface since an explosion occurred early Monday morning. "We believed there were 12 survivors," Bennett K. Hatfield, the chief executive officer of International Coal Group, the mine's owner, said in televised comments. "That was the initial communication from the command center. But it was wrong."
11 of the 12 trapped miners have died Independent
Joy at mine: 12 are alive philly.com
Pioneer Press - Chicago Tribune - Reuters.uk - CBS News - all 4,156 related »
In a heartbreaking turnaround, officials this morning first announced that 12 of 13 miners trapped in a West Virginia coal mine had been found alive, and then three hours later disclosed that all but one of them in fact had died. The reversal left relatives who had gathered at the mine in Sago, W. Va., stunned and furious. One miner was rescued. A doctor told The Associated Press that the survivor, Randal McCloy Jr., 27, was hospitalized in critical condition. The miners had been trapped 260 feet below the surface since an explosion occurred early Monday morning. "We believed there were 12 survivors," Bennett K. Hatfield, the chief executive officer of International Coal Group, the mine's owner, said in televised comments. "That was the initial communication from the command center. But it was wrong."
11 of the 12 trapped miners have died Independent
Joy at mine: 12 are alive philly.com
Pioneer Press - Chicago Tribune - Reuters.uk - CBS News - all 4,156 related »
SunCruz deal greased Abramoff's downfall Miami Herald
Jack Abramoff's South Florida legal troubles stemming from his SunCruz Casinos purchase heightened pressure on the lobbyist to cooperate with authorities investigating his Washington connections. He made a name for himself in power-hungry Washington as a big-time lobbyist, collecting multimillion dollar fees from Indian tribes and courting mostly Republican lawmakers with an enviable fundraising network. But Jack Abramoff's lobbying empire began crumbling this summer in South Florida where he and a business partner were indicted on charges of defrauding lenders in their purchase of Broward-based SunCruz Casinos, a fleet of gambling ships. Those initial criminal charges allowed federal prosecutors to put pressure on Abramoff -- and those close to him -- to disclose more details about his alleged influence-peddling activities on Capitol Hill. Abramoff, 46, pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal corruption charges in Washington, and will do the same today in the SunCruz fraud case to avoid a Miami federal court trial on Monday. He faces a total of up to 11 years in prison. The double-barreled plea deals are expected to trigger fallout for numerous GOP lawmakers, including an Ohio congressman suspected of unduly influencing the 2000 sale of SunCruz to Abramoff and New York businessman Adam Kidan. Kidan, 41, pleaded guilty last month to conspiring with Abramoff to defraud lenders in their $147.5 million purchase of the floating-gambling operation in September 2000. South Florida prosecutors charged them with lying to lenders about putting down $23 million to qualify for a $60 million loan. They never made the down payment. The deal allowed the partners to pay themselves $500,000 salaries and to divert $310,000 in SunCruz money for Washington-area sports sky boxes for GOP fundraisers. Abramoff and his former partner, Michael Scanlon, who already pleaded guilty in November, are accused of a ''secret profit-sharing agreement'' that used public relations and lobbying firms to defraud their competing tribal clients so they could rake in tens of millions of dollar in fees.
`CORRUPT MEANS'
Criminal court papers filed Tuesday accuse Abramoff and lobbying partners of conspiring to win legislative favors from lawmakers through "corrupt means.'' Among the lawmakers: U.S. Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. He is suspected along with additional lawmakers of providing legislative favors to benefit Abramoff's Indian tribal clients that own casinos outside Florida. He's also suspected of using his influence to handicap SunCruz's founder during the 2000 sale of his fleet to Abramoff and Kidan. The Justice Department has issued a subpoena to Ney, whose office denied any wrongdoing. ''At the time I dealt with Jack Abramoff, I obviously did not know, and had no way of knowing, the self-serving and fraudulent nature of Abramoff's activities,'' Ney said in a statement. In the SunCruz case, Ney placed critical remarks of former SunCruz owner Konstantinos ''Gus'' Boulis in the Congressional Record in 2000. He called Boulis a ''bad apple'' and praised Kidan as a businessman with a "renowned reputation for honesty and integrity.'' After the SunCruz sale, according to law-enforcement sources, Abramoff and Kidan approved contributing $10,000 in SunCruz money -- on behalf of Ney -- to a national campaign fund to help elect Republicans to Congress. Prosecutors in Washington and South Florida believe that the partners donated the SunCruz money in Ney's name as an illegal payback for his critical comments of Boulis. The SunCruz deal, from the beginning, has been shrouded in scandal. In February 2001, Boulis was gunned down in a mob-style hit in his BMW on a Fort Lauderdale street -- a police probe that resulted in three defendants being charged with his murder in September 2005. One defendant was an associate and close pal of the late Gambino family crime boss John Gotti. Fort Lauderdale police detectives have questioned Kidan, who publicly feuded with Boulis after the SunCruz sale, but have not identified the New Yorker as a suspect. Investigators don't believe Abramoff was involved. By June 2001, the new SunCruz owners filed for bankruptcy, leaving a wake of civil and criminal litigation. Today, Abramoff plans to plead guilty to the main conspiracy charge and to a separate wire-fraud count based on his Sept. 22, 2000, faxed transmission of the SunCruz closing documents bearing his signature. Four other fraud charges will be dropped.
`COOPERATION'
Abramoff's plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami calls for a prison term between six and seven years, but ''that period could be reduced by [his] cooperation,'' said his attorney, Neal Sonnett. He said federal prosecutors will recommend that the sentence imposed in the Miami case be served at the same time as any sentence imposed in Washington. Interim U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta credited South Florida prosecutors Lawrence LaVecchio, Paul Schwartz and Guy Singer with nailing the SunCruz fraud case and helping the Justice Department build a stronger corruption case against Abramoff, his former lobbying partner, Scanlon, and certain lawmakers. ''I think it's important to not just focus on elected officials, but all who seek to influence our government,'' Acosta said. "When individuals who seek to influence elected officials break public-corruption laws, they are just as guilty.'' WFOR-CBS4 reporter Brian Andrews contributed to this report.
Abramoff scandal could see more heads roll Radio Netherlands
Lobbyist’s plea sends shock wave in capital Kansas City Star
Chicago Sun-Times - San Francisco Chronicle - Houston Chronicle - Globe and Mail - all 1,194 related »
Jack Abramoff's South Florida legal troubles stemming from his SunCruz Casinos purchase heightened pressure on the lobbyist to cooperate with authorities investigating his Washington connections. He made a name for himself in power-hungry Washington as a big-time lobbyist, collecting multimillion dollar fees from Indian tribes and courting mostly Republican lawmakers with an enviable fundraising network. But Jack Abramoff's lobbying empire began crumbling this summer in South Florida where he and a business partner were indicted on charges of defrauding lenders in their purchase of Broward-based SunCruz Casinos, a fleet of gambling ships. Those initial criminal charges allowed federal prosecutors to put pressure on Abramoff -- and those close to him -- to disclose more details about his alleged influence-peddling activities on Capitol Hill. Abramoff, 46, pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal corruption charges in Washington, and will do the same today in the SunCruz fraud case to avoid a Miami federal court trial on Monday. He faces a total of up to 11 years in prison. The double-barreled plea deals are expected to trigger fallout for numerous GOP lawmakers, including an Ohio congressman suspected of unduly influencing the 2000 sale of SunCruz to Abramoff and New York businessman Adam Kidan. Kidan, 41, pleaded guilty last month to conspiring with Abramoff to defraud lenders in their $147.5 million purchase of the floating-gambling operation in September 2000. South Florida prosecutors charged them with lying to lenders about putting down $23 million to qualify for a $60 million loan. They never made the down payment. The deal allowed the partners to pay themselves $500,000 salaries and to divert $310,000 in SunCruz money for Washington-area sports sky boxes for GOP fundraisers. Abramoff and his former partner, Michael Scanlon, who already pleaded guilty in November, are accused of a ''secret profit-sharing agreement'' that used public relations and lobbying firms to defraud their competing tribal clients so they could rake in tens of millions of dollar in fees.
`CORRUPT MEANS'
Criminal court papers filed Tuesday accuse Abramoff and lobbying partners of conspiring to win legislative favors from lawmakers through "corrupt means.'' Among the lawmakers: U.S. Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. He is suspected along with additional lawmakers of providing legislative favors to benefit Abramoff's Indian tribal clients that own casinos outside Florida. He's also suspected of using his influence to handicap SunCruz's founder during the 2000 sale of his fleet to Abramoff and Kidan. The Justice Department has issued a subpoena to Ney, whose office denied any wrongdoing. ''At the time I dealt with Jack Abramoff, I obviously did not know, and had no way of knowing, the self-serving and fraudulent nature of Abramoff's activities,'' Ney said in a statement. In the SunCruz case, Ney placed critical remarks of former SunCruz owner Konstantinos ''Gus'' Boulis in the Congressional Record in 2000. He called Boulis a ''bad apple'' and praised Kidan as a businessman with a "renowned reputation for honesty and integrity.'' After the SunCruz sale, according to law-enforcement sources, Abramoff and Kidan approved contributing $10,000 in SunCruz money -- on behalf of Ney -- to a national campaign fund to help elect Republicans to Congress. Prosecutors in Washington and South Florida believe that the partners donated the SunCruz money in Ney's name as an illegal payback for his critical comments of Boulis. The SunCruz deal, from the beginning, has been shrouded in scandal. In February 2001, Boulis was gunned down in a mob-style hit in his BMW on a Fort Lauderdale street -- a police probe that resulted in three defendants being charged with his murder in September 2005. One defendant was an associate and close pal of the late Gambino family crime boss John Gotti. Fort Lauderdale police detectives have questioned Kidan, who publicly feuded with Boulis after the SunCruz sale, but have not identified the New Yorker as a suspect. Investigators don't believe Abramoff was involved. By June 2001, the new SunCruz owners filed for bankruptcy, leaving a wake of civil and criminal litigation. Today, Abramoff plans to plead guilty to the main conspiracy charge and to a separate wire-fraud count based on his Sept. 22, 2000, faxed transmission of the SunCruz closing documents bearing his signature. Four other fraud charges will be dropped.
`COOPERATION'
Abramoff's plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami calls for a prison term between six and seven years, but ''that period could be reduced by [his] cooperation,'' said his attorney, Neal Sonnett. He said federal prosecutors will recommend that the sentence imposed in the Miami case be served at the same time as any sentence imposed in Washington. Interim U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta credited South Florida prosecutors Lawrence LaVecchio, Paul Schwartz and Guy Singer with nailing the SunCruz fraud case and helping the Justice Department build a stronger corruption case against Abramoff, his former lobbying partner, Scanlon, and certain lawmakers. ''I think it's important to not just focus on elected officials, but all who seek to influence our government,'' Acosta said. "When individuals who seek to influence elected officials break public-corruption laws, they are just as guilty.'' WFOR-CBS4 reporter Brian Andrews contributed to this report.
Abramoff scandal could see more heads roll Radio Netherlands
Lobbyist’s plea sends shock wave in capital Kansas City Star
Chicago Sun-Times - San Francisco Chronicle - Houston Chronicle - Globe and Mail - all 1,194 related »
Bush Assails Democrats Over Patriot Act
Opponents Are Blocking Law's Full Renewal for Political Reasons, President Says
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; A02
President Bush accused Democrats yesterday of blocking a full reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act for political reasons, as the White House stepped up an aggressive campaign to defend the president's terrorism-fighting authority.
"For partisan reasons, in my mind, people have not stepped up," Bush told reporters, with 19 federal prosecutors by his side. "The enemy has not gone away; they're still there, and I expect Congress to understand that we're still at war and they've got to give us the tools necessary to win this war."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, speaking to reporters earlier in the day, said Senate Democrats are simply doing the bidding of liberal special interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the broad surveillance power authorized by the act. Democrats are trying to "appease" the ACLU "because they want to weaken and undermine the Patriot Act," McClellan said.
The Patriot Act, which Congress voted to extend until the end of this month amid a bitter political dispute over its reach, provides the federal government with broad power to monitor and prosecute terrorism suspects and those helping them. Many Democrats and a few key Republicans oppose the act as written because they say it does not provide adequate protections for the civil liberties of innocent Americans.
The Patriot Act is expected to dominate the debate when Congress returns at the end of the month and to serve as a backdrop for a broader, and possibly even more contentious, argument over Bush's anti-terrorism policies.
The White House is bracing for a heated dispute over both the Patriot Act and the recent revelations that Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to monitor communications within the United States involving terrorism suspects overseas. Congress is planning hearings on the NSA program this month and another vote on the Patriot Act early next month, when the current extension expires.
Adopting campaign-style tactics, Bush and his aides plan to accuse Democrats of jeopardizing national security to further their political agenda, a tack that worked well for the White House in the 2002 and 2004 elections. But the political environment is different now, with Bush less popular and Democrats better organized in opposition.
Moreover, key Republicans are also raising objections to Bush's broad interpretation of presidential power. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) was among the first to demand hearings on the NSA intercepts, and four GOP senators who typically back Bush in policy disputes played crucial roles in blocking the full reauthorization of the Patriot Act before Congress adjourned shortly before Christmas.
On another front, the Justice Department notified U.S. District Court judges in Washington that it will seek the dismissal of lawsuits from more than 300 Guantanamo Bay detainees who are questioning the legality of their confinement, using a provision of the defense appropriations law that the Bush administration says limits existing challenges.
The new provision prevailed after a sponsor, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), said it would not apply to pending cases. But the Justice Department said the law eliminates the jurisdiction of district courts over challenges to the legality of detentions at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
The new law still permits detainees to appeal being classified as enemy combatants or any military-commission convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Opponents Are Blocking Law's Full Renewal for Political Reasons, President Says
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; A02
President Bush accused Democrats yesterday of blocking a full reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act for political reasons, as the White House stepped up an aggressive campaign to defend the president's terrorism-fighting authority.
"For partisan reasons, in my mind, people have not stepped up," Bush told reporters, with 19 federal prosecutors by his side. "The enemy has not gone away; they're still there, and I expect Congress to understand that we're still at war and they've got to give us the tools necessary to win this war."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, speaking to reporters earlier in the day, said Senate Democrats are simply doing the bidding of liberal special interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the broad surveillance power authorized by the act. Democrats are trying to "appease" the ACLU "because they want to weaken and undermine the Patriot Act," McClellan said.
The Patriot Act, which Congress voted to extend until the end of this month amid a bitter political dispute over its reach, provides the federal government with broad power to monitor and prosecute terrorism suspects and those helping them. Many Democrats and a few key Republicans oppose the act as written because they say it does not provide adequate protections for the civil liberties of innocent Americans.
The Patriot Act is expected to dominate the debate when Congress returns at the end of the month and to serve as a backdrop for a broader, and possibly even more contentious, argument over Bush's anti-terrorism policies.
The White House is bracing for a heated dispute over both the Patriot Act and the recent revelations that Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to monitor communications within the United States involving terrorism suspects overseas. Congress is planning hearings on the NSA program this month and another vote on the Patriot Act early next month, when the current extension expires.
Adopting campaign-style tactics, Bush and his aides plan to accuse Democrats of jeopardizing national security to further their political agenda, a tack that worked well for the White House in the 2002 and 2004 elections. But the political environment is different now, with Bush less popular and Democrats better organized in opposition.
Moreover, key Republicans are also raising objections to Bush's broad interpretation of presidential power. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) was among the first to demand hearings on the NSA intercepts, and four GOP senators who typically back Bush in policy disputes played crucial roles in blocking the full reauthorization of the Patriot Act before Congress adjourned shortly before Christmas.
On another front, the Justice Department notified U.S. District Court judges in Washington that it will seek the dismissal of lawsuits from more than 300 Guantanamo Bay detainees who are questioning the legality of their confinement, using a provision of the defense appropriations law that the Bush administration says limits existing challenges.
The new provision prevailed after a sponsor, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), said it would not apply to pending cases. But the Justice Department said the law eliminates the jurisdiction of district courts over challenges to the legality of detentions at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
The new law still permits detainees to appeal being classified as enemy combatants or any military-commission convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Secret Surveillance May Have Occurred Before Authorization
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; A03
Even before the White House formally authorized a secret program to spy on U.S. citizens without obtaining warrants, such eavesdropping was occurring and some of the information was being shared with the FBI, declassified correspondence and interviews with congressional and intelligence officials indicate.
On Oct. 1, 2001, three weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was running the National Security Agency at the time, told the House intelligence committee that the agency was broadening its surveillance authorities, according to a newly released letter sent to him that month by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). Pelosi, the ranking Democrat on the committee, raised concerns in the letter, which was declassified with several redactions and made public yesterday by her staff.
"I am concerned whether and to what extent the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting," Pelosi wrote on Oct. 11, 2001. The substance of Hayden's response one week later, on Oct. 17, 2001, was redacted.
The secret NSA program, developed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on Washington and New York as a way to find any hidden al Qaeda operatives still in the United States, was authorized in October 2001, a senior administration official said.
The president and senior aides have publicly discussed various aspects of the program, but neither the White House, the NSA nor the office of the director of national intelligence would say what day the president authorized it. Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in an e-mail yesterday that it would be inappropriate to "discuss details which could potentially cause harm to the safety of our nation."
Pelosi's letter suggested that she and others on the committee first heard about expanded work by the NSA on Oct. 1, 2001, when Hayden briefed them on NSA activities.
"During your appearance before the committee," she wrote, "you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance." The letter, while redacted in parts concerned with surveillance, made clear that the agency was "forwarding" intercepts and other collected information to the FBI. Two sources familiar with the NSA program said Pelosi was directly referring to information collected without a warrant on U.S. citizens or residents.
An intelligence official close to Hayden said that his appearance on Oct. 1, 2001, before the House committee had been to discuss Executive Order 12333, and not the new NSA program.
The order, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, gave guidance and specific instructions about the intelligence activities that the U.S. government could engage in. It specifically prohibited domestic surveillance for intelligence purposes without a warrant "unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
The official said that Pelosi's concerns had been answered in writing and again several weeks later during a private briefing.
The NSA program operated in secret until it was made public in news accounts last month. Since then, President Bush and his advisers have defended it as legal and necessary to protect the country against future attacks and have said Congress was repeatedly consulted. But Democrats, some Republicans and constitutional law experts have raised concerns about whether Bush overstepped his constitutional authority and violated privacy laws meant to guard against the government spying on its own citizens without a warrant. The NSA's work, which is normally restricted to eavesdropping overseas, also angered judges on a special court that administers warrants for secret investigations.
New York Times reporter James Risen, who, with a colleague, was the first to write about the NSA program, released a book yesterday that includes details about the program and other intelligence issues facing the Bush administration.
Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, spokeswoman for the CIA, said the book contains inaccuracies about the CIA's work on Iran's nuclear program and Iraq, but she would not provide details.
Staff writer Carol D. Leonnig and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; A03
Even before the White House formally authorized a secret program to spy on U.S. citizens without obtaining warrants, such eavesdropping was occurring and some of the information was being shared with the FBI, declassified correspondence and interviews with congressional and intelligence officials indicate.
On Oct. 1, 2001, three weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was running the National Security Agency at the time, told the House intelligence committee that the agency was broadening its surveillance authorities, according to a newly released letter sent to him that month by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). Pelosi, the ranking Democrat on the committee, raised concerns in the letter, which was declassified with several redactions and made public yesterday by her staff.
"I am concerned whether and to what extent the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting," Pelosi wrote on Oct. 11, 2001. The substance of Hayden's response one week later, on Oct. 17, 2001, was redacted.
The secret NSA program, developed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on Washington and New York as a way to find any hidden al Qaeda operatives still in the United States, was authorized in October 2001, a senior administration official said.
The president and senior aides have publicly discussed various aspects of the program, but neither the White House, the NSA nor the office of the director of national intelligence would say what day the president authorized it. Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in an e-mail yesterday that it would be inappropriate to "discuss details which could potentially cause harm to the safety of our nation."
Pelosi's letter suggested that she and others on the committee first heard about expanded work by the NSA on Oct. 1, 2001, when Hayden briefed them on NSA activities.
"During your appearance before the committee," she wrote, "you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance." The letter, while redacted in parts concerned with surveillance, made clear that the agency was "forwarding" intercepts and other collected information to the FBI. Two sources familiar with the NSA program said Pelosi was directly referring to information collected without a warrant on U.S. citizens or residents.
An intelligence official close to Hayden said that his appearance on Oct. 1, 2001, before the House committee had been to discuss Executive Order 12333, and not the new NSA program.
The order, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, gave guidance and specific instructions about the intelligence activities that the U.S. government could engage in. It specifically prohibited domestic surveillance for intelligence purposes without a warrant "unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
The official said that Pelosi's concerns had been answered in writing and again several weeks later during a private briefing.
The NSA program operated in secret until it was made public in news accounts last month. Since then, President Bush and his advisers have defended it as legal and necessary to protect the country against future attacks and have said Congress was repeatedly consulted. But Democrats, some Republicans and constitutional law experts have raised concerns about whether Bush overstepped his constitutional authority and violated privacy laws meant to guard against the government spying on its own citizens without a warrant. The NSA's work, which is normally restricted to eavesdropping overseas, also angered judges on a special court that administers warrants for secret investigations.
New York Times reporter James Risen, who, with a colleague, was the first to write about the NSA program, released a book yesterday that includes details about the program and other intelligence issues facing the Bush administration.
Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, spokeswoman for the CIA, said the book contains inaccuracies about the CIA's work on Iran's nuclear program and Iraq, but she would not provide details.
Staff writer Carol D. Leonnig and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
World / US Print article | Email article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main page content:
Bush in counter-attack over security measures
By Caroline Daniel in Washington
Published: January 2 2006 18:59 | Last updated: January 2 2006 18:59
The White House will this week step up efforts to defend its policy on the Patriot Act as well as its controversial decision to conduct domestic surveillance on US citizens without a warrant from a judge, in the face of mounting concerns from civil liberties groups.
ADVERTISEMENT
President George W. Bush began the counter-offensive with a strong defence of his decision in 2001 to authorise the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on those suspected of links to al-Qaeda and of his legal authority to prosecute the war on terror.
“We’re at war with a bunch of cold-blooded killers who will kill on a moment’s notice. And I have a responsibility, obviously, to act within the law, which I am doing.
“This programme has been reviewed, constantly reviewed, by people throughout my administration. It has been reviewed by Justice Department officials, it’s been reviewed by members of the United States Congress,” he said on Sunday.
On Tuesday Mr Bush will take part in a meeting on the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism legislation that Congress failed to renew before the Christmas break.
On Wednesday he will make a statement on the “war on terror” at the Pentagon.
Bush loyalist takes international economics to the political stage
Click here
As part of a co-ordinated approach, Dick Cheney, vice-president, will also give a speech about terrorism.
On Thursday Mr Bush will meet former secretaries of state and defence to discuss these issues.
The Justice Department said last week that it would launch an inquiry into who leaked information about the National Security Agency programme, which allows officials to bypass the need to get a warrant from a foreign intelligence service court, and allows them to track telephone calls and emails of those suspected of having contacts with al-Qaeda terrorists overseas.
The campaign against the monitoring has been gathering pace, with the American Civil Liberties Union publishing a full-page advertisement in the New York Times last week demanding a special counsel to investigate whether Mr Bush violated federal wiretapping laws. The advertisement shows an image of President Richard Nixon with the words: “He lied to the American people and broke the law.” It depicts President Bush, with the words: “So did he.”
Mr Bush, who spent much of the last week clearing brush at his ranch in Texas, returned to Washington sporting a two-inch wound on his forehead. Visiting a military hospital on Sunday, he said: “I have an injury myself – not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main page content:
Bush in counter-attack over security measures
By Caroline Daniel in Washington
Published: January 2 2006 18:59 | Last updated: January 2 2006 18:59
The White House will this week step up efforts to defend its policy on the Patriot Act as well as its controversial decision to conduct domestic surveillance on US citizens without a warrant from a judge, in the face of mounting concerns from civil liberties groups.
ADVERTISEMENT
President George W. Bush began the counter-offensive with a strong defence of his decision in 2001 to authorise the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on those suspected of links to al-Qaeda and of his legal authority to prosecute the war on terror.
“We’re at war with a bunch of cold-blooded killers who will kill on a moment’s notice. And I have a responsibility, obviously, to act within the law, which I am doing.
“This programme has been reviewed, constantly reviewed, by people throughout my administration. It has been reviewed by Justice Department officials, it’s been reviewed by members of the United States Congress,” he said on Sunday.
On Tuesday Mr Bush will take part in a meeting on the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism legislation that Congress failed to renew before the Christmas break.
On Wednesday he will make a statement on the “war on terror” at the Pentagon.
Bush loyalist takes international economics to the political stage
Click here
As part of a co-ordinated approach, Dick Cheney, vice-president, will also give a speech about terrorism.
On Thursday Mr Bush will meet former secretaries of state and defence to discuss these issues.
The Justice Department said last week that it would launch an inquiry into who leaked information about the National Security Agency programme, which allows officials to bypass the need to get a warrant from a foreign intelligence service court, and allows them to track telephone calls and emails of those suspected of having contacts with al-Qaeda terrorists overseas.
The campaign against the monitoring has been gathering pace, with the American Civil Liberties Union publishing a full-page advertisement in the New York Times last week demanding a special counsel to investigate whether Mr Bush violated federal wiretapping laws. The advertisement shows an image of President Richard Nixon with the words: “He lied to the American people and broke the law.” It depicts President Bush, with the words: “So did he.”
Mr Bush, who spent much of the last week clearing brush at his ranch in Texas, returned to Washington sporting a two-inch wound on his forehead. Visiting a military hospital on Sunday, he said: “I have an injury myself – not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch.”
Abramoff pleads guilty in casino case CNN International
Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff wore a baseball cap to court as he pleaded guilty in Miami on Wednesday. Once-powerful lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in federal court Wednesday to conspiracy and wire fraud stemming from his 2000 purchase of a fleet of gambling boats. The plea before U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck came a day after Abramoff, 46, entered guilty pleas in Washington to three other federal charges. The tandem pleas came as part of an agreement with prosecutors requiring Abramoff to cooperate in a broad corruption investigation into members of Congress.
Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff wore a baseball cap to court as he pleaded guilty in Miami on Wednesday.
In Miami, Abramoff pleaded guilty to concocting a false $23 million wire transfer that made it appear as if he and partner Adam Kidan contributed a sizable stake of their own cash into the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz Casinos. Abramoff's Miami plea agreement calls for a maximum sentence of just over seven years, but that sentence could be reduced if Abramoff cooperates fully in the probe of Washington influence peddling. The sentence would run simultaneously with whatever sentence is imposed in Washington. The remaining four counts in the Florida indictment will be dismissed. (Read the plea agreementexternal link) "Guilty, your honor," Abramoff said, when Huck asked how he wanted to plead. Huck sent a tentative sentencing date of March 16. Abramoff has agreed to cooperate in a wide-ranging corruption probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican. President Bush joined several lawmakers, including DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, in announcing plans to donate Abramoff's campaign contributions to charity. Bush's re-election campaign is giving up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to Abramoff. (Full story) Kidan, Abramoff's 41-year-old partner in the SunCruz deal, pleaded guilty on December 15 to two charges and faces sentencing on March 1. Abramoff and Kidan admitted using the fake wire transfer to secure $60 million in loans they used to buy SunCruz from Miami businessman Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis. Boulis was later murdered in a mob-style hit; three men were charged last fall and have pleaded not guilty. Both Abramoff and Kidan have denied involvement in the slaying. Abramoff likely won't be sentenced until his cooperation in the corruption probe is complete. Even then, he'll probably be permitted to surrender. A copy of the eight-page plea agreement, requires that Abramoff testify before any grand jury or court proceeding that prosecutors request and provide any documents they might want. In return, the agreement says, the government will not further prosecute the defendant for anything he discloses "in debriefing sessions with attorneys and agents of the United States."
Winners and losers in the Abramoff scandal MSNBC
How far will Abramoff scandal reach? Christian Science Monitor
ABC News - Reuters.uk - Bloomberg - Reuters - all 1,634 related »
Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff wore a baseball cap to court as he pleaded guilty in Miami on Wednesday. Once-powerful lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in federal court Wednesday to conspiracy and wire fraud stemming from his 2000 purchase of a fleet of gambling boats. The plea before U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck came a day after Abramoff, 46, entered guilty pleas in Washington to three other federal charges. The tandem pleas came as part of an agreement with prosecutors requiring Abramoff to cooperate in a broad corruption investigation into members of Congress.
Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff wore a baseball cap to court as he pleaded guilty in Miami on Wednesday.
In Miami, Abramoff pleaded guilty to concocting a false $23 million wire transfer that made it appear as if he and partner Adam Kidan contributed a sizable stake of their own cash into the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz Casinos. Abramoff's Miami plea agreement calls for a maximum sentence of just over seven years, but that sentence could be reduced if Abramoff cooperates fully in the probe of Washington influence peddling. The sentence would run simultaneously with whatever sentence is imposed in Washington. The remaining four counts in the Florida indictment will be dismissed. (Read the plea agreementexternal link) "Guilty, your honor," Abramoff said, when Huck asked how he wanted to plead. Huck sent a tentative sentencing date of March 16. Abramoff has agreed to cooperate in a wide-ranging corruption probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican. President Bush joined several lawmakers, including DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, in announcing plans to donate Abramoff's campaign contributions to charity. Bush's re-election campaign is giving up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to Abramoff. (Full story) Kidan, Abramoff's 41-year-old partner in the SunCruz deal, pleaded guilty on December 15 to two charges and faces sentencing on March 1. Abramoff and Kidan admitted using the fake wire transfer to secure $60 million in loans they used to buy SunCruz from Miami businessman Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis. Boulis was later murdered in a mob-style hit; three men were charged last fall and have pleaded not guilty. Both Abramoff and Kidan have denied involvement in the slaying. Abramoff likely won't be sentenced until his cooperation in the corruption probe is complete. Even then, he'll probably be permitted to surrender. A copy of the eight-page plea agreement, requires that Abramoff testify before any grand jury or court proceeding that prosecutors request and provide any documents they might want. In return, the agreement says, the government will not further prosecute the defendant for anything he discloses "in debriefing sessions with attorneys and agents of the United States."
Winners and losers in the Abramoff scandal MSNBC
How far will Abramoff scandal reach? Christian Science Monitor
ABC News - Reuters.uk - Bloomberg - Reuters - all 1,634 related »
Survivor of W. Virginia mine disaster in a coma Reuters AlertNet
Judy Shackleford walks at the International Coal Group Inc tipper in Sago, West Virginia, January 5, 2006 a day after learning of the death of her brother Terry Helms in the Sago mine. One miner survived and 12 died after being trapped for 40 hours in the Sago mine after an explosion occurred in the morning of January 2.
Sago raises red flags for mine oversight Christian Science Monitor
Editorials on West Virginia mine tragedy Fort Wayne News Sentinel
Chicago Sun-Times - TIME - Boston Globe - Globe and Mail - all 5,785 related »
Judy Shackleford walks at the International Coal Group Inc tipper in Sago, West Virginia, January 5, 2006 a day after learning of the death of her brother Terry Helms in the Sago mine. One miner survived and 12 died after being trapped for 40 hours in the Sago mine after an explosion occurred in the morning of January 2.
Sago raises red flags for mine oversight Christian Science Monitor
Editorials on West Virginia mine tragedy Fort Wayne News Sentinel
Chicago Sun-Times - TIME - Boston Globe - Globe and Mail - all 5,785 related »
Padilla Brought to Face Civilian Charges Houston Chronicle
Jose Padilla, the alleged al-Qaida operative held as an "enemy combatant" for more than three years, was en route Thursday to Miami to face charges that he was part of a U.S. terror cell that recruited fighters and raised money for global Islamic holy war. Padilla was being transferred from a military brig in South Carolina to the federal detention center in downtown Miami, according to two federal law enforcement officials speaking on condition of anonymity because the official announcement had not been made. Padilla was scheduled to make his first appearance in federal court later in the day, which would mark his first time before a judge since his arrest 3 1/2 years ago.
Sources: 'Enemy combatant' on flight to Miami CNN
Padilla Brought to Face Civilian Charges ABC News
Miami Herald - BBC News - Washington Post - Free Internet Press - all 489 related »
Jose Padilla, the alleged al-Qaida operative held as an "enemy combatant" for more than three years, was en route Thursday to Miami to face charges that he was part of a U.S. terror cell that recruited fighters and raised money for global Islamic holy war. Padilla was being transferred from a military brig in South Carolina to the federal detention center in downtown Miami, according to two federal law enforcement officials speaking on condition of anonymity because the official announcement had not been made. Padilla was scheduled to make his first appearance in federal court later in the day, which would mark his first time before a judge since his arrest 3 1/2 years ago.
Sources: 'Enemy combatant' on flight to Miami CNN
Padilla Brought to Face Civilian Charges ABC News
Miami Herald - BBC News - Washington Post - Free Internet Press - all 489 related »
SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 2
January 5, 2006
** STATE SECRETS: REVISITING U.S. V. REYNOLDS
** AN OPERATIONAL FILES EXEMPTION FOR DIA
** A MILLION FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST DECLASS BOARD
** CRS ON NATIONAL SECURITY WHISTLEBLOWERS
** PUBLIC ACCESS TO WORLD LAW BULLETIN URGED
STATE SECRETS: REVISITING U.S. V. REYNOLDS
The 1953 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Reynolds
enshrined the "state secrets privilege" in U.S. jurisprudence,
entitling the executive branch to withhold information about
"military matters which, in the interest of national security,
should not be divulged."
"Yet United States v. Reynolds... rests on a lie," according to a
petition filed with the Supreme Court last month.
Fifty years ago, Air Force officials asserted under oath that
documents at issue in the case contained state secrets pertaining
to an Air Force plane that crashed, and refused to disclose them
to the plaintiffs, widows of the fallen Air Force crew members.
But a half century later, when the documents were eventually
released, no such secrets concerning the plane's mission or
onboard equipment were to be found.
The petitioners, heirs to the original plaintiffs in Reynolds, are
now asking the Supreme Court to review the case and to permit them
to argue that they were defrauded by the government.
The petitioners were rebuffed by the Court in 2003 when they first
sought reconsideration of the 1953 ruling, and their arguments
have subsequently been rejected by the lower courts as well.
Still, the case raises interesting questions not only about the
integrity of the original Reynolds decision, which is a
cornerstone of national security law, but also about the judicial
system's capacity to acknowledge and correct its errors.
A copy of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the case now
captioned Herring v. U.S., filed at the Supreme Court on December
21, 2005 is posted here (252 pages, 500 kb):
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/herring1205.pdf
AN OPERATIONAL FILES EXEMPTION FOR DIA
Congress granted the Defense Intelligence Agency an exemption from
the Freedom of Information Act for its "operational files," but
only for the next two years.
DIA is the fifth intelligence agency -- after CIA, NSA, NRO and NGA
-- to receive such an exemption, which permits it to exclude from
searching or reviewing for release under FOIA files "that document
the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
operations."
Opponents of the measure were concerned that the exemption could be
used indiscriminately to withhold intelligence records that would
otherwise be eligible for disclosure under FOIA.
So it was a partial victory for critics when Congress imposed an
unprecedented "sunset"on the exemption, such that it will be
terminated at the end of December 2007.
The final language of the provision, contained in the FY 2006
Defense Authorization Act, and the accompanying report language,
may be found here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/dia-opfiles.html
A MILLION FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST DECLASS BOARD
Congress finally appropriated $1 million for the Public Interest
Declassification Board (PIDB), a White House advisory body that
has been dormant for the past five years. The money was allocated
without comment in the final version of the FY 2006 Defense
Appropriations Act (H.R. 2863).
For PIDB membership and related information, see:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/pida.html
CRS ON NATIONAL SECURITY WHISTLEBLOWERS
The statutory framework that governs national security
whistleblowers -- government employees who disclose malfeasance
involving classified information or activities -- is examined in a
new report from the Congressional Research Service.
"Whistleblowers have helped uncover agency wrongdoing,
illegalities, waste, and corruption," the 43 page CRS report
finds.
"The interest of Congress in maintaining an open channel with
agency employees is demonstrated through such statutes as
Lloyd-LaFollette, the appropriations riders on the nondisclosure
policy, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, and the
Intelligence Community Whistleblower Act."
See "National Security Whistleblowers," December 30, 2005:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33215.pdf
Political pressure is growing to provide improved protection for
national security whistleblowers, who are often vulnerable to
official retaliation.
"Under today's failed protection regimen, whistleblowers are forced
to go to the national news media which often does a better job of
protecting their identities than the Congress does," said Danielle
Brian, Executive Director of the Project On Government Oversight
(POGO), which circulated the CRS report today.
"National Security employees' highest duty is to the Constitution,
and they should not have to sacrifice their careers or financial
security in doing what is right," said Sibel Edmonds, president of
the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, which advocates
stronger whistleblower protections.
"A former National Security Agency official wants to tell Congress
about electronic intelligence programs that he asserts were
carried out illegally by the NSA and the Defense Intelligence
Agency," writes Bill Gertz in the Washington Times today.
See "NSA Whistleblower Asks to Testify," January 5:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060104-114052-6606r.htm
PUBLIC ACCESS TO WORLD LAW BULLETIN URGED
Dozens of public interest organizations, librarians, attorneys and
others have written a letter to Congress asking for "unrestricted
public access" to the congressional publication World Law
Bulletin.
"The World Law Bulletin, produced monthly by the Law Library of
Congress, is a unique and uniquely valuable publication. It
provides an unparalleled survey of legal developments abroad,
along with focused analysis on topics of special interest. It is
based entirely on open, published sources."
"We respectfully urge you to help the interested public to gain
access to this exceptional congressional resource."
See the January 3, 2006 letter to the congressional Joint Committee
on the Library here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/01/wlblet-010306.pdf
Recent back issues of World Law Bulletin, published without
congressional authorization or approval, are available from the
Federation of American Scientists here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/wlb/index.html
_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 2
January 5, 2006
** STATE SECRETS: REVISITING U.S. V. REYNOLDS
** AN OPERATIONAL FILES EXEMPTION FOR DIA
** A MILLION FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST DECLASS BOARD
** CRS ON NATIONAL SECURITY WHISTLEBLOWERS
** PUBLIC ACCESS TO WORLD LAW BULLETIN URGED
STATE SECRETS: REVISITING U.S. V. REYNOLDS
The 1953 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Reynolds
enshrined the "state secrets privilege" in U.S. jurisprudence,
entitling the executive branch to withhold information about
"military matters which, in the interest of national security,
should not be divulged."
"Yet United States v. Reynolds... rests on a lie," according to a
petition filed with the Supreme Court last month.
Fifty years ago, Air Force officials asserted under oath that
documents at issue in the case contained state secrets pertaining
to an Air Force plane that crashed, and refused to disclose them
to the plaintiffs, widows of the fallen Air Force crew members.
But a half century later, when the documents were eventually
released, no such secrets concerning the plane's mission or
onboard equipment were to be found.
The petitioners, heirs to the original plaintiffs in Reynolds, are
now asking the Supreme Court to review the case and to permit them
to argue that they were defrauded by the government.
The petitioners were rebuffed by the Court in 2003 when they first
sought reconsideration of the 1953 ruling, and their arguments
have subsequently been rejected by the lower courts as well.
Still, the case raises interesting questions not only about the
integrity of the original Reynolds decision, which is a
cornerstone of national security law, but also about the judicial
system's capacity to acknowledge and correct its errors.
A copy of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the case now
captioned Herring v. U.S., filed at the Supreme Court on December
21, 2005 is posted here (252 pages, 500 kb):
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/herring1205.pdf
AN OPERATIONAL FILES EXEMPTION FOR DIA
Congress granted the Defense Intelligence Agency an exemption from
the Freedom of Information Act for its "operational files," but
only for the next two years.
DIA is the fifth intelligence agency -- after CIA, NSA, NRO and NGA
-- to receive such an exemption, which permits it to exclude from
searching or reviewing for release under FOIA files "that document
the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
operations."
Opponents of the measure were concerned that the exemption could be
used indiscriminately to withhold intelligence records that would
otherwise be eligible for disclosure under FOIA.
So it was a partial victory for critics when Congress imposed an
unprecedented "sunset"on the exemption, such that it will be
terminated at the end of December 2007.
The final language of the provision, contained in the FY 2006
Defense Authorization Act, and the accompanying report language,
may be found here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/dia-opfiles.html
A MILLION FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST DECLASS BOARD
Congress finally appropriated $1 million for the Public Interest
Declassification Board (PIDB), a White House advisory body that
has been dormant for the past five years. The money was allocated
without comment in the final version of the FY 2006 Defense
Appropriations Act (H.R. 2863).
For PIDB membership and related information, see:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/pida.html
CRS ON NATIONAL SECURITY WHISTLEBLOWERS
The statutory framework that governs national security
whistleblowers -- government employees who disclose malfeasance
involving classified information or activities -- is examined in a
new report from the Congressional Research Service.
"Whistleblowers have helped uncover agency wrongdoing,
illegalities, waste, and corruption," the 43 page CRS report
finds.
"The interest of Congress in maintaining an open channel with
agency employees is demonstrated through such statutes as
Lloyd-LaFollette, the appropriations riders on the nondisclosure
policy, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, and the
Intelligence Community Whistleblower Act."
See "National Security Whistleblowers," December 30, 2005:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33215.pdf
Political pressure is growing to provide improved protection for
national security whistleblowers, who are often vulnerable to
official retaliation.
"Under today's failed protection regimen, whistleblowers are forced
to go to the national news media which often does a better job of
protecting their identities than the Congress does," said Danielle
Brian, Executive Director of the Project On Government Oversight
(POGO), which circulated the CRS report today.
"National Security employees' highest duty is to the Constitution,
and they should not have to sacrifice their careers or financial
security in doing what is right," said Sibel Edmonds, president of
the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, which advocates
stronger whistleblower protections.
"A former National Security Agency official wants to tell Congress
about electronic intelligence programs that he asserts were
carried out illegally by the NSA and the Defense Intelligence
Agency," writes Bill Gertz in the Washington Times today.
See "NSA Whistleblower Asks to Testify," January 5:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060104-114052-6606r.htm
PUBLIC ACCESS TO WORLD LAW BULLETIN URGED
Dozens of public interest organizations, librarians, attorneys and
others have written a letter to Congress asking for "unrestricted
public access" to the congressional publication World Law
Bulletin.
"The World Law Bulletin, produced monthly by the Law Library of
Congress, is a unique and uniquely valuable publication. It
provides an unparalleled survey of legal developments abroad,
along with focused analysis on topics of special interest. It is
based entirely on open, published sources."
"We respectfully urge you to help the interested public to gain
access to this exceptional congressional resource."
See the January 3, 2006 letter to the congressional Joint Committee
on the Library here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/01/wlblet-010306.pdf
Recent back issues of World Law Bulletin, published without
congressional authorization or approval, are available from the
Federation of American Scientists here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/wlb/index.html
_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.
Bush donates lobbyist's cash Australian
US President George W. Bush's re-election campaign will give to charity thousands of dollars it received from the lobbyist at the heart of a Capitol Hill bribery investigation, as the White House and nervous politicians from both parties scramble to distance themselves from the widening corruption scandal. Mr Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said yesterday that Jack Abramoff - the disgraced lobbyist who has pleaded guilty to bribing politicians - donated thousands to 2004's Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Abramoff, whose plea deal with federal prosecutors makes him the star witness in an investigation that could implicate at least 20 politicians, mostly Republicans, raised more than $US100,000 for Mr Bush's re-election campaign, earning him the honorary title of "pioneer". Although there is no suggestion that Mr Bush or any senior administration officials were involved, the White House's swift efforts to wash its hands of any dealings with Abramoff demonstrates just how radioactive the once-powerful lobbyist has become in a city where he lavished meals, travel and campaign donations on dozens of politicians. Abramoff pleaded guilty yesterday to separate conspiracy and fraud charges in Florida. He acknowledged that he faked documents used in 2000 to get a $US60 million loan to buy a fleet of gambling ships. Under a plea agreement, four other charges were dropped. The Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, yesterday became the latest in a growing line of politicians to dump campaign contributions received from Abramoff and his clients, in what is shaping as the biggest political corruption scandal in Washington for more than a decade. Mr Hastert gave about $US70,000 to charity, even though his spokesman said the contributions had been legal. Democrats, keen to use the Abramoff scandal in their campaign for November's mid-term congressional elections, pounced on Abramoff's guilty plea. Nancy Pelosi, the party's leader in the House of Representatives, said: "This Republican Congress is the most corrupt in history." Although the Justice Department's investigation appears to be focusing on several high-profile Republicans, some senior Democrats also had dealings with Abramoff, making it far from certain that Democrats will be able to paint the scandal as a Republican problem. Recent polls suggest the US public has little confidence in the ethics of either party. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to defrauding several Native American tribes of tens of millions of dollars. They had hired him to lobby for their gambling interests. He then used that money to lavish golfing fees, meals, gifts, foreign trips and campaign funds on politicians in direct exchange for legislative action favourable to his clients. Campaign contributions are not illegal unless there is an express agreement that the money is being paid in exchange for a legislative action. Abramoff's largesse "went far beyond lawful lobbying", said Alice Fisher, head of the Justice Department's criminal division. "The corruption scheme with Mr Abramoff is very extensive. We're going to follow this wherever it goes. Government officials and action are not for sale." Since 1999, Abramoff has directed more than $US4.4 million to political candidates, two-thirds to Republicans, one-third to Democrats. The politician most immediately implicated in the scandal is Bob Ney, a Republican congressman from Ohio. Mr Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee and referred to as "Representative No1" in Tuesday's plea deal, is accused of advancing the interests of several of Abramoff's clients. Mr Ney, who has not been charged, has denied wrongdoing. Another person under scrutiny is Tom DeLay, the former Republican House leader, who is facing separate campaign finance charges in Texas. Mr DeLay has taken three overseas trips with Abramoff, including a golfing trip to StAndrews, Scotland, and received more than $US70,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff and his clients. Also in the spotlight are Conrad Burns, a Republican senator from Montana, the largest recipient of Abramoff-related campaign contributions; and John T.Doolittle, a Republican congressman from California whose wife received payments from Abramoff's lobbying firm. The number of politicians under investigation makes the Abramoff investigation the biggest federal corruption case in 20 years.
Newt: I'm shocked, shocked by Abramoff scandal! Salon
Bush, Others Dump Abramoff Donations Forbes
Boston Globe - New York Daily News - San Angelo Standard-Times - Independent - all 2,164 related »
US President George W. Bush's re-election campaign will give to charity thousands of dollars it received from the lobbyist at the heart of a Capitol Hill bribery investigation, as the White House and nervous politicians from both parties scramble to distance themselves from the widening corruption scandal. Mr Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said yesterday that Jack Abramoff - the disgraced lobbyist who has pleaded guilty to bribing politicians - donated thousands to 2004's Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Abramoff, whose plea deal with federal prosecutors makes him the star witness in an investigation that could implicate at least 20 politicians, mostly Republicans, raised more than $US100,000 for Mr Bush's re-election campaign, earning him the honorary title of "pioneer". Although there is no suggestion that Mr Bush or any senior administration officials were involved, the White House's swift efforts to wash its hands of any dealings with Abramoff demonstrates just how radioactive the once-powerful lobbyist has become in a city where he lavished meals, travel and campaign donations on dozens of politicians. Abramoff pleaded guilty yesterday to separate conspiracy and fraud charges in Florida. He acknowledged that he faked documents used in 2000 to get a $US60 million loan to buy a fleet of gambling ships. Under a plea agreement, four other charges were dropped. The Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, yesterday became the latest in a growing line of politicians to dump campaign contributions received from Abramoff and his clients, in what is shaping as the biggest political corruption scandal in Washington for more than a decade. Mr Hastert gave about $US70,000 to charity, even though his spokesman said the contributions had been legal. Democrats, keen to use the Abramoff scandal in their campaign for November's mid-term congressional elections, pounced on Abramoff's guilty plea. Nancy Pelosi, the party's leader in the House of Representatives, said: "This Republican Congress is the most corrupt in history." Although the Justice Department's investigation appears to be focusing on several high-profile Republicans, some senior Democrats also had dealings with Abramoff, making it far from certain that Democrats will be able to paint the scandal as a Republican problem. Recent polls suggest the US public has little confidence in the ethics of either party. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to defrauding several Native American tribes of tens of millions of dollars. They had hired him to lobby for their gambling interests. He then used that money to lavish golfing fees, meals, gifts, foreign trips and campaign funds on politicians in direct exchange for legislative action favourable to his clients. Campaign contributions are not illegal unless there is an express agreement that the money is being paid in exchange for a legislative action. Abramoff's largesse "went far beyond lawful lobbying", said Alice Fisher, head of the Justice Department's criminal division. "The corruption scheme with Mr Abramoff is very extensive. We're going to follow this wherever it goes. Government officials and action are not for sale." Since 1999, Abramoff has directed more than $US4.4 million to political candidates, two-thirds to Republicans, one-third to Democrats. The politician most immediately implicated in the scandal is Bob Ney, a Republican congressman from Ohio. Mr Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee and referred to as "Representative No1" in Tuesday's plea deal, is accused of advancing the interests of several of Abramoff's clients. Mr Ney, who has not been charged, has denied wrongdoing. Another person under scrutiny is Tom DeLay, the former Republican House leader, who is facing separate campaign finance charges in Texas. Mr DeLay has taken three overseas trips with Abramoff, including a golfing trip to StAndrews, Scotland, and received more than $US70,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff and his clients. Also in the spotlight are Conrad Burns, a Republican senator from Montana, the largest recipient of Abramoff-related campaign contributions; and John T.Doolittle, a Republican congressman from California whose wife received payments from Abramoff's lobbying firm. The number of politicians under investigation makes the Abramoff investigation the biggest federal corruption case in 20 years.
Newt: I'm shocked, shocked by Abramoff scandal! Salon
Bush, Others Dump Abramoff Donations Forbes
Boston Globe - New York Daily News - San Angelo Standard-Times - Independent - all 2,164 related »
Bush, Ex-Policymakers, Discuss Iraq By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
President Bush brought foreign policy heavyweights from yesteryear to the White House on Thursday, including Democrats who have opposed his Iraq strategy. He got support for the mission — along with a few concerns — and a right to claim he was reaching out.
Waging an unpopular war that has dragged down his approval ratings, Bush has been campaigning to win the public over to his argument that he has a successful strategy for stabilizing Iraq and bringing American troops home.
As part of that effort, Bush brought to the White House more than a dozen former secretaries of state and defense, split almost evenly between Republican and Democratic administrations, for a detailed briefing and give-and-take.
He gambled that one-time high-level public officials, when personally summoned by the president, would resist temptation to be too critical.
He was right.
"When you are in the presence of the president of the United States, I don't care if you've been a devout Democrat for the last hundred years, you're likely to pull your punches to some degree," Lawrence Eagleburger, a secretary of state under former President George H.W. Bush, said as he left the White House. "Now, there was some criticism. But it was basically, `You haven't talked to the American people enough.' And it was very mild."
The event came on a day of new bloodshed in Iraq, where the one-day death toll from several attacks was at least 130.
The White House made the rare move of mentioning the violence. "We have seen that today has been a tough day in Iraq," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We know the enemy wants to disrupt the transition to democracy and disrupt the formation of a new government. But every step of the way they have failed."
The unusual gathering in the Roosevelt Room began with an update by Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad. But speaking to reporters afterward, Bush emphasized the portion of the meeting in which he asked the former secretaries to offer "their concerns, their suggestions."
"Not everybody around this table agreed with my decision to go into Iraq. I fully understand that," the president said, his guests arrayed silently around him. "But these are good solid Americans who understand that we've got to succeed now that we're there. I'm most grateful for the suggestions they've given."
Madeleine Albright, a secretary of state under President Clinton and a critic of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, praised Bush for holding the meeting.
She told him she believes "Iraq is a war of choice, not of necessity, but getting it right now is a necessity, not a choice." She advocated against any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and said there should be a formal venue to draw in more regional participation.
Albright also said the administration's approach toward the nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea was off the mark.
"He didn't agree with me, but he was very gracious," Albright said in an interview. "There was a sense of respect."
None of the other participants who spoke to reporters outside the White House afterward would discuss any advice in detail.
"He heard some things he did not like. He heard some things he did like," said Melvin Laird, a Pentagon chief for President Nixon who declined to be more specific. "That's the kind of meeting you want."
William Perry, a defense secretary under former President Clinton who helped develop Sen. John Kerry's foreign policy positions during the Massachusetts Democrat's campaign against Bush last year, declined interview requests.
The White House said that one "constructive idea" was to make sure that the military, not politicians in Washington, are determining troop levels in Iraq and making other on-the-ground calls. But that is no contradiction to what Bush has been advocating; as he has argued against the recommendation of some to begin bringing troops home immediately, the president has said those decisions must be left to the generals in the field.
Harold Brown, defense secretary under former President Carter, said he suggested a stepped-up focus on the Iraqi insurgency's failure to stop the political process from moving forward and to prevent recruitment into the Iraqi security forces. This also is just what the White House has been arguing.
Albright said she felt she had no choice but to attend, despite political differences with Bush.
"Clearly I didn't go there as a prop," she said. "We can't say we want to be consulted and then, when asked, not go."
Copyright © 2006 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 © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
President Bush brought foreign policy heavyweights from yesteryear to the White House on Thursday, including Democrats who have opposed his Iraq strategy. He got support for the mission — along with a few concerns — and a right to claim he was reaching out.
Waging an unpopular war that has dragged down his approval ratings, Bush has been campaigning to win the public over to his argument that he has a successful strategy for stabilizing Iraq and bringing American troops home.
As part of that effort, Bush brought to the White House more than a dozen former secretaries of state and defense, split almost evenly between Republican and Democratic administrations, for a detailed briefing and give-and-take.
He gambled that one-time high-level public officials, when personally summoned by the president, would resist temptation to be too critical.
He was right.
"When you are in the presence of the president of the United States, I don't care if you've been a devout Democrat for the last hundred years, you're likely to pull your punches to some degree," Lawrence Eagleburger, a secretary of state under former President George H.W. Bush, said as he left the White House. "Now, there was some criticism. But it was basically, `You haven't talked to the American people enough.' And it was very mild."
The event came on a day of new bloodshed in Iraq, where the one-day death toll from several attacks was at least 130.
The White House made the rare move of mentioning the violence. "We have seen that today has been a tough day in Iraq," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We know the enemy wants to disrupt the transition to democracy and disrupt the formation of a new government. But every step of the way they have failed."
The unusual gathering in the Roosevelt Room began with an update by Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad. But speaking to reporters afterward, Bush emphasized the portion of the meeting in which he asked the former secretaries to offer "their concerns, their suggestions."
"Not everybody around this table agreed with my decision to go into Iraq. I fully understand that," the president said, his guests arrayed silently around him. "But these are good solid Americans who understand that we've got to succeed now that we're there. I'm most grateful for the suggestions they've given."
Madeleine Albright, a secretary of state under President Clinton and a critic of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, praised Bush for holding the meeting.
She told him she believes "Iraq is a war of choice, not of necessity, but getting it right now is a necessity, not a choice." She advocated against any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and said there should be a formal venue to draw in more regional participation.
Albright also said the administration's approach toward the nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea was off the mark.
"He didn't agree with me, but he was very gracious," Albright said in an interview. "There was a sense of respect."
None of the other participants who spoke to reporters outside the White House afterward would discuss any advice in detail.
"He heard some things he did not like. He heard some things he did like," said Melvin Laird, a Pentagon chief for President Nixon who declined to be more specific. "That's the kind of meeting you want."
William Perry, a defense secretary under former President Clinton who helped develop Sen. John Kerry's foreign policy positions during the Massachusetts Democrat's campaign against Bush last year, declined interview requests.
The White House said that one "constructive idea" was to make sure that the military, not politicians in Washington, are determining troop levels in Iraq and making other on-the-ground calls. But that is no contradiction to what Bush has been advocating; as he has argued against the recommendation of some to begin bringing troops home immediately, the president has said those decisions must be left to the generals in the field.
Harold Brown, defense secretary under former President Carter, said he suggested a stepped-up focus on the Iraqi insurgency's failure to stop the political process from moving forward and to prevent recruitment into the Iraqi security forces. This also is just what the White House has been arguing.
Albright said she felt she had no choice but to attend, despite political differences with Bush.
"Clearly I didn't go there as a prop," she said. "We can't say we want to be consulted and then, when asked, not go."
Copyright © 2006 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 © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Cheney strongly backs eavesdropping operation By Patricia Wilson
Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday strongly defended a secret domestic eavesdropping operation and said that had it been in place before the September 11 attacks the Pentagon might have been spared.
Cheney insisted that the highly classified program, authorized by President George W. Bush after hijackers flew planes into the World Trade Center's twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, had helped prevent potential terrorist attacks and did not violate civil liberties.
He said as the memory of September 11 faded, some politicians were "yielding to the temptation to downplay the ongoing threat to our country and to back away from the business at hand."
"The enemy that struck on 9/11 is weakened and fractured yet it is still lethal and planning to hit us again. Either we are serious about fighting this war or we are not," Cheney told the Heritage Foundation think tank.
Revelations that the National Security Agency was secretly monitoring phone calls between people in the United States and al Qaeda suspects abroad has sparked an outcry from Democrats and Republicans. Many questioned whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.
A 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, forbids domestic spying on U.S. citizens without the approval of a special court. Bush secretly authorized the NSA to intercept communications without court approval.
The agency may have begun to broaden its eavesdropping even before Bush's authorization, according to a declassified letter released by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California, leader of the minority Democrats in the House of Representatives.
"There are no communications more important to the safety of the United States than those related to al Qaeda that have one end in the United States," Cheney said. "If we'd been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon."
"They were in the United States, communicating with al Qaeda associates overseas, but we didn't know they were here plotting until it was too late," he said.
Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin dismissed Cheney's argument as "the kind people like to make sometimes when they're trying to cover their tracks" and said before September 11, the government could, with court approval, have tried to intercept such conversations.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee wrote Bush to say she believed the White House had acted improperly in briefing only certain members of Congress on the secret eavesdropping program.
"I urge you to reconsider your position," said California Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record). "In my view, failure to provide briefings to the full congressional intelligence committees is a continuing violation of the National Security Act."
Cheney said Bush was committed to protecting civil liberties and had made clear that "our duty to uphold the law of the land admits no exceptions in wartime."
Pointing out that four years and four months had passed without another attack in the United States, Cheney acknowledged a "natural impulse" to let down one's guard.
However, he said, "America has been protected not by luck, but by sensible policy decisions, by decisive action at home and abroad, and by round-the-clock efforts on the part of people in law enforcement, intelligence, the military and homeland security."
Pelosi's letter, written four years ago, said that Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who was then NSA director, informed the House intelligence committee of a change in the scope of the agency's activities at an October 1, 2001, briefing.
"I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting," said Pelosi, then the intelligence committee's ranking Democrat.
Pelosi's office also released a heavily edited October 18, 2001, reply from Hayden which said: "In my briefing, I was attempting to emphasize that I used my authorities to adjust NSA's collection and reporting."
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday strongly defended a secret domestic eavesdropping operation and said that had it been in place before the September 11 attacks the Pentagon might have been spared.
Cheney insisted that the highly classified program, authorized by President George W. Bush after hijackers flew planes into the World Trade Center's twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, had helped prevent potential terrorist attacks and did not violate civil liberties.
He said as the memory of September 11 faded, some politicians were "yielding to the temptation to downplay the ongoing threat to our country and to back away from the business at hand."
"The enemy that struck on 9/11 is weakened and fractured yet it is still lethal and planning to hit us again. Either we are serious about fighting this war or we are not," Cheney told the Heritage Foundation think tank.
Revelations that the National Security Agency was secretly monitoring phone calls between people in the United States and al Qaeda suspects abroad has sparked an outcry from Democrats and Republicans. Many questioned whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.
A 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, forbids domestic spying on U.S. citizens without the approval of a special court. Bush secretly authorized the NSA to intercept communications without court approval.
The agency may have begun to broaden its eavesdropping even before Bush's authorization, according to a declassified letter released by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California, leader of the minority Democrats in the House of Representatives.
"There are no communications more important to the safety of the United States than those related to al Qaeda that have one end in the United States," Cheney said. "If we'd been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon."
"They were in the United States, communicating with al Qaeda associates overseas, but we didn't know they were here plotting until it was too late," he said.
Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin dismissed Cheney's argument as "the kind people like to make sometimes when they're trying to cover their tracks" and said before September 11, the government could, with court approval, have tried to intercept such conversations.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee wrote Bush to say she believed the White House had acted improperly in briefing only certain members of Congress on the secret eavesdropping program.
"I urge you to reconsider your position," said California Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record). "In my view, failure to provide briefings to the full congressional intelligence committees is a continuing violation of the National Security Act."
Cheney said Bush was committed to protecting civil liberties and had made clear that "our duty to uphold the law of the land admits no exceptions in wartime."
Pointing out that four years and four months had passed without another attack in the United States, Cheney acknowledged a "natural impulse" to let down one's guard.
However, he said, "America has been protected not by luck, but by sensible policy decisions, by decisive action at home and abroad, and by round-the-clock efforts on the part of people in law enforcement, intelligence, the military and homeland security."
Pelosi's letter, written four years ago, said that Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who was then NSA director, informed the House intelligence committee of a change in the scope of the agency's activities at an October 1, 2001, briefing.
"I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting," said Pelosi, then the intelligence committee's ranking Democrat.
Pelosi's office also released a heavily edited October 18, 2001, reply from Hayden which said: "In my briefing, I was attempting to emphasize that I used my authorities to adjust NSA's collection and reporting."
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Surveillance Court Is Seeking Answers
Judges Were Unaware of Eavesdropping
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 5, 2006; A02
The members of a secret federal court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases are scheduled to receive a classified briefing Monday from top Justice Department and intelligence officials about a controversial warrantless-eavesdropping program, according to sources familiar with the arrangements.
Several judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said they want to hear directly from administration officials why President Bush believed he had the authority to order, without the court's permission, wiretapping of some phone calls and e-mails after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Of serious concern to several judges is whether any information gleaned from intercepts by the National Security Agency was later used to gain their permission for wiretaps without the source being disclosed.
The court is made up of 11 judges who, on a rotating basis, hear government applications for surveillance warrants. But only the presiding judge, currently Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, was notified of the government eavesdropping program. One judge, James Robertson, who also serves on the federal bench in Washington, resigned his seat on the surveillance court in protest shortly after the wiretapping was revealed by the New York Times in mid-December.
Kollar-Kotelly began pressing for a closed government briefing for the remaining members of the court on Dec. 19, the day she learned of Robertson's concerns. Other judges wanted to know, as Robertson had, whether the administration had misled their court about its sources of information on possible terrorism suspects.
Kollar-Kotelly had privately raised concerns in 2004 about the risk that the government could taint the integrity of the court's work by using information it gained via wiretapping to obtain warrants from judges under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
On Friday, an attorney for Seifullah Chapman, one of the men convicted as part of the "Virginia jihad network," formally asked federal prosecutors in Virginia to determine whether warrantless NSA wiretaps were used to gain information about his client. Chapman, who is serving a 65-year sentence for conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist group, was the subject of a secret FISA warrant.
"My feeling is they are a very professional organization. They would be equally concerned that my client's rights are protected, and they'll want to find out themselves," said John Zwerling, Chapman's attorney.
Some judges who spoke on the condition of anonymity yesterday said they want to know whether warrants they signed were tainted by the NSA program. Depending on the answers, the judges said they could demand some proof that wiretap applications were not improperly obtained. Defense attorneys could have a valid argument to suppress evidence against their clients, some judges said, if information about them was gained through warrantless eavesdropping that was not revealed to the defense.
Yesterday, Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, sent a letter to Bush charging that the limited nature of congressional briefings on the monitoring program violated the National Security Act. The White House informed the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees and the two ranking Democrats about the program.
The National Security Act requires the president to keep all members of the two committees fully informed of intelligence activities with the exception of those conducted covertly overseas. "In my view, failure to provide briefings to the full congressional intelligence committees is a continuing violation of the National Security Act," Harman wrote.
Staff writer Dafna Linzer contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Judges Were Unaware of Eavesdropping
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 5, 2006; A02
The members of a secret federal court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases are scheduled to receive a classified briefing Monday from top Justice Department and intelligence officials about a controversial warrantless-eavesdropping program, according to sources familiar with the arrangements.
Several judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said they want to hear directly from administration officials why President Bush believed he had the authority to order, without the court's permission, wiretapping of some phone calls and e-mails after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Of serious concern to several judges is whether any information gleaned from intercepts by the National Security Agency was later used to gain their permission for wiretaps without the source being disclosed.
The court is made up of 11 judges who, on a rotating basis, hear government applications for surveillance warrants. But only the presiding judge, currently Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, was notified of the government eavesdropping program. One judge, James Robertson, who also serves on the federal bench in Washington, resigned his seat on the surveillance court in protest shortly after the wiretapping was revealed by the New York Times in mid-December.
Kollar-Kotelly began pressing for a closed government briefing for the remaining members of the court on Dec. 19, the day she learned of Robertson's concerns. Other judges wanted to know, as Robertson had, whether the administration had misled their court about its sources of information on possible terrorism suspects.
Kollar-Kotelly had privately raised concerns in 2004 about the risk that the government could taint the integrity of the court's work by using information it gained via wiretapping to obtain warrants from judges under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
On Friday, an attorney for Seifullah Chapman, one of the men convicted as part of the "Virginia jihad network," formally asked federal prosecutors in Virginia to determine whether warrantless NSA wiretaps were used to gain information about his client. Chapman, who is serving a 65-year sentence for conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist group, was the subject of a secret FISA warrant.
"My feeling is they are a very professional organization. They would be equally concerned that my client's rights are protected, and they'll want to find out themselves," said John Zwerling, Chapman's attorney.
Some judges who spoke on the condition of anonymity yesterday said they want to know whether warrants they signed were tainted by the NSA program. Depending on the answers, the judges said they could demand some proof that wiretap applications were not improperly obtained. Defense attorneys could have a valid argument to suppress evidence against their clients, some judges said, if information about them was gained through warrantless eavesdropping that was not revealed to the defense.
Yesterday, Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, sent a letter to Bush charging that the limited nature of congressional briefings on the monitoring program violated the National Security Act. The White House informed the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees and the two ranking Democrats about the program.
The National Security Act requires the president to keep all members of the two committees fully informed of intelligence activities with the exception of those conducted covertly overseas. "In my view, failure to provide briefings to the full congressional intelligence committees is a continuing violation of the National Security Act," Harman wrote.
Staff writer Dafna Linzer contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.