Poll: Public Worried About Federal Deficit
By The Associated Press
The public thinks the federal deficit will grow larger by the end of President Bush's second term and many people think the health care system will be weaker by then, according to a CBS-New York Times poll.
Seven in 10 said in the poll released Friday that they expect the deficit to grow larger by the end of his presidency. Four in 10 said they think health care will be worse, while half said they expect it will be about the same.
The Bush administration's new Medicare drug prescription program, which the administration said would save money for millions, has not inspired much optimism. About half in the poll, 51 percent, said they expect seniors will pay more for prescription drugs by the end of the president's second term. A third said they will pay the same and the remainder said less.
People were divided on whether the economy will be stronger at the end of Bush's presidency.
The poll also found that while many Americans would tolerate government eavesdropping on e-mails and phone calls without warrants to combat terrorism, they're concerned the program the Bush administration is aggressively promoting could encroach on their civil liberties.
While the program has been criticized as illegal by Democrats and some Republicans, 53 percent of the respondents said they supported the eavesdropping "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."
Bush is viewed unfavorably by 48 percent and viewed favorably by 37 percent as he prepares for his sixth State of the Union address next week. The poll of 1,229 adults was taken Jan. 20-25 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
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 The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.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.
Full Version: National News, Articles, and Commentary
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Daily National and International News > National News Archive
Back to Story - Help
Analysis: Hamas Victory a Message for Bush
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
After making democracy a defining marker for American foreign policy, President Bush got a jolting message from Palestinian voters: Be careful what you wish for.
The United States promoted the democratic Palestinian election that now has produced an upset victory for the militant Islamic group Hamas. The election could install an organization the United States considers terrorist in place of a Palestinian leadership that, while weak, was pledged to work with Israel and with Washington.
The administration is caught between Bush's clarion rhetoric about spreading liberty even in unlikely places and the reality that self-determination can yield results that appear counter to U.S. interests. That's a challenge the United States may have to confront someday in other places as well, including Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, the Balkans and closer to home South America.
"We in the United States have got to get used to the idea that other countries are going to have changes, and they may not be ones that" traditional Western thinking can readily grasp, said Council on Foreign Relations Mideast expert Judith Kipper.
Faced with the fruits of the democratic Palestinian vote he helped nurture, Bush made clear he was displeased.
"A political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal," he said Thursday, hours after the extent of the Hamas victory came clear.
He tried to put a positive spin on the election itself, even as he acknowledged the problem it poses for a United States that has tried to play midwife to Israeli peace efforts with Arab neighbors.
"I like the competition of ideas," Bush told reporters. "I like people that have to go out and say, 'Vote for me and here's what I'm going to do.' There's something healthy about a system that does that."
Although it was obvious Hamas would do well, the landslide outcome stunned the Bush administration, U.S. ally Israel and the old Palestinian leadership that Washington had hoped could bring a new phase in Mideast peacemaking.
The administration probably thought elections would strengthen Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, said Hebrew University professor Amnon Cohen.
"That made sense, but maybe in hindsight it doesn't look so clever," Cohen said by telephone from Israel.
Washington often cites the election of Abbas as president last year as proof a democratic wind blows in the Middle East after decades of political stagnation under family dynasties and thuggish one-party rule.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also pointed to elections in Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt as evidence that "the neighborhood is changing." Rice is careful to add that democracy in the Muslim world will not, and perhaps should not, look like democracy in America.
Still, the success of religious-based candidates or parties, many of whom are hostile to Bush and opposed to American ideas, is sobering.
Muslim religious slates did far better in this month's Iraqi parliamentary elections than did the secular candidates preferred by Washington. Empowered by the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Shiite voters could one day tilt their nation toward Iran.
The Muslim Brotherhood increased its power in Egypt's parliament nearly sixfold last year. Its lawmakers have tried to ban alcohol and some books, rid state TV of racy music videos and have violators punished with 30 lashes.
Saudi leaders regularly whisper to U.S. diplomats that open elections there would replace a government friendly to the United States with one dominated by radical Islamic politics.
Elsewhere, the Bush administration is at pains to say it is ready to work with democratically elected leaders with whom it doesn't agree, so long as they govern responsibly. That leaves Bush to try to gracefully suffer such thorns in his side as new Bolivian President Evo Morales, a leftist leader of coca growers who once vowed to be "Washington's nightmare."
The Bush administration cheered the 2004 "Orange Revolution" that elected pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko in formerly Soviet Ukraine, but may have to watch from the sidelines if his party is bested in upcoming parliamentary elections by the very Kremlin-supported politician he defeated.
Hamas has taken responsibility for dozens of suicide bombings against Israel, and holds as a central tenet that Israel must be destroyed.
Like the United States, Israel and European nations regard Hamas as a terrorist organization and will have no official dealings with it. Hamas leaders have said they oppose peace talks and will not disarm.
But Hamas is now known among Palestinians as much for its social services and promises of good governance as for its history of terror and militancy.
Bush seemed mindful of that, even as he could not disguise his irritation.
"It was an interesting day yesterday ... as we're watching liberty begin to spread across the Middle East," he said.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE Anne Gearan covers diplomacy and foreign affairs in Washington.
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.
Analysis: Hamas Victory a Message for Bush
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
After making democracy a defining marker for American foreign policy, President Bush got a jolting message from Palestinian voters: Be careful what you wish for.
The United States promoted the democratic Palestinian election that now has produced an upset victory for the militant Islamic group Hamas. The election could install an organization the United States considers terrorist in place of a Palestinian leadership that, while weak, was pledged to work with Israel and with Washington.
The administration is caught between Bush's clarion rhetoric about spreading liberty even in unlikely places and the reality that self-determination can yield results that appear counter to U.S. interests. That's a challenge the United States may have to confront someday in other places as well, including Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, the Balkans and closer to home South America.
"We in the United States have got to get used to the idea that other countries are going to have changes, and they may not be ones that" traditional Western thinking can readily grasp, said Council on Foreign Relations Mideast expert Judith Kipper.
Faced with the fruits of the democratic Palestinian vote he helped nurture, Bush made clear he was displeased.
"A political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal," he said Thursday, hours after the extent of the Hamas victory came clear.
He tried to put a positive spin on the election itself, even as he acknowledged the problem it poses for a United States that has tried to play midwife to Israeli peace efforts with Arab neighbors.
"I like the competition of ideas," Bush told reporters. "I like people that have to go out and say, 'Vote for me and here's what I'm going to do.' There's something healthy about a system that does that."
Although it was obvious Hamas would do well, the landslide outcome stunned the Bush administration, U.S. ally Israel and the old Palestinian leadership that Washington had hoped could bring a new phase in Mideast peacemaking.
The administration probably thought elections would strengthen Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, said Hebrew University professor Amnon Cohen.
"That made sense, but maybe in hindsight it doesn't look so clever," Cohen said by telephone from Israel.
Washington often cites the election of Abbas as president last year as proof a democratic wind blows in the Middle East after decades of political stagnation under family dynasties and thuggish one-party rule.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also pointed to elections in Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt as evidence that "the neighborhood is changing." Rice is careful to add that democracy in the Muslim world will not, and perhaps should not, look like democracy in America.
Still, the success of religious-based candidates or parties, many of whom are hostile to Bush and opposed to American ideas, is sobering.
Muslim religious slates did far better in this month's Iraqi parliamentary elections than did the secular candidates preferred by Washington. Empowered by the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Shiite voters could one day tilt their nation toward Iran.
The Muslim Brotherhood increased its power in Egypt's parliament nearly sixfold last year. Its lawmakers have tried to ban alcohol and some books, rid state TV of racy music videos and have violators punished with 30 lashes.
Saudi leaders regularly whisper to U.S. diplomats that open elections there would replace a government friendly to the United States with one dominated by radical Islamic politics.
Elsewhere, the Bush administration is at pains to say it is ready to work with democratically elected leaders with whom it doesn't agree, so long as they govern responsibly. That leaves Bush to try to gracefully suffer such thorns in his side as new Bolivian President Evo Morales, a leftist leader of coca growers who once vowed to be "Washington's nightmare."
The Bush administration cheered the 2004 "Orange Revolution" that elected pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko in formerly Soviet Ukraine, but may have to watch from the sidelines if his party is bested in upcoming parliamentary elections by the very Kremlin-supported politician he defeated.
Hamas has taken responsibility for dozens of suicide bombings against Israel, and holds as a central tenet that Israel must be destroyed.
Like the United States, Israel and European nations regard Hamas as a terrorist organization and will have no official dealings with it. Hamas leaders have said they oppose peace talks and will not disarm.
But Hamas is now known among Palestinians as much for its social services and promises of good governance as for its history of terror and militancy.
Bush seemed mindful of that, even as he could not disguise his irritation.
"It was an interesting day yesterday ... as we're watching liberty begin to spread across the Middle East," he said.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE Anne Gearan covers diplomacy and foreign affairs in Washington.
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.
Bush Wary of Exposing Surveillance Details
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
President Bush again defended his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal." He suggested that he might resist congressional efforts to change or expressly endorse it.
"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," Bush told a White House news conference.
Democrats have accused the president of breaking the law in allowing eavesdropping on overseas communications to and from U.S. residents, and even some members of his own party have questioned the practice.
It was the president's first full-scale news conference of the new year, and the 10th since he was re-elected in 2004. He previewed his upcoming State of the Union address and fielded questions on former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the stunning victory of the radical group Hamas in Palestinian elections and the administration's cooperation with Congress on its investigation of Hurricane Katrina.
Asked if he would support efforts in Congress to spell out his authority to continue the eavesdropping program, Bush cited what he said was the extreme delicacy of the operation.
"But it's important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate it, it'll help the enemy," he said. "Why tell the enemy what we're doing?"
"We'll listen to ideas. But I want to make sure that people understand that if the attempt to write law makes this program -- is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it," he said.
On the Middle East, Bush expressed concern that Palestinian elections had given a majority to the radical party Hamas, which has called for the elimination of Israel, although he noted that democratic elections sometimes produce unwelcome results.
He made it clear that any organization that has an armed wing and which advocates violence against Israel "is a party with which we will not deal."
Bush called the election results a "wake-up call" to the old guard Palestinian leadership, many of whom are holdovers from the days of the late PLO ChairmanYasser Arafat.
Questioned about a controversy swirling about disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Bush said he would cooperate with federal prosecutors investigating Abramoff and his alleged influence peddling activities, if necessary. Otherwise, the president said he saw no reason to release pictures that he acknowledged were taken of him and Abramoff.
"There is a serious investigation going on by federal prosecutors that's their job," the president said. "If they believe something was done inappropriately in the White House, they'll come and look and they're welcome to do so."
Otherwise, Bush said, "I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with him or know him very well. "
"I've had my picture taken with you," Bush said to the reporter who asked the question.
Pressed further on his relationship with Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with investigators, Bush said, "I frankly don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him."
He said that federal investigators should pursue all leads and "look into all aspects of his influence on Capitol Hill," and that if the path also leads to the White House, he was sure they would "come knock on the door."
He was asked if he meets with lobbyists. "I try not to," Bush replied.
Asked about assertions by some Democrats that they will take back control of Congress in this year's midterm elections, Bush said he wasn't surprised they were talking that way, but shrugged it off.
He said he was ready to hit the campaign trail one more time, not for himself, but to stump for Republican congressional candidates this year. "We've got a record and a good one, and that's what I intend to campaign on," Bush said.
The president defended his administration's level of cooperation with congressional investigations into the government's slow response to the Hurricane Katrina devastation, citing the thousands of documents the White House has provided.
Questioned on congressional complaints that more could be done, Bush said that it would have a "chilling effect" on the ability of presidential advisers to speak freely.
Bush also said that his nominee for Supreme Court, Samuel Alito, deserves to be confirmed in the Senate, where he clearly has the votes but where minority-party Democrats were speaking out against him at length.
"The Senate needs to give him an up or down vote as soon as possible," Bush said in opening remarks that also previewed the themes of his State of the Union address next Tuesday.
Bush shrugged off a recent Pentagon-contracted report which concluded the Army was overextended and the United States cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency there.
The president predicted victory in Iraq and said, "Our commanders will have the troops necessary to do that."
He said the military was focused on transforming itself to ensure the armed forces could meet its goals in the 21st century.
"After five years of war, there is a need to make sure that our troops are balanced properly, that threats are met with capability. And that's why we're transforming our military," Bush said.
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.
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
President Bush again defended his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal." He suggested that he might resist congressional efforts to change or expressly endorse it.
"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," Bush told a White House news conference.
Democrats have accused the president of breaking the law in allowing eavesdropping on overseas communications to and from U.S. residents, and even some members of his own party have questioned the practice.
It was the president's first full-scale news conference of the new year, and the 10th since he was re-elected in 2004. He previewed his upcoming State of the Union address and fielded questions on former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the stunning victory of the radical group Hamas in Palestinian elections and the administration's cooperation with Congress on its investigation of Hurricane Katrina.
Asked if he would support efforts in Congress to spell out his authority to continue the eavesdropping program, Bush cited what he said was the extreme delicacy of the operation.
"But it's important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate it, it'll help the enemy," he said. "Why tell the enemy what we're doing?"
"We'll listen to ideas. But I want to make sure that people understand that if the attempt to write law makes this program -- is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it," he said.
On the Middle East, Bush expressed concern that Palestinian elections had given a majority to the radical party Hamas, which has called for the elimination of Israel, although he noted that democratic elections sometimes produce unwelcome results.
He made it clear that any organization that has an armed wing and which advocates violence against Israel "is a party with which we will not deal."
Bush called the election results a "wake-up call" to the old guard Palestinian leadership, many of whom are holdovers from the days of the late PLO ChairmanYasser Arafat.
Questioned about a controversy swirling about disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Bush said he would cooperate with federal prosecutors investigating Abramoff and his alleged influence peddling activities, if necessary. Otherwise, the president said he saw no reason to release pictures that he acknowledged were taken of him and Abramoff.
"There is a serious investigation going on by federal prosecutors that's their job," the president said. "If they believe something was done inappropriately in the White House, they'll come and look and they're welcome to do so."
Otherwise, Bush said, "I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with him or know him very well. "
"I've had my picture taken with you," Bush said to the reporter who asked the question.
Pressed further on his relationship with Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with investigators, Bush said, "I frankly don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him."
He said that federal investigators should pursue all leads and "look into all aspects of his influence on Capitol Hill," and that if the path also leads to the White House, he was sure they would "come knock on the door."
He was asked if he meets with lobbyists. "I try not to," Bush replied.
Asked about assertions by some Democrats that they will take back control of Congress in this year's midterm elections, Bush said he wasn't surprised they were talking that way, but shrugged it off.
He said he was ready to hit the campaign trail one more time, not for himself, but to stump for Republican congressional candidates this year. "We've got a record and a good one, and that's what I intend to campaign on," Bush said.
The president defended his administration's level of cooperation with congressional investigations into the government's slow response to the Hurricane Katrina devastation, citing the thousands of documents the White House has provided.
Questioned on congressional complaints that more could be done, Bush said that it would have a "chilling effect" on the ability of presidential advisers to speak freely.
Bush also said that his nominee for Supreme Court, Samuel Alito, deserves to be confirmed in the Senate, where he clearly has the votes but where minority-party Democrats were speaking out against him at length.
"The Senate needs to give him an up or down vote as soon as possible," Bush said in opening remarks that also previewed the themes of his State of the Union address next Tuesday.
Bush shrugged off a recent Pentagon-contracted report which concluded the Army was overextended and the United States cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency there.
The president predicted victory in Iraq and said, "Our commanders will have the troops necessary to do that."
He said the military was focused on transforming itself to ensure the armed forces could meet its goals in the 21st century.
"After five years of war, there is a need to make sure that our troops are balanced properly, that threats are met with capability. And that's why we're transforming our military," Bush said.
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.
'Warrior princess' to White House?
By Jonathan Beale
BBC News, Washington
It has been an amazing transformation. In the first Bush administration, Condoleezza Rice was known as the "warrior princess".
As national security adviser, she was seen as a leading hawk and architect of the Iraq war.
But Ms Rice has now become the smiling face of American diplomacy.
She is the stylish pin-up of the Republican Party and the poster child of African-American success.
Opinion polls suggest a majority of Americans think that she is doing a good job as their most senior diplomat, in stark contrast to the president's own approval ratings, which have slumped to about 40%.
No surprise then that the question is seriously being asked in Washington: "Could Condi run for president in 2008?"
Condi v Blondie
The book has already been written by President Clinton's former political adviser, Dick Morris.
The 'Condinistas' want to draft her for the presidential race in 2008, pointing to the way Dwight Eisenhower was eventually persuaded after World War II
In Condi versus Hillary, he argues that Ms Rice is the logical choice for the Republicans to challenge Senator Hillary Clinton - still the favourite to win the Democratic Party nomination.
Mr Morris says the US will be fascinated by a contest between a woman who has come to public prominence on the coat-tails of her husband -Mrs Clinton - and Ms Rice, who has fought her way to the top against the odds.
There is little doubt as to where Mr Morris' sympathies lie.
Blondie is still slightly ahead of Condi in the polls, but the US secretary of state is keeping pace with other potential Republican contenders such as Senator John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Of course, this is still fantasy politics though, as no-one has yet declared themselves for the 2008 race.
What is more, Ms Rice has repeatedly ruled herself out, saying she has "never run for anything", and: "I don't know how many times to say no."
Grassroots campaign
That has not deterred Republican supporters who hope to persuade Ms Rice to run.
The "Condinistas" want to draft her for the presidential race in 2008, pointing to the way Dwight Eisenhower was eventually persuaded after World War II.
They have set up websites where you can sign a petition to "draft" her, buy Condi Rice badges, T-shirts - even lookalike dolls.
They have also taken out radio and television adverts. All without the approval of Ms Rice herself, of course.
But little is known about Ms Rice's own political views outside the field of foreign affairs.
The idea of Ms Rice as president still manages to strike a chord with the American media and public alike - it would be a fairytale in keeping with the stories of from log cabin to the White House
Many Republicans wonder what she thinks on issues such as tax cuts or healthcare.
Charles Black, a leading Republican strategist, doubts that she will run.
He says he has no idea of her own political agenda and points to the fact that she has never run for office.
The little that is known of Ms Rice's political views may stand against her.
While her Christian faith is clearly important - she attends church every Sunday - she is believed to be "mildly pro-choice" on abortion.
That would hardly endear her to the religious right. And then there are the more obvious disadvantages. There has never been a single black woman president in the history of the United States.
Fairytale
But the idea of Condoleeza Rice as president still manages to strike a chord with the American media and public alike - it would be a fairytale in keeping with the stories of "from log cabin to the White House".
She is seen as the woman who grew up in the segregated South and yet battled her way against prejudice to become an accomplished ice-skater, talented pianist, leading academic and now secretary of state.
Her accomplishments are largely down to her own drive and ambition and if she sets her mind to it perhaps one day she could be president.
But I would not put my own money on it.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4628998.stm
Published: 2006/01/25 15:03:05 GMT
© BBC MMVI
By Jonathan Beale
BBC News, Washington
It has been an amazing transformation. In the first Bush administration, Condoleezza Rice was known as the "warrior princess".
As national security adviser, she was seen as a leading hawk and architect of the Iraq war.
But Ms Rice has now become the smiling face of American diplomacy.
She is the stylish pin-up of the Republican Party and the poster child of African-American success.
Opinion polls suggest a majority of Americans think that she is doing a good job as their most senior diplomat, in stark contrast to the president's own approval ratings, which have slumped to about 40%.
No surprise then that the question is seriously being asked in Washington: "Could Condi run for president in 2008?"
Condi v Blondie
The book has already been written by President Clinton's former political adviser, Dick Morris.
The 'Condinistas' want to draft her for the presidential race in 2008, pointing to the way Dwight Eisenhower was eventually persuaded after World War II
In Condi versus Hillary, he argues that Ms Rice is the logical choice for the Republicans to challenge Senator Hillary Clinton - still the favourite to win the Democratic Party nomination.
Mr Morris says the US will be fascinated by a contest between a woman who has come to public prominence on the coat-tails of her husband -Mrs Clinton - and Ms Rice, who has fought her way to the top against the odds.
There is little doubt as to where Mr Morris' sympathies lie.
Blondie is still slightly ahead of Condi in the polls, but the US secretary of state is keeping pace with other potential Republican contenders such as Senator John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Of course, this is still fantasy politics though, as no-one has yet declared themselves for the 2008 race.
What is more, Ms Rice has repeatedly ruled herself out, saying she has "never run for anything", and: "I don't know how many times to say no."
Grassroots campaign
That has not deterred Republican supporters who hope to persuade Ms Rice to run.
The "Condinistas" want to draft her for the presidential race in 2008, pointing to the way Dwight Eisenhower was eventually persuaded after World War II.
They have set up websites where you can sign a petition to "draft" her, buy Condi Rice badges, T-shirts - even lookalike dolls.
They have also taken out radio and television adverts. All without the approval of Ms Rice herself, of course.
But little is known about Ms Rice's own political views outside the field of foreign affairs.
The idea of Ms Rice as president still manages to strike a chord with the American media and public alike - it would be a fairytale in keeping with the stories of from log cabin to the White House
Many Republicans wonder what she thinks on issues such as tax cuts or healthcare.
Charles Black, a leading Republican strategist, doubts that she will run.
He says he has no idea of her own political agenda and points to the fact that she has never run for office.
The little that is known of Ms Rice's political views may stand against her.
While her Christian faith is clearly important - she attends church every Sunday - she is believed to be "mildly pro-choice" on abortion.
That would hardly endear her to the religious right. And then there are the more obvious disadvantages. There has never been a single black woman president in the history of the United States.
Fairytale
But the idea of Condoleeza Rice as president still manages to strike a chord with the American media and public alike - it would be a fairytale in keeping with the stories of "from log cabin to the White House".
She is seen as the woman who grew up in the segregated South and yet battled her way against prejudice to become an accomplished ice-skater, talented pianist, leading academic and now secretary of state.
Her accomplishments are largely down to her own drive and ambition and if she sets her mind to it perhaps one day she could be president.
But I would not put my own money on it.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4628998.stm
Published: 2006/01/25 15:03:05 GMT
© BBC MMVI
from the January 27, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0127/p09s01-cods.html
Can lying serve national interest?
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - One of the inherent powers of the president, apparently, is the right to lie in the perceived national interest.
In 1960, President Eisenhower had the State Department announce that a plane shot down over the Soviet Union was on a weather mission. He was left red-faced when the Russians produced the U-2 spy plane and its CIA pilot.
In 1962 President Kennedy cut short a trip to the West Coast and flew back to Washington from Chicago, suffering, it was announced, from an upper respiratory infection. The real reason for his hasty return was newly acquired photographic evidence that the Russians were putting nuclear missiles in Cuba - prompting the Cuban missile crisis.
In 1981, the Reagan White House condemned Israel for bombing the Osirak nuclear facility outside Baghdad saying, "The unprecedented attack would add to the tense situation in the Middle East." Left unsaid was that the CIA director, William Casey, had visited Israel and agreed to cooperate in the attack, using American-made planes and American reconnaissance satellites to pinpoint the target.
So now, 25 years later, once again we face the introduction to the nuclear waltz and the question of how far the administration will go in keeping Americans posted on the gathering storm. What we have heard so far leaves a lot to the imagination.
At a news conference last February President Bush said, "The notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous." He paused, and then added, "and having said that, all options are on the table."
Around the same time, Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker magazine that the United States was conducting secret reconnaissance flights over Iran to identify nuclear installations. The Pentagon, as you might expect, denied it.
More recently Vice President Dick Cheney said that Iran was operating "a fairly robust nuclear program" and that Israel might decide to act first if the United States and its allies failed to solve the problem by diplomacy.
"No president should ever take a military option off the table," he said.
So there you have it. Is the administration deceiving us about its true intentions? Or maybe it doesn't know its intentions. Maybe there are divided counsels within the administration. History tells us that a president will dissemble and even lie for his own purposes. I don't know how well the Bush administration is doing in keeping Iranian President Ahmadinejad off balance. But it's doing a fine job keeping the American public off balance.
Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at National Public Radio.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Can lying serve national interest?
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - One of the inherent powers of the president, apparently, is the right to lie in the perceived national interest.
In 1960, President Eisenhower had the State Department announce that a plane shot down over the Soviet Union was on a weather mission. He was left red-faced when the Russians produced the U-2 spy plane and its CIA pilot.
In 1962 President Kennedy cut short a trip to the West Coast and flew back to Washington from Chicago, suffering, it was announced, from an upper respiratory infection. The real reason for his hasty return was newly acquired photographic evidence that the Russians were putting nuclear missiles in Cuba - prompting the Cuban missile crisis.
In 1981, the Reagan White House condemned Israel for bombing the Osirak nuclear facility outside Baghdad saying, "The unprecedented attack would add to the tense situation in the Middle East." Left unsaid was that the CIA director, William Casey, had visited Israel and agreed to cooperate in the attack, using American-made planes and American reconnaissance satellites to pinpoint the target.
So now, 25 years later, once again we face the introduction to the nuclear waltz and the question of how far the administration will go in keeping Americans posted on the gathering storm. What we have heard so far leaves a lot to the imagination.
At a news conference last February President Bush said, "The notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous." He paused, and then added, "and having said that, all options are on the table."
Around the same time, Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker magazine that the United States was conducting secret reconnaissance flights over Iran to identify nuclear installations. The Pentagon, as you might expect, denied it.
More recently Vice President Dick Cheney said that Iran was operating "a fairly robust nuclear program" and that Israel might decide to act first if the United States and its allies failed to solve the problem by diplomacy.
"No president should ever take a military option off the table," he said.
So there you have it. Is the administration deceiving us about its true intentions? Or maybe it doesn't know its intentions. Maybe there are divided counsels within the administration. History tells us that a president will dissemble and even lie for his own purposes. I don't know how well the Bush administration is doing in keeping Iranian President Ahmadinejad off balance. But it's doing a fine job keeping the American public off balance.
Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at National Public Radio.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Hamas victory redraws political map of Middle East
By Nidal al-Mughrabi
Thu Jan 26, 6:12 PM ET
Hamas swept to victory over the long-dominant Fatah party on Thursday in Palestinian parliamentary polls, and Israel immediately ruled out talks with any government involving the Islamic militant group.
Hamas won an overwhelming majority in the 132-seat legislature, taking 76 seats to Fatah's 43 in Wednesday's election, the official vote count showed. It gives Hamas the power to shape and possibly even lead the next cabinet.
The landslide took even Hamas officials by surprise.
"When we took part in the elections we honestly expected to win but we did not expect to win by so much," said Osama Hamdan, the group's representative in Lebanon.
"Sixty seats makes a winner, but winning by this large majority means the Palestinian people have given us a high level of confidence and put a heavy responsibility in our hands."
The biggest party in parliament can veto the president's choice of prime minister. Hamas called for immediate talks among factions to discuss a new government and Palestinian officials said President Mahmoud Abbas would ask Hamas to form one.
But Fatah leaders said they wanted no part in such a coalition. Firing in the air, Fatah gunmen in Gaza City vented their anger at Hamas's victory. They blamed Abbas and party bigwigs for the loss and called on them to resign.
In a clear message to Hamas, Abbas stressed that any government would have to follow his own program to negotiate with Israel for Palestinian statehood. The moderate Fatah leader has said he might resign if he cannot pursue a peace agenda.
U.S. President George W. Bush appealed to Abbas to stay in office and vowed Washington would not deal with an armed Palestinian group advocating Israel's destruction. Hamas rebuffed demands to disarm and change its charter.
"Today we woke up and the sky was a different color. We have entered a new era," Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, of Fatah, said after Hamas claimed victory.
Fatah loyalists clashed with triumphant Hamas supporters who briefly raised their green flags at the entrance to the Palestinian parliament in Ramallah. Fatah activists trampled on one of the banners when it was lowered. Shots were fired nearby.
In Gaza City, Fatah gunmen fired volleys in the air and demanded the resignation of Abbas and the party's old guard. Hamas told its supporters to leave the streets to avoid clashes.
With peace talks stalled since 2000, and Israel and Hamas bitter enemies, Israel's Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could opt for unilateral moves to determine Israel's borders on land that the Palestinians want for a state. It has already pulled its settlers out of the Gaza Strip without negotiations.
ISRAEL REJECTS TALKS
Olmert, who took over from Ariel Sharon after he suffered a stroke three weeks ago, said in a statement Israel would not negotiate with a Palestinian government that included members "of an armed terror organization that calls for Israel's destruction."
Hamas, whose support among Palestinians is based partly on its suicide bombings against Israel, geared its election campaign to public frustration over Fatah's failure to achieve statehood and its reputation for corruption.
The Islamic group's charity network in the impoverished Gaza Strip and in the West Bank also boosted its popularity.
"Hamas did not win because people loved Hamas, but because people were taking revenge against the past years of Fatah rule," said Adel al-Helo, 41, a Gaza shopkeeper.
Leaders of the EU, the biggest donor to the aid-dependent Palestinian Authority, said that Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel or risk international isolation.
In Washington, Bush said Hamas's victory was a sign that Palestinians were unhappy with the status quo and showed democracy at work, which was positive for the Middle East.
But he stuck firmly to the U.S. view of Hamas as a terrorist group. It has carried out nearly 60 suicide bombings in Israel since the latest uprising began over five years ago.
"I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform," Bush told a news conference. "You can't be a partner in peace if ... your party has got an armed wing."
The United States is the main sponsor of the long-stalled "road map," a peace plan that charts mutual steps toward the creation of a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. Fatah advocates a two-state solution to the conflict.
"I am strongly committed to implementing the political program for which I was elected," said Abbas. "And this is based on the path of negotiations and a peaceful settlement to the conflict with Israel."
Commentators in the Arab world predicted that pragmatism would eventually oblige Hamas to soften its position and Israel to talk to the new Palestinian leaders.
Hamas has largely respected a truce for nearly a year.
Despite weeks of armed chaos before the poll, voting in the first parliamentary election since 1996 was orderly, with about 900 foreign observers led by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter looking on. Turnout was 78 percent of the 1.3 million voters.
(Additional reporting by Wafa Amr and Mohammed Assadi in Ramallah, Allyn Fisher-Ilan, Saul Hudson in Washington, Mark Trevelyan in Davos and Jonathan Wright in Cairo)
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.
By Nidal al-Mughrabi
Thu Jan 26, 6:12 PM ET
Hamas swept to victory over the long-dominant Fatah party on Thursday in Palestinian parliamentary polls, and Israel immediately ruled out talks with any government involving the Islamic militant group.
Hamas won an overwhelming majority in the 132-seat legislature, taking 76 seats to Fatah's 43 in Wednesday's election, the official vote count showed. It gives Hamas the power to shape and possibly even lead the next cabinet.
The landslide took even Hamas officials by surprise.
"When we took part in the elections we honestly expected to win but we did not expect to win by so much," said Osama Hamdan, the group's representative in Lebanon.
"Sixty seats makes a winner, but winning by this large majority means the Palestinian people have given us a high level of confidence and put a heavy responsibility in our hands."
The biggest party in parliament can veto the president's choice of prime minister. Hamas called for immediate talks among factions to discuss a new government and Palestinian officials said President Mahmoud Abbas would ask Hamas to form one.
But Fatah leaders said they wanted no part in such a coalition. Firing in the air, Fatah gunmen in Gaza City vented their anger at Hamas's victory. They blamed Abbas and party bigwigs for the loss and called on them to resign.
In a clear message to Hamas, Abbas stressed that any government would have to follow his own program to negotiate with Israel for Palestinian statehood. The moderate Fatah leader has said he might resign if he cannot pursue a peace agenda.
U.S. President George W. Bush appealed to Abbas to stay in office and vowed Washington would not deal with an armed Palestinian group advocating Israel's destruction. Hamas rebuffed demands to disarm and change its charter.
"Today we woke up and the sky was a different color. We have entered a new era," Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, of Fatah, said after Hamas claimed victory.
Fatah loyalists clashed with triumphant Hamas supporters who briefly raised their green flags at the entrance to the Palestinian parliament in Ramallah. Fatah activists trampled on one of the banners when it was lowered. Shots were fired nearby.
In Gaza City, Fatah gunmen fired volleys in the air and demanded the resignation of Abbas and the party's old guard. Hamas told its supporters to leave the streets to avoid clashes.
With peace talks stalled since 2000, and Israel and Hamas bitter enemies, Israel's Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could opt for unilateral moves to determine Israel's borders on land that the Palestinians want for a state. It has already pulled its settlers out of the Gaza Strip without negotiations.
ISRAEL REJECTS TALKS
Olmert, who took over from Ariel Sharon after he suffered a stroke three weeks ago, said in a statement Israel would not negotiate with a Palestinian government that included members "of an armed terror organization that calls for Israel's destruction."
Hamas, whose support among Palestinians is based partly on its suicide bombings against Israel, geared its election campaign to public frustration over Fatah's failure to achieve statehood and its reputation for corruption.
The Islamic group's charity network in the impoverished Gaza Strip and in the West Bank also boosted its popularity.
"Hamas did not win because people loved Hamas, but because people were taking revenge against the past years of Fatah rule," said Adel al-Helo, 41, a Gaza shopkeeper.
Leaders of the EU, the biggest donor to the aid-dependent Palestinian Authority, said that Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel or risk international isolation.
In Washington, Bush said Hamas's victory was a sign that Palestinians were unhappy with the status quo and showed democracy at work, which was positive for the Middle East.
But he stuck firmly to the U.S. view of Hamas as a terrorist group. It has carried out nearly 60 suicide bombings in Israel since the latest uprising began over five years ago.
"I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform," Bush told a news conference. "You can't be a partner in peace if ... your party has got an armed wing."
The United States is the main sponsor of the long-stalled "road map," a peace plan that charts mutual steps toward the creation of a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. Fatah advocates a two-state solution to the conflict.
"I am strongly committed to implementing the political program for which I was elected," said Abbas. "And this is based on the path of negotiations and a peaceful settlement to the conflict with Israel."
Commentators in the Arab world predicted that pragmatism would eventually oblige Hamas to soften its position and Israel to talk to the new Palestinian leaders.
Hamas has largely respected a truce for nearly a year.
Despite weeks of armed chaos before the poll, voting in the first parliamentary election since 1996 was orderly, with about 900 foreign observers led by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter looking on. Turnout was 78 percent of the 1.3 million voters.
(Additional reporting by Wafa Amr and Mohammed Assadi in Ramallah, Allyn Fisher-Ilan, Saul Hudson in Washington, Mark Trevelyan in Davos and Jonathan Wright in Cairo)
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.
Pentagon plan calls for new WMD task force: report
Fri Jan 27, 2006 01:00 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon's latest strategy review proposes a new military unit that would prevent the transfer of weapons of mass destruction from states such as North Korea and Iran to terrorist groups, The Washington Times reported on Friday.
The WMD task force would be comprised of several hundred troops, including special operations forces and intelligence personnel, the Times said.
The Times said the proposal was included in the Pentagon's 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, a sweeping assessment of U.S. defense strategy Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will send to the White House and Congress on February 6.
Portions of an unclassified summary of the document were made available to The Washington Times, the newspaper said.
"A section on combating weapons of mass destruction said future U.S. military forces will have the capability to interdict and 'render safe' weapons of mass destruction before terrorists can use them," the newspaper reported.
A Pentagon spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the report.
The Times said Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita declined to comment on the strategy review which has not been made public.
"We have over the past few years focused on ways of having a standing and rapidly deployable task force," DiRita was quoted as saying. "It's something that can respond quickly to a tough problem."
The Times said the Pentagon review stated that a core element of the new joint task force would be the Army's 20th Support Command, which would become a rapid deployment unit "to command and control WMD elimination missions by 2007."
"They will possess an expanded ability to locate, tag and track dangerous individuals and other high value targets globally," the review was quoted as saying.
Defense officials this week confirmed the planning document calls for the addition of nearly 8,000 troops to its elite Special Operations Forces next year to bolster the U.S. military's ability to fight terrorists and insurgents worldwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
© Reuters 2006
Fri Jan 27, 2006 01:00 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon's latest strategy review proposes a new military unit that would prevent the transfer of weapons of mass destruction from states such as North Korea and Iran to terrorist groups, The Washington Times reported on Friday.
The WMD task force would be comprised of several hundred troops, including special operations forces and intelligence personnel, the Times said.
The Times said the proposal was included in the Pentagon's 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, a sweeping assessment of U.S. defense strategy Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will send to the White House and Congress on February 6.
Portions of an unclassified summary of the document were made available to The Washington Times, the newspaper said.
"A section on combating weapons of mass destruction said future U.S. military forces will have the capability to interdict and 'render safe' weapons of mass destruction before terrorists can use them," the newspaper reported.
A Pentagon spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the report.
The Times said Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita declined to comment on the strategy review which has not been made public.
"We have over the past few years focused on ways of having a standing and rapidly deployable task force," DiRita was quoted as saying. "It's something that can respond quickly to a tough problem."
The Times said the Pentagon review stated that a core element of the new joint task force would be the Army's 20th Support Command, which would become a rapid deployment unit "to command and control WMD elimination missions by 2007."
"They will possess an expanded ability to locate, tag and track dangerous individuals and other high value targets globally," the review was quoted as saying.
Defense officials this week confirmed the planning document calls for the addition of nearly 8,000 troops to its elite Special Operations Forces next year to bolster the U.S. military's ability to fight terrorists and insurgents worldwide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
© Reuters 2006
Most Americans Want Wiretapping Investigation
latest news and polls
(Angus Reid Global Scan) The opinions of Americans on their federal administrations decision to monitor specific conversations are changing, according to a poll by Gallup released by CNN and USA Today. 51 per cent of respondents believe the government was wrong to wiretap telephone conversations between U.S. citizens and suspected terrorists without getting a court order, up five points since early January.
On Dec. 19, U.S. president George W. Bush defended a secret domestic electronic surveillance program that includes the wiretapping of the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans suspected of having terrorist ties. The presidents remarks came in response to media reports that, since 2002, Bush has authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to operate this program without any judicial oversight.
In a Jan. 25 visit to the NSA in Maryland, Bush defended the program, saying, "We know that two of the hijackers who struck the Pentagon were inside the United States communicating with al-Qaeda operatives overseas. But we didnt realize they were here plotting the attack until it was too late. (...) My predecessors have used the same constitutional authority on numerous occasions." 58 per cent of respondents believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate this matter.
Polling Data
As you may know, the Bush administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. Do you think the Bush administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?
Jan. 22
Jan. 8
Right
46%
50%
Wrong
51%
46%
No opinion
3%
4%
Do you think a special prosecutor should or should not be appointed to investigate this matter?
Yes, should
58%
No, should not
39%
No opinion
2%
Source: Gallup / CNN / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 506 American adults (First Question) and 500 American adults (Second Question), conducted from Jan. 20 to Jan. 22, 2006. Margin of error is 5 per cent.
latest news and polls
(Angus Reid Global Scan) The opinions of Americans on their federal administrations decision to monitor specific conversations are changing, according to a poll by Gallup released by CNN and USA Today. 51 per cent of respondents believe the government was wrong to wiretap telephone conversations between U.S. citizens and suspected terrorists without getting a court order, up five points since early January.
On Dec. 19, U.S. president George W. Bush defended a secret domestic electronic surveillance program that includes the wiretapping of the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans suspected of having terrorist ties. The presidents remarks came in response to media reports that, since 2002, Bush has authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to operate this program without any judicial oversight.
In a Jan. 25 visit to the NSA in Maryland, Bush defended the program, saying, "We know that two of the hijackers who struck the Pentagon were inside the United States communicating with al-Qaeda operatives overseas. But we didnt realize they were here plotting the attack until it was too late. (...) My predecessors have used the same constitutional authority on numerous occasions." 58 per cent of respondents believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate this matter.
Polling Data
As you may know, the Bush administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. Do you think the Bush administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?
Jan. 22
Jan. 8
Right
46%
50%
Wrong
51%
46%
No opinion
3%
4%
Do you think a special prosecutor should or should not be appointed to investigate this matter?
Yes, should
58%
No, should not
39%
No opinion
2%
Source: Gallup / CNN / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 506 American adults (First Question) and 500 American adults (Second Question), conducted from Jan. 20 to Jan. 22, 2006. Margin of error is 5 per cent.
'I don't know' Abramoff, Bush says USA Today
President Bush fended off questions Thursday about White House links to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and refused to release photos that show the two men together. "I don't know him," Bush said. "I had my picture taken with him, evidently," Bush said at a White House news conference. "I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with them or know them very well." "It's part of the job of the president to shake hands ... with people and smile," he said. Speaking in a wide-ranging, 46-minute news conference, Bush also renewed his defense of a program he approved to eavesdrop without a court order on terrorism suspects' international calls into or out of the USA. "As I stand here right now, I can tell the American people the program is legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," he said.
Bush downplays Abramoff photos, again defends NSA eavesdropping San Diego Union Tribune
Majority Believe White House Should Release Abramoff Records Washington Post
Detroit Free Press - ABC News - WJZ - New York Daily News - all 422 related »
President Bush fended off questions Thursday about White House links to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and refused to release photos that show the two men together. "I don't know him," Bush said. "I had my picture taken with him, evidently," Bush said at a White House news conference. "I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with them or know them very well." "It's part of the job of the president to shake hands ... with people and smile," he said. Speaking in a wide-ranging, 46-minute news conference, Bush also renewed his defense of a program he approved to eavesdrop without a court order on terrorism suspects' international calls into or out of the USA. "As I stand here right now, I can tell the American people the program is legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," he said.
Bush downplays Abramoff photos, again defends NSA eavesdropping San Diego Union Tribune
Majority Believe White House Should Release Abramoff Records Washington Post
Detroit Free Press - ABC News - WJZ - New York Daily News - all 422 related »
2,400-foot tunnel 'beats them all' San Diego Union Tribune
Soto and Leslie Berestein. In the corner of a cavernous Otay Mesa warehouse, a small room held a big secret: the door to a passageway from Mexico. US agents had been investigating the possibility of an elaborate drug-smuggling tunnel between Tijuana and San Diego for more than a year, but couldn't find it despite using military equipment so advanced it's classified. Instead, as often happens with drug cases, the break came from tips. The tips led to the discovery of the longest cross-border tunnel in U.S. history, running nearly a half-mile from a small warehouse near Tijuana's airport to the large Otay Mesa warehouse. This tunnel beats them all, said Michael Unzueta, special agent in charge of the San Diego office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which investigated the case along with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Border Patrol.
Officials Find Drug Tunnel With Surprising Amenities New York Times
Tunnel Found on Mexican Border Washington Post
Bloomberg - BBC News - San Jose Mercury News - Xinhua - all 420 related »
Soto and Leslie Berestein. In the corner of a cavernous Otay Mesa warehouse, a small room held a big secret: the door to a passageway from Mexico. US agents had been investigating the possibility of an elaborate drug-smuggling tunnel between Tijuana and San Diego for more than a year, but couldn't find it despite using military equipment so advanced it's classified. Instead, as often happens with drug cases, the break came from tips. The tips led to the discovery of the longest cross-border tunnel in U.S. history, running nearly a half-mile from a small warehouse near Tijuana's airport to the large Otay Mesa warehouse. This tunnel beats them all, said Michael Unzueta, special agent in charge of the San Diego office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which investigated the case along with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Border Patrol.
Officials Find Drug Tunnel With Surprising Amenities New York Times
Tunnel Found on Mexican Border Washington Post
Bloomberg - BBC News - San Jose Mercury News - Xinhua - all 420 related »
January 27, 2006
U.S. Economy Grows at Slowest Pace in Three Years
By VIKAS BAJAJ
The American economy grew at its slowest pace in three years in the fourth quarter, the government reported today, as spending by consumers and the federal government weakened significantly.
The nation's gross domestic product, the broadest measure of domestically produced goods and services, increased at a 1.1 percent annual rate in the quarter, to $11.23 trillion, and the economy posted a 3.5 percent growth rate for the full year, the Commerce Department reported. This is the first of three estimates that the government releases and the revisions it makes can be significant.
Economists had expected growth to slow to 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter because sales of automobiles and other goods were known to have fallen significantly from earlier in the year. The economy grew at a 4.1 percent annual pace in the third quarter, 3.3 percent in the second and 3.8 percent in the first three months of last year.
The last time the economy grew at a slower pace was during the fourth quarter of 2002, when it posted a 0.2 percent gain because businesses and consumers still lacked a confidence in the recovery from the slowdown during 2000 and 2001.
Automobile sales tumbled 13.8 percent in the fourth quarter after the three domestic automakers ended deep discounts on cars and trucks in the summer and sharply higher gasoline prices cut into the sales of sport utility vehicles, which in 2005 fell to their lowest level since 1998.
Increased investments by businesses, which many forecasters had expected to bolster the economy in the absence of strong consumer spending, increased by 12.2 percent over all but fell short of expectations, especially in the categories of industrial equipment and software.
The government's military spending fell 13.1 percent. And a 9.1 percent surge in imports, which serves as a drain on economic growth, served to pull down overall growth by more than 1.18 percentage points.
"There is not much growth behind the curtain when all is said and done," said Anthony Chan, chief economist at J.P. Morgan's private client services group. He noted that growth would have been even slower had it not been for a buildup of business inventories during the quarter.
The report may give the Federal Reserve, whose policy making committee meets on Tuesday, reason to consider ending its 18-month campaign to raise its benchmark interest rate, now at 4.25 percent, after it reaches 4.5 percent or 4.75 percent, economists said. Ben S. Bernanke will take over from Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Fed on Wednesday.
"The silver lining in this is that the Fed should look at this and realize that this economy is not overheating," said David Kelly, a senior economic adviser at Putnam Investments, the mutual fund company.
Analysts said there are several reasons to expect the economy to bounce back in the first quarter. Government spending should increase because the war in Iraq and the huge investments in hurricane-devastated areas on the Gulf Coast. Mr. Kelly and other economists also believe that business investments, which they believe are stronger than the fourth-quarter report indicates, are poised to increase.
Businesses "are still not spending as fast as their profits are growing," Mr. Kelly said. "Businesses were really psychologically damaged from 2002 and 2003. As that psychological drag fades and they find themselves with the cash, I do expect spending to pick up."
Wall Street appears to hold a similarly benign view of the fourth quarter report. Early this afternoon, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was trading up 11.33 points, or 0.9 percent, to 1,285.16, and the Nasdaq composite index was up 23.35 points, or 1 percent, to 2,306.35.
Separately, the Commerce Department said today that new home sales increased by 2.9 percent, to an annual pace of 1.27 million, in December, although median prices half the homes sold for less, half for more dropped by 3.4 percent, to $221,800, and inventories increased.
That new homes report, which is subject to a significant margin of error, bucks other data on existing home sales, which have fallen for three months in a row. Economists say a weaker housing sector will serve as a drag on the economy this year because of its impact on consumer spending on furniture, furnishings and other goods.
"Consumer spending growth in 2006 will be slower than in the last two or three years," Mr. Kelly said.
For American workers, the fourth quarter did hold some positive developments as inflation-adjusted disposable personal income rose 7 percent, after a decline of 0.2 percent in the third quarter. For the full year, disposable income increased 1.4 percent after last year's 3.4 percent gain.
Inflation as measured by the G.D.P. price index was 3 percent in the fourth quarter, down from 3.3 percent in the third quarter. Excluding food and energy, inflation rose to 3.1 percent from 2.8 percent.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
U.S. Economy Grows at Slowest Pace in Three Years
By VIKAS BAJAJ
The American economy grew at its slowest pace in three years in the fourth quarter, the government reported today, as spending by consumers and the federal government weakened significantly.
The nation's gross domestic product, the broadest measure of domestically produced goods and services, increased at a 1.1 percent annual rate in the quarter, to $11.23 trillion, and the economy posted a 3.5 percent growth rate for the full year, the Commerce Department reported. This is the first of three estimates that the government releases and the revisions it makes can be significant.
Economists had expected growth to slow to 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter because sales of automobiles and other goods were known to have fallen significantly from earlier in the year. The economy grew at a 4.1 percent annual pace in the third quarter, 3.3 percent in the second and 3.8 percent in the first three months of last year.
The last time the economy grew at a slower pace was during the fourth quarter of 2002, when it posted a 0.2 percent gain because businesses and consumers still lacked a confidence in the recovery from the slowdown during 2000 and 2001.
Automobile sales tumbled 13.8 percent in the fourth quarter after the three domestic automakers ended deep discounts on cars and trucks in the summer and sharply higher gasoline prices cut into the sales of sport utility vehicles, which in 2005 fell to their lowest level since 1998.
Increased investments by businesses, which many forecasters had expected to bolster the economy in the absence of strong consumer spending, increased by 12.2 percent over all but fell short of expectations, especially in the categories of industrial equipment and software.
The government's military spending fell 13.1 percent. And a 9.1 percent surge in imports, which serves as a drain on economic growth, served to pull down overall growth by more than 1.18 percentage points.
"There is not much growth behind the curtain when all is said and done," said Anthony Chan, chief economist at J.P. Morgan's private client services group. He noted that growth would have been even slower had it not been for a buildup of business inventories during the quarter.
The report may give the Federal Reserve, whose policy making committee meets on Tuesday, reason to consider ending its 18-month campaign to raise its benchmark interest rate, now at 4.25 percent, after it reaches 4.5 percent or 4.75 percent, economists said. Ben S. Bernanke will take over from Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Fed on Wednesday.
"The silver lining in this is that the Fed should look at this and realize that this economy is not overheating," said David Kelly, a senior economic adviser at Putnam Investments, the mutual fund company.
Analysts said there are several reasons to expect the economy to bounce back in the first quarter. Government spending should increase because the war in Iraq and the huge investments in hurricane-devastated areas on the Gulf Coast. Mr. Kelly and other economists also believe that business investments, which they believe are stronger than the fourth-quarter report indicates, are poised to increase.
Businesses "are still not spending as fast as their profits are growing," Mr. Kelly said. "Businesses were really psychologically damaged from 2002 and 2003. As that psychological drag fades and they find themselves with the cash, I do expect spending to pick up."
Wall Street appears to hold a similarly benign view of the fourth quarter report. Early this afternoon, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was trading up 11.33 points, or 0.9 percent, to 1,285.16, and the Nasdaq composite index was up 23.35 points, or 1 percent, to 2,306.35.
Separately, the Commerce Department said today that new home sales increased by 2.9 percent, to an annual pace of 1.27 million, in December, although median prices half the homes sold for less, half for more dropped by 3.4 percent, to $221,800, and inventories increased.
That new homes report, which is subject to a significant margin of error, bucks other data on existing home sales, which have fallen for three months in a row. Economists say a weaker housing sector will serve as a drag on the economy this year because of its impact on consumer spending on furniture, furnishings and other goods.
"Consumer spending growth in 2006 will be slower than in the last two or three years," Mr. Kelly said.
For American workers, the fourth quarter did hold some positive developments as inflation-adjusted disposable personal income rose 7 percent, after a decline of 0.2 percent in the third quarter. For the full year, disposable income increased 1.4 percent after last year's 3.4 percent gain.
Inflation as measured by the G.D.P. price index was 3 percent in the fourth quarter, down from 3.3 percent in the third quarter. Excluding food and energy, inflation rose to 3.1 percent from 2.8 percent.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
January 27, 2006
Republicans Clear the Way for Alito Vote
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:54 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito enjoys sufficient bipartisan support to surmount any Senate filibuster attempt by minority Democrats, Senate leaders said Friday.
A final vote making the New Jersey jurist the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice is scheduled for Tuesday, hours before President Bush gives his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation.
Democrats and Republicans alike said the 55-year-old conservative jurist will get more than the 60 votes need to cut off debate on the Senate floor Monday.
''Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster,'' Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Friday. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the same thing on Thursday. ''A bipartisan majority will vote to confirm Judge Alito as Justice Alito,'' Frist said.
Alito's supporters already have those commitments, with 53 of the Republicans' 55-member majority and three Democrats -- Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- already publicly supporting his confirmation as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., also announced Friday he is ''leaning in favor of voting for'' the conservative judge. ''It is clear to me that a majority of the American people and the people I represent support his confirmation,'' he said after meeting with Alito in his office.
Senior Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska also threw his support to Alito. Stevens said he closely monitored Alito's commitment during his confirmation hearings to ''respect'' past rulings when it comes to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's landmark abortion rights decision.
''As I vote to confirm his nomination, I do so under the assumption that Judge Alito will uphold this commitment,'' said Stevens, who supports abortion rights.
Reid, who will vote on Monday with Democrats who want to filibuster Alito and against confirmation on Tuesday, said those votes are ''an opportunity to people to express their opinion on what a bad choice it was to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.''
As the floor debate ensued Friday, the leaders of the filibuster attempt -- Massachusetts Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry -- were trying to drum up support in their caucus for blocking Alito.
They were counting senators like Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Debbie Stabenow on their side. Other senators, including ranking Judiciary Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Charles Schumer of New York, head of the Senate Democrats' fundraising arm, did not say Thursday whether they supported the effort.
''There's some division in our caucus,'' Kennedy conceded. ''It's an uphill climb at the current time, but it's achievable.''
Many Democrats contended that Alito's confirmation would put individual rights and liberties in danger. The former federal prosecutor and lawyer for the Reagan administration would replace O'Connor, the court's first female justice and the swing vote on several 5-4 rulings that maintained abortion rights, preserved affirmative action and limited the application of the death penalty.
''The president has every right to nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court,'' Kerry said. ''It's our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court.''
Asked if the administration was taking Kerry's call for a filibuster seriously, White House press secretary Scott McClellan chuckled on Friday and said: ''I think it was a historic day yesterday. It was the first ever call for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland.''
Republicans immediately began criticizing Democrats for even considering a filibuster.
''Continuing to threaten a filibuster, even after it is crystal clear that Democrats don't have the necessary votes to sustain their obstruction, is needless, strange and at odds with many of their fellow Democrats,'' said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
Bush urged the Senate to go ahead and put the 55-year-old judge from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the Supreme Court.
Alito ''understands the role of a judge is not to advance a personal and political agenda,'' the president said Thursday at the White House. ''He is a decent man. He's got a lot of experience and he deserves an up-or-down vote in the Senate.''
------
Associated Press reporter Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
------
On the Net:
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov
Supreme Court: http://supremecourtus.gov
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press
Republicans Clear the Way for Alito Vote
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:54 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito enjoys sufficient bipartisan support to surmount any Senate filibuster attempt by minority Democrats, Senate leaders said Friday.
A final vote making the New Jersey jurist the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice is scheduled for Tuesday, hours before President Bush gives his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation.
Democrats and Republicans alike said the 55-year-old conservative jurist will get more than the 60 votes need to cut off debate on the Senate floor Monday.
''Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster,'' Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Friday. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the same thing on Thursday. ''A bipartisan majority will vote to confirm Judge Alito as Justice Alito,'' Frist said.
Alito's supporters already have those commitments, with 53 of the Republicans' 55-member majority and three Democrats -- Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- already publicly supporting his confirmation as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., also announced Friday he is ''leaning in favor of voting for'' the conservative judge. ''It is clear to me that a majority of the American people and the people I represent support his confirmation,'' he said after meeting with Alito in his office.
Senior Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska also threw his support to Alito. Stevens said he closely monitored Alito's commitment during his confirmation hearings to ''respect'' past rulings when it comes to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's landmark abortion rights decision.
''As I vote to confirm his nomination, I do so under the assumption that Judge Alito will uphold this commitment,'' said Stevens, who supports abortion rights.
Reid, who will vote on Monday with Democrats who want to filibuster Alito and against confirmation on Tuesday, said those votes are ''an opportunity to people to express their opinion on what a bad choice it was to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.''
As the floor debate ensued Friday, the leaders of the filibuster attempt -- Massachusetts Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry -- were trying to drum up support in their caucus for blocking Alito.
They were counting senators like Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Debbie Stabenow on their side. Other senators, including ranking Judiciary Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Charles Schumer of New York, head of the Senate Democrats' fundraising arm, did not say Thursday whether they supported the effort.
''There's some division in our caucus,'' Kennedy conceded. ''It's an uphill climb at the current time, but it's achievable.''
Many Democrats contended that Alito's confirmation would put individual rights and liberties in danger. The former federal prosecutor and lawyer for the Reagan administration would replace O'Connor, the court's first female justice and the swing vote on several 5-4 rulings that maintained abortion rights, preserved affirmative action and limited the application of the death penalty.
''The president has every right to nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court,'' Kerry said. ''It's our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court.''
Asked if the administration was taking Kerry's call for a filibuster seriously, White House press secretary Scott McClellan chuckled on Friday and said: ''I think it was a historic day yesterday. It was the first ever call for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland.''
Republicans immediately began criticizing Democrats for even considering a filibuster.
''Continuing to threaten a filibuster, even after it is crystal clear that Democrats don't have the necessary votes to sustain their obstruction, is needless, strange and at odds with many of their fellow Democrats,'' said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
Bush urged the Senate to go ahead and put the 55-year-old judge from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the Supreme Court.
Alito ''understands the role of a judge is not to advance a personal and political agenda,'' the president said Thursday at the White House. ''He is a decent man. He's got a lot of experience and he deserves an up-or-down vote in the Senate.''
------
Associated Press reporter Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
------
On the Net:
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov
Supreme Court: http://supremecourtus.gov
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press
Justice Department: NSA Program to Detect and Prevent Terrorist Attacks: Myth v. Reality
1/27/2006 2:35:00 PM
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by U.S. Department of Justice:
THE NSA PROGRAM TO DETECT AND PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACKS
MYTH V. REALITY
Myth: The NSA program is illegal.
Reality: The President's authority to authorize the terrorist surveillance program is firmly based both in his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, and in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks.
-- As Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive, the President has legal authority under the Constitution to authorize the NSA terrorist surveillance program.
-- The Constitution makes protecting our Nation from foreign attack the President's most solemn duty and provides him with the legal authority to keep America safe.
-- It has long been recognized that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance to gather foreign intelligence even in peacetime. Every federal appellate court to rule on the question has concluded that the President has this authority and that it is consistent with the Constitution.
-- Since the Civil War, wiretaps aimed at collecting foreign intelligence have been authorized by Presidents, and the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes has been consistently cited and used when necessary.
-- Congress confirmed and supplemented the President's constitutional authority to authorize this program when it passed the AUMF.
-- The AUMF authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate military force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
-- In its Hamdi decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the AUMF also authorizes the "fundamental incident(s) of waging war." The history of warfare makes clear that electronic surveillance of the enemy is a fundamental incident to the use of military force.
-- A crucial responsibility of the President-charged by the AUMF and the Constitution-is to identify enemies who attacked us, especially if they are in the United States ready to strike against our Nation.
-- We are at war, and al Qaeda is not a conventional enemy. Since the September 11 attacks, it has promised again and again to deliver another, even more devastating attack on America. In the meantime, it has killed hundreds of innocent people around the world through large-scale attacks in Indonesia, Madrid, and London.
-- Al Qaeda's plans include infiltrating our cities and communities and plotting with affiliates abroad to kill innocent Americans.
-- The United States must use every tool available, consistent with the Constitution, to prevent and deter another al Qaeda attack, and the President has indicated his intent to do just that.
---
Myth: The NSA program is a domestic eavesdropping program used to spy on innocent Americans.
Reality: The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. Safeguards are in place to protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.
-- The program only applies to communications where one party is located outside of the United States.
-- The NSA terrorist surveillance program described by the President is only focused on members of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups. Communications are only intercepted if there is a reasonable basis to believe that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.
-- The program is designed to target a key tactic of al Qaeda: infiltrating foreign agents into the United States and controlling their movements through electronic communications, just as it did leading up to the September 11 attacks.
-- The NSA activities are reviewed and reauthorized approximately every 45 days. In addition, the General Counsel and Inspector General of the NSA monitor the program to ensure that it is operating properly and that civil liberties are protected, and the intelligence agents involved receive extensive training.
---
Myth: The NSA activities violate the Fourth Amendment.
Reality: The NSA program is consistent with the Constitution's protections of civil liberties, including the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
-- The Supreme Court has long held that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless searches where "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement," exist. Foreign intelligence collection, especially in a time of war when catastrophic attacks have already been launched inside the United States, falls within the special needs context.
-- As the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has observed, the nature of the "emergency" posed by al Qaeda "takes the matter out of the realm of ordinary crime control."
-- The program easily meets the Court's reasonableness test for whether a warrant is required. The NSA activities described by the President are narrow in scope and aim, and the government has an overwhelming interest in detecting and preventing further catastrophic attacks on American soil.
---
Myth: The NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Reality: The NSA activities described by the President are consistent with FISA.
-- FISA expressly envisions a need for the President to conduct electronic surveillance outside of its provisions when a later statute authorizes that surveillance. The AUMF is such a statute.
-- The NSA activities come from the very center of the Commander-in-Chief power, and it would raise serious constitutional issues if FISA were read to allow Congress to interfere with the President's well-recognized, inherent constitutional authority. FISA can and should be read to avoid this.
---
Myth: The Administration could have used FISA but simply chose not to.
Reality: In the war on terrorism, it is sometimes imperative to detect -- reliably, immediately, and without delay -- whether an al Qaeda member or affiliate is in contact with someone in the United States. FISA is an extremely valuable tool in the war on terrorism, but it was passed in 1978 and there have been tremendous advances in technology since then.
-- The NSA program is an "early warning system" with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the United States from foreign agents hiding in our midst. It is a program with a military nature that requires speed and agility.
-- The FISA process, by design, moves more slowly. It requires numerous lawyers, the preparation of legal briefs, approval from a Cabinet-level officer, certification from the National Security Advisor or another Senate-confirmed officer, and finally, the approval of an Article III judge. This is a good process for traditional domestic foreign intelligence monitoring, but when even 24 hours can make the difference between success and failure in preventing a terrorist attack, a faster process is needed.
---
Myth: FISA has "emergency authorizations" to allow 72-hour surveillance without a court order that the Administration could easily utilize.
Reality: There is a serious misconception about so-called "emergency authorizations" under FISA, which allow 72 hours of surveillance without a court order. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine in advance that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization can be granted, and the review process itself can and does take precious time.
-- The Justice Department does not approve emergency authorizations without knowing it will receive court approval within 72 hours.
-- To initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally, the Attorney General would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. The government would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within 72 hours.
-- A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Advisor, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate- confirmed officer; and, finally the approval of an Article III judge.
-- The FISA process makes perfect sense in almost all cases of foreign-intelligence monitoring in the United States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the war on terrorism -- one that we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al Qaeda and other foreign threats.
-- But the terrorist surveillance program operated by the NSA requires maximum speed and agility to achieve early warning, and even a very brief delay may make the difference between success and failure in detecting and preventing the next attack.
Throughout this document, "the terrorist surveillance program" and "the NSA program" refer to the NSA activities described by the President.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
1/27/2006 2:35:00 PM
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by U.S. Department of Justice:
THE NSA PROGRAM TO DETECT AND PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACKS
MYTH V. REALITY
Myth: The NSA program is illegal.
Reality: The President's authority to authorize the terrorist surveillance program is firmly based both in his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, and in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks.
-- As Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive, the President has legal authority under the Constitution to authorize the NSA terrorist surveillance program.
-- The Constitution makes protecting our Nation from foreign attack the President's most solemn duty and provides him with the legal authority to keep America safe.
-- It has long been recognized that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance to gather foreign intelligence even in peacetime. Every federal appellate court to rule on the question has concluded that the President has this authority and that it is consistent with the Constitution.
-- Since the Civil War, wiretaps aimed at collecting foreign intelligence have been authorized by Presidents, and the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes has been consistently cited and used when necessary.
-- Congress confirmed and supplemented the President's constitutional authority to authorize this program when it passed the AUMF.
-- The AUMF authorized the President to use "all necessary and appropriate military force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
-- In its Hamdi decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the AUMF also authorizes the "fundamental incident(s) of waging war." The history of warfare makes clear that electronic surveillance of the enemy is a fundamental incident to the use of military force.
-- A crucial responsibility of the President-charged by the AUMF and the Constitution-is to identify enemies who attacked us, especially if they are in the United States ready to strike against our Nation.
-- We are at war, and al Qaeda is not a conventional enemy. Since the September 11 attacks, it has promised again and again to deliver another, even more devastating attack on America. In the meantime, it has killed hundreds of innocent people around the world through large-scale attacks in Indonesia, Madrid, and London.
-- Al Qaeda's plans include infiltrating our cities and communities and plotting with affiliates abroad to kill innocent Americans.
-- The United States must use every tool available, consistent with the Constitution, to prevent and deter another al Qaeda attack, and the President has indicated his intent to do just that.
---
Myth: The NSA program is a domestic eavesdropping program used to spy on innocent Americans.
Reality: The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. Safeguards are in place to protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.
-- The program only applies to communications where one party is located outside of the United States.
-- The NSA terrorist surveillance program described by the President is only focused on members of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups. Communications are only intercepted if there is a reasonable basis to believe that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.
-- The program is designed to target a key tactic of al Qaeda: infiltrating foreign agents into the United States and controlling their movements through electronic communications, just as it did leading up to the September 11 attacks.
-- The NSA activities are reviewed and reauthorized approximately every 45 days. In addition, the General Counsel and Inspector General of the NSA monitor the program to ensure that it is operating properly and that civil liberties are protected, and the intelligence agents involved receive extensive training.
---
Myth: The NSA activities violate the Fourth Amendment.
Reality: The NSA program is consistent with the Constitution's protections of civil liberties, including the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
-- The Supreme Court has long held that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless searches where "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement," exist. Foreign intelligence collection, especially in a time of war when catastrophic attacks have already been launched inside the United States, falls within the special needs context.
-- As the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has observed, the nature of the "emergency" posed by al Qaeda "takes the matter out of the realm of ordinary crime control."
-- The program easily meets the Court's reasonableness test for whether a warrant is required. The NSA activities described by the President are narrow in scope and aim, and the government has an overwhelming interest in detecting and preventing further catastrophic attacks on American soil.
---
Myth: The NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Reality: The NSA activities described by the President are consistent with FISA.
-- FISA expressly envisions a need for the President to conduct electronic surveillance outside of its provisions when a later statute authorizes that surveillance. The AUMF is such a statute.
-- The NSA activities come from the very center of the Commander-in-Chief power, and it would raise serious constitutional issues if FISA were read to allow Congress to interfere with the President's well-recognized, inherent constitutional authority. FISA can and should be read to avoid this.
---
Myth: The Administration could have used FISA but simply chose not to.
Reality: In the war on terrorism, it is sometimes imperative to detect -- reliably, immediately, and without delay -- whether an al Qaeda member or affiliate is in contact with someone in the United States. FISA is an extremely valuable tool in the war on terrorism, but it was passed in 1978 and there have been tremendous advances in technology since then.
-- The NSA program is an "early warning system" with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the United States from foreign agents hiding in our midst. It is a program with a military nature that requires speed and agility.
-- The FISA process, by design, moves more slowly. It requires numerous lawyers, the preparation of legal briefs, approval from a Cabinet-level officer, certification from the National Security Advisor or another Senate-confirmed officer, and finally, the approval of an Article III judge. This is a good process for traditional domestic foreign intelligence monitoring, but when even 24 hours can make the difference between success and failure in preventing a terrorist attack, a faster process is needed.
---
Myth: FISA has "emergency authorizations" to allow 72-hour surveillance without a court order that the Administration could easily utilize.
Reality: There is a serious misconception about so-called "emergency authorizations" under FISA, which allow 72 hours of surveillance without a court order. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine in advance that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization can be granted, and the review process itself can and does take precious time.
-- The Justice Department does not approve emergency authorizations without knowing it will receive court approval within 72 hours.
-- To initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally, the Attorney General would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. The government would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within 72 hours.
-- A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Advisor, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate- confirmed officer; and, finally the approval of an Article III judge.
-- The FISA process makes perfect sense in almost all cases of foreign-intelligence monitoring in the United States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the war on terrorism -- one that we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al Qaeda and other foreign threats.
-- But the terrorist surveillance program operated by the NSA requires maximum speed and agility to achieve early warning, and even a very brief delay may make the difference between success and failure in detecting and preventing the next attack.
Throughout this document, "the terrorist surveillance program" and "the NSA program" refer to the NSA activities described by the President.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
Democrats Scold White House Over Spying
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jan 20, 7:17 PM ET
Democratic senators took the Bush administration to task Friday for four years of domestic spying, while the president fought back with a planned embrace of the intelligence agency that is carrying out the effort.
In preparation for Senate hearings, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts noted that President Bush asserted in 2004 that "when we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
That Bush statement came at the same time the National Security Agency was engaging at the president's direction in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.
"If President Bush can make his own rules for domestic surveillance, Big Brother has run amok," Kennedy said in a statement.
Introducing a proposed Senate resolution, Kennedy and Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont rejected White House assertions that congressional action after Sept. 11 authorized warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States.
A joint resolution of Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, but it "says nothing about domestic electronic surveillance," Kennedy declared.
Pushing back, Bush plans a Wednesday visit to the NSA, where he will reassert his claim that he has the constitutional authority to let intelligence officials listen in on international phone calls of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists.
"We are stepping up our efforts to educate the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of the trip to the NSA, based at Fort Meade in Maryland. McClellan called the program "a critical tool that helps us save lives and prevent attacks. It is limited and targeted to al-Qaida communications, with the focus being on detection and prevention."
Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said the new audio tape of Osama bin Laden threatening attacks on American soil "is a vivid reminder why we must continue to intercept communications between al-Qaida overseas and potential operatives in the United States."
On Monday, deputy national intelligence director Mike Hayden, who led the National Security Agency when the program began in October 2001, will speak on the issue at the National Press Club.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is delivering a speech on the program in Washington.
Gonzales also plans to testify Feb. 6 about the secret program before the Senate Judiciary Committee where Kennedy and Leahy are members.
House Democrats said Bush has committed a crime in authorizing the spying and that House Republicans have abdicated their responsibilities by refusing to hold hearings.
Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), the House Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, and other Democrats met in a basement room of a House office building Friday to hear a panel of lawyers and activists discuss whether Bush had committed an impeachable offense.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department on Wednesday issued a 42-page legal justification for the eavesdropping program, an expanded version of a document the agency sent Congress last month.
"Making their argument longer didn't make it any better," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., a Judiciary Committee member. He said Bush's secret approval of warrantless eavesdropping had made congressional debate on the Patriot Act meaningless.
The NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program is "an intelligence operation in search of a legal rationale," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
"What the president ordered in this case was a crime," added Turley, who said House Republicans are establishing a terrible precedent by not holding oversight hearings.
To fend off criticism, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and White House spokesman Scott McClellan referred to statements by John Schmidt, a Clinton administration associate attorney general who defended the program.
Schmidt wrote last month in the Chicago Tribune that Bush's authorization of the NSA surveillance is consistent with court decisions and Justice Department positions under prior presidents.
___
AP White House reporter Deb Riechmann 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.
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jan 20, 7:17 PM ET
Democratic senators took the Bush administration to task Friday for four years of domestic spying, while the president fought back with a planned embrace of the intelligence agency that is carrying out the effort.
In preparation for Senate hearings, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts noted that President Bush asserted in 2004 that "when we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
That Bush statement came at the same time the National Security Agency was engaging at the president's direction in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.
"If President Bush can make his own rules for domestic surveillance, Big Brother has run amok," Kennedy said in a statement.
Introducing a proposed Senate resolution, Kennedy and Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont rejected White House assertions that congressional action after Sept. 11 authorized warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States.
A joint resolution of Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, but it "says nothing about domestic electronic surveillance," Kennedy declared.
Pushing back, Bush plans a Wednesday visit to the NSA, where he will reassert his claim that he has the constitutional authority to let intelligence officials listen in on international phone calls of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists.
"We are stepping up our efforts to educate the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of the trip to the NSA, based at Fort Meade in Maryland. McClellan called the program "a critical tool that helps us save lives and prevent attacks. It is limited and targeted to al-Qaida communications, with the focus being on detection and prevention."
Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said the new audio tape of Osama bin Laden threatening attacks on American soil "is a vivid reminder why we must continue to intercept communications between al-Qaida overseas and potential operatives in the United States."
On Monday, deputy national intelligence director Mike Hayden, who led the National Security Agency when the program began in October 2001, will speak on the issue at the National Press Club.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is delivering a speech on the program in Washington.
Gonzales also plans to testify Feb. 6 about the secret program before the Senate Judiciary Committee where Kennedy and Leahy are members.
House Democrats said Bush has committed a crime in authorizing the spying and that House Republicans have abdicated their responsibilities by refusing to hold hearings.
Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), the House Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, and other Democrats met in a basement room of a House office building Friday to hear a panel of lawyers and activists discuss whether Bush had committed an impeachable offense.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department on Wednesday issued a 42-page legal justification for the eavesdropping program, an expanded version of a document the agency sent Congress last month.
"Making their argument longer didn't make it any better," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., a Judiciary Committee member. He said Bush's secret approval of warrantless eavesdropping had made congressional debate on the Patriot Act meaningless.
The NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program is "an intelligence operation in search of a legal rationale," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
"What the president ordered in this case was a crime," added Turley, who said House Republicans are establishing a terrible precedent by not holding oversight hearings.
To fend off criticism, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and White House spokesman Scott McClellan referred to statements by John Schmidt, a Clinton administration associate attorney general who defended the program.
Schmidt wrote last month in the Chicago Tribune that Bush's authorization of the NSA surveillance is consistent with court decisions and Justice Department positions under prior presidents.
___
AP White House reporter Deb Riechmann 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.
Associated Press
Update 14: State Dept. Review Aid to Palestinians
By BARRY SCHWEID , 01.27.2006, 02:25 PM
If Hamas takes control of the Palestinian government, as now appears likely, all U.S. aid to the Palestinian people will be put under review, the Bush administration said Friday.
"We do not and will not give money to a terrorist organization," proclaimed White House press secretary Scott McClellan. Said opposite number Sean McCormack at the State Department: "The law and our policies state that no money goes to terrorist organizations."
This year, the U.S. government is providing $150 million in U.S. assistance for Palestinian development and other needs, McCormack said. Another $84 million is distributed through the United Nations.
"The Palestinian people have humanitarian needs, they are a poor people," he said. But McCormack also said financial aid must be reviewed and said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would take this up when she meets in London Monday with U.N., European and Russian officials.
Together, they form the so-called Quartet that developed a roadmap or blueprint designed to steer Israel and the Palestinians into peace talks.
But that process appears in peril with Hamas' strong showing and likely control of a future Palestinian government.
The toughest task facing the United States is determining whether the peace process can proceed, and if so, how. The administration would have to find a way to negotiate with the Palestinians without talking directly to Hamas.
The militant Islamic group is sworn to destroy Israel and has conducted numerous terrorist operations against that country.
Urging Hamas to renounce terrorism, which the late Yasser Arafat did under U.S. urging in 1988, Bush said, "If your platform is the destruction of Israel it means you are not a partner in peace. And we're interested in peace."
At a White House news conference Thursday, Bush said a party that seeks Israel's destruction "is a party with which we will not deal." But he also said, "Peace is never dead because people want peace."
Bush himself had left open the possibility of halting aid to the Palestinians if their government winds up dominated by Hamas, a militant Islamic group listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization. This year, the Palestinians are receiving $150 million for development programs on the West Bank and in Gaza.
The threat was echoed on Capitol Hill by a nonbinding Senate resolution condemning Hamas and expressing support for halting assistance to the Palestinian government.
The symbolic resolution, crafted by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., says aid should be ended if the party controlling the Palestinian parliament advocates the destruction of Israel, which Hamas does. It was unclear when the Senate would vote on the proposal.
Congress' reluctance to continue U.S. financial support was also illustrated by lawmakers' comments, including remarks by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
"Hamas has shown that it prefers terrorism against innocent civilians to pursue its political aims, and the United States should play no role in assisting a majority terrorist parliament," Hastert said in a statement.
In a similar warning, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., a member of the GOP House leadership, said, "If Hamas does not join the peaceful nations of the world at the table of cooperation and peace, the consequences will be the loss of America's support and funding for the Palestinians."
Other members of Congress were also critical of Hamas' victory over the more mainstream Fatah Party. And Bush called on Abbas to remain in office.
Abbas said he was committed to reaching peace with Israel and suggested talks would be conducted through the Palestine Liberation Organization, a possible way around a Hamas-led government.
Meanwhile, a senior Lebanese official said Friday that the militant Palestinian group Hamas "needs to move forward on how to make peace with Israel."
But Saad Hariri, who heads the majority bloc in Lebanon's parliament, said before seeing Bush at the White House that the Palestinians were victims of oppression and it was a decision for Hamas to make. "It will take time," he told reporters.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
Update 14: State Dept. Review Aid to Palestinians
By BARRY SCHWEID , 01.27.2006, 02:25 PM
If Hamas takes control of the Palestinian government, as now appears likely, all U.S. aid to the Palestinian people will be put under review, the Bush administration said Friday.
"We do not and will not give money to a terrorist organization," proclaimed White House press secretary Scott McClellan. Said opposite number Sean McCormack at the State Department: "The law and our policies state that no money goes to terrorist organizations."
This year, the U.S. government is providing $150 million in U.S. assistance for Palestinian development and other needs, McCormack said. Another $84 million is distributed through the United Nations.
"The Palestinian people have humanitarian needs, they are a poor people," he said. But McCormack also said financial aid must be reviewed and said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would take this up when she meets in London Monday with U.N., European and Russian officials.
Together, they form the so-called Quartet that developed a roadmap or blueprint designed to steer Israel and the Palestinians into peace talks.
But that process appears in peril with Hamas' strong showing and likely control of a future Palestinian government.
The toughest task facing the United States is determining whether the peace process can proceed, and if so, how. The administration would have to find a way to negotiate with the Palestinians without talking directly to Hamas.
The militant Islamic group is sworn to destroy Israel and has conducted numerous terrorist operations against that country.
Urging Hamas to renounce terrorism, which the late Yasser Arafat did under U.S. urging in 1988, Bush said, "If your platform is the destruction of Israel it means you are not a partner in peace. And we're interested in peace."
At a White House news conference Thursday, Bush said a party that seeks Israel's destruction "is a party with which we will not deal." But he also said, "Peace is never dead because people want peace."
Bush himself had left open the possibility of halting aid to the Palestinians if their government winds up dominated by Hamas, a militant Islamic group listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization. This year, the Palestinians are receiving $150 million for development programs on the West Bank and in Gaza.
The threat was echoed on Capitol Hill by a nonbinding Senate resolution condemning Hamas and expressing support for halting assistance to the Palestinian government.
The symbolic resolution, crafted by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., says aid should be ended if the party controlling the Palestinian parliament advocates the destruction of Israel, which Hamas does. It was unclear when the Senate would vote on the proposal.
Congress' reluctance to continue U.S. financial support was also illustrated by lawmakers' comments, including remarks by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
"Hamas has shown that it prefers terrorism against innocent civilians to pursue its political aims, and the United States should play no role in assisting a majority terrorist parliament," Hastert said in a statement.
In a similar warning, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., a member of the GOP House leadership, said, "If Hamas does not join the peaceful nations of the world at the table of cooperation and peace, the consequences will be the loss of America's support and funding for the Palestinians."
Other members of Congress were also critical of Hamas' victory over the more mainstream Fatah Party. And Bush called on Abbas to remain in office.
Abbas said he was committed to reaching peace with Israel and suggested talks would be conducted through the Palestine Liberation Organization, a possible way around a Hamas-led government.
Meanwhile, a senior Lebanese official said Friday that the militant Palestinian group Hamas "needs to move forward on how to make peace with Israel."
But Saad Hariri, who heads the majority bloc in Lebanon's parliament, said before seeing Bush at the White House that the Palestinians were victims of oppression and it was a decision for Hamas to make. "It will take time," he told reporters.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
Lake Butler mourns seven children killed in crash USA Today
This small north Florida town planned to gather Friday night for a candlelight vigil to mourn the seven children killed in this week's fiery crash and their grief-stricken grandfather, who died a short time later of a heart attack. Five children of Barbara and Terry Mann were killed in Wednesday's crash, along with two of their nieces. Their car was crushed and burst into flame's when a tractor-trailer slammed into them when they stopped behind a school bus. The children's ages were 1 to 15. Nine children on the bus were injured. Friends and relatives stopped Friday to pray and pay their respects at a flower-covered cross placed with seven teddy bears at the crash scene on a rural, two-lane highway. The truck driver, Alvin Wilkerson, has not been charged and the Florida Highway Patrol's investigation is continuing.
'Burden too big to bear' Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Fla. Crash Deaths Hit Town, Family Hard ABC News
Brisbane Courier Mail - The Ledger - Miami Herald - Gainesville Sun - all 258 related »
This small north Florida town planned to gather Friday night for a candlelight vigil to mourn the seven children killed in this week's fiery crash and their grief-stricken grandfather, who died a short time later of a heart attack. Five children of Barbara and Terry Mann were killed in Wednesday's crash, along with two of their nieces. Their car was crushed and burst into flame's when a tractor-trailer slammed into them when they stopped behind a school bus. The children's ages were 1 to 15. Nine children on the bus were injured. Friends and relatives stopped Friday to pray and pay their respects at a flower-covered cross placed with seven teddy bears at the crash scene on a rural, two-lane highway. The truck driver, Alvin Wilkerson, has not been charged and the Florida Highway Patrol's investigation is continuing.
'Burden too big to bear' Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Fla. Crash Deaths Hit Town, Family Hard ABC News
Brisbane Courier Mail - The Ledger - Miami Herald - Gainesville Sun - all 258 related »
Majority Believe White House Should Release Abramoff Records Washington Post
A strong bipartisan majority of the public believes President Bush should release records of meetings between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and White House staffers despite administration claims that media requests for details about those contacts amount to a "fishing expedition," according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey found that three in four--76 percent--of all Americans said Bush should disclose contacts between aides and Abramoff while 18 percent disagreed. Two in three Republicans joined with eight in 10 Democrats and political independents in favoring disclosure, according to the poll. At a Thursday news conference, the president declined to discuss those meetings but said federal investigators are "welcome" to look into them if they suspect wrongdoing. Last week, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, pressured by reporters to explain Abramoff's contacts with the Bush administration, said, "We're not going to engage in a fishing expedition."
The President Speaks About the Abramoff Photos TIME
Bush downplays Abramoff photos, again defends NSA eavesdropping San Diego Union Tribune
San Francisco Chronicle - New York Times - Bloomberg - CNN International - all 428 related »
A strong bipartisan majority of the public believes President Bush should release records of meetings between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and White House staffers despite administration claims that media requests for details about those contacts amount to a "fishing expedition," according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey found that three in four--76 percent--of all Americans said Bush should disclose contacts between aides and Abramoff while 18 percent disagreed. Two in three Republicans joined with eight in 10 Democrats and political independents in favoring disclosure, according to the poll. At a Thursday news conference, the president declined to discuss those meetings but said federal investigators are "welcome" to look into them if they suspect wrongdoing. Last week, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, pressured by reporters to explain Abramoff's contacts with the Bush administration, said, "We're not going to engage in a fishing expedition."
The President Speaks About the Abramoff Photos TIME
Bush downplays Abramoff photos, again defends NSA eavesdropping San Diego Union Tribune
San Francisco Chronicle - New York Times - Bloomberg - CNN International - all 428 related »
In defense of US wiretaps Newsday
President George W. Bush offered a feisty defense of warrantless wiretapping yesterday, and it was the unabashed stance of a man seemingly confident the law - and the politics - are on his side. "There's no doubt in my mind it is legal," Bush said of the domestic surveillance program designed to listen in without a warrant on phone calls that might involve al-Qaida. That's a position not only key Democrats but also some conservative legal scholars reject. Some Republicans in Congress also say they're not convinced Bush is legally justified in carrying out the program and have called a Feb. 6 hearing. At the same time, a new poll released today showed that many Americans back Bush's wiretapping effort - and that nearly half wouldn't mind if their own phones were monitored as part of the anti-terror fight. During a White House news conference, Bush rejected criticism that he has overstepped his authority as president by ordering secret eavesdropping at a time of war.
New Poll Finds Mixed Support for Wiretaps New York Times
US. govt' eavesdropping has mixed support in poll Reuters AlertNet
Washington Post - Bloomberg - CBS News - Boston Globe - all 237 related »
President George W. Bush offered a feisty defense of warrantless wiretapping yesterday, and it was the unabashed stance of a man seemingly confident the law - and the politics - are on his side. "There's no doubt in my mind it is legal," Bush said of the domestic surveillance program designed to listen in without a warrant on phone calls that might involve al-Qaida. That's a position not only key Democrats but also some conservative legal scholars reject. Some Republicans in Congress also say they're not convinced Bush is legally justified in carrying out the program and have called a Feb. 6 hearing. At the same time, a new poll released today showed that many Americans back Bush's wiretapping effort - and that nearly half wouldn't mind if their own phones were monitored as part of the anti-terror fight. During a White House news conference, Bush rejected criticism that he has overstepped his authority as president by ordering secret eavesdropping at a time of war.
New Poll Finds Mixed Support for Wiretaps New York Times
US. govt' eavesdropping has mixed support in poll Reuters AlertNet
Washington Post - Bloomberg - CBS News - Boston Globe - all 237 related »
Mayor's hard line Newsday
Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared war on poverty in his State of the City address yesterday, announcing the creation of a task force to study innovative ways to fight poverty in neighborhoods where it is most entrenched and vowing to reduce the number of chronically poor New Yorkers. Bloomberg used the hour-long speech, at the Snug Harbor Cultural Center in Staten Island, to revisit familiar issues, including redevelopment and gun control, but also to amp up his calls for municipal unions to concede pension and health-care benefits and for developer Larry Silverstein to surrender his right to develop two of the World Trade Center towers in exchange for a reduction in rent. "We cannot allow the trade center to be a construction site for the next 15 years," he said. "We need this now, to advance our economy and pay tribute to those who died there - not a decade and a half in the future, when it fits a developer's financial plan." Janno Lieber, director of World Trade Center development for the Silverstein organization, told The Associated Press the group was not responsible for the delays. The calls for reduced benefits for city workers outraged Municipal Labor Committee head Randi Weingarten, who accused the mayor of extolling the importance of public health and then threatening to charge city workers for health insurance premiums for the first time. But others praised the mayor for staking out difficult ground. "I'm very impressed," said Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who lost a primary bid to unseat Bloomberg last year. "This is the time to do bold things. Much to his credit, he pointed out some of the gathering storm on the horizon." In Bloomberg's fifth annual address, which some City Council members criticized as short on specifics, he invoked partnerships with the private sector to help solve a broad swath of problems, proposing working with private companies for issues like underperforming schools and affordable housing.
From Bloomberg, Vow on Rebuilding and Unions New York Times
NYC's Bloomberg Seeks Faster Ground Zero Rebuilding Bloomberg
New York Daily News - New York Sun - Reuters - Forbes - all 137 related »
Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared war on poverty in his State of the City address yesterday, announcing the creation of a task force to study innovative ways to fight poverty in neighborhoods where it is most entrenched and vowing to reduce the number of chronically poor New Yorkers. Bloomberg used the hour-long speech, at the Snug Harbor Cultural Center in Staten Island, to revisit familiar issues, including redevelopment and gun control, but also to amp up his calls for municipal unions to concede pension and health-care benefits and for developer Larry Silverstein to surrender his right to develop two of the World Trade Center towers in exchange for a reduction in rent. "We cannot allow the trade center to be a construction site for the next 15 years," he said. "We need this now, to advance our economy and pay tribute to those who died there - not a decade and a half in the future, when it fits a developer's financial plan." Janno Lieber, director of World Trade Center development for the Silverstein organization, told The Associated Press the group was not responsible for the delays. The calls for reduced benefits for city workers outraged Municipal Labor Committee head Randi Weingarten, who accused the mayor of extolling the importance of public health and then threatening to charge city workers for health insurance premiums for the first time. But others praised the mayor for staking out difficult ground. "I'm very impressed," said Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who lost a primary bid to unseat Bloomberg last year. "This is the time to do bold things. Much to his credit, he pointed out some of the gathering storm on the horizon." In Bloomberg's fifth annual address, which some City Council members criticized as short on specifics, he invoked partnerships with the private sector to help solve a broad swath of problems, proposing working with private companies for issues like underperforming schools and affordable housing.
From Bloomberg, Vow on Rebuilding and Unions New York Times
NYC's Bloomberg Seeks Faster Ground Zero Rebuilding Bloomberg
New York Daily News - New York Sun - Reuters - Forbes - all 137 related »
Brain-Damaged Girl Moved to Rehab Facility Forbes
A brain-damaged 11-year-old girl who was nearly removed from life support before she suddenly began breathing on her own was moved to a rehabilitation center Thursday. Haleigh Poutre had been hospitalized since September with severe brain injuries that authorities say were inflicted by her stepfather and adoptive mother. Less than two weeks ago, the state Department of Social Services won approval from the state's highest court to remove Haleigh from life support, saying she would never recover from her vegetative state. But a day later, she started showing signs of improvement, and she was weaned off her ventilator. Now, agency officials said, Haleigh can move her eyes toward where she hears a sound. "There's so much absolute hope now," department spokeswoman Denise Monteiro.
Romney appoints panel to probe Haleigh Poutre case Boston Globe
As girl hangs on to life, where are all the plug-pullers? Houston Chronicle
Boston Herald - The Weekly Standard - Ireland Online - all 131 related »
A brain-damaged 11-year-old girl who was nearly removed from life support before she suddenly began breathing on her own was moved to a rehabilitation center Thursday. Haleigh Poutre had been hospitalized since September with severe brain injuries that authorities say were inflicted by her stepfather and adoptive mother. Less than two weeks ago, the state Department of Social Services won approval from the state's highest court to remove Haleigh from life support, saying she would never recover from her vegetative state. But a day later, she started showing signs of improvement, and she was weaned off her ventilator. Now, agency officials said, Haleigh can move her eyes toward where she hears a sound. "There's so much absolute hope now," department spokeswoman Denise Monteiro.
Romney appoints panel to probe Haleigh Poutre case Boston Globe
As girl hangs on to life, where are all the plug-pullers? Houston Chronicle
Boston Herald - The Weekly Standard - Ireland Online - all 131 related »
Two on Navy Training Plane Crash in Texas Forbes
A Navy training plane with a pilot and student on board crashed and burned Friday in Corpus Christi, a military spokeswoman said. It wasn't immediately clear if they were able to bail out or if anyone on the ground was injured. Navy investigators were headed to the scene where the T-34 training jet went down, Navy spokeswoman Fifi Kieshnik said. The plane crashed during a routine training flight about 3 miles south of Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, she said. The cause of accident under investigation. Earlier this month, a two-seat Navy T34 training plane was forced to make an emergency belly landing in the same area. Neither of that plane's two-member crew was injured.
Two Die in CC Navy Plane Crash WOAI
Pilot, student die in Navy training jet crash KRIS-TV
All Headline News - San Antonio Express (subscription) - KVUE (subscription) - KHOU (subscription) - all 64 related »
A Navy training plane with a pilot and student on board crashed and burned Friday in Corpus Christi, a military spokeswoman said. It wasn't immediately clear if they were able to bail out or if anyone on the ground was injured. Navy investigators were headed to the scene where the T-34 training jet went down, Navy spokeswoman Fifi Kieshnik said. The plane crashed during a routine training flight about 3 miles south of Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, she said. The cause of accident under investigation. Earlier this month, a two-seat Navy T34 training plane was forced to make an emergency belly landing in the same area. Neither of that plane's two-member crew was injured.
Two Die in CC Navy Plane Crash WOAI
Pilot, student die in Navy training jet crash KRIS-TV
All Headline News - San Antonio Express (subscription) - KVUE (subscription) - KHOU (subscription) - all 64 related »
Calif. Hostage Standoff Ends Peacefully Forbes
Ending a 10 1/2-hour standoff, SWAT officers stormed a bank Thursday and seized a robber who had taken eight hostages with what turned out to be a pellet gun, authorities said. The officers moved in after using a pack of Kool cigarettes to trick the man into letting go of his last hostage in the pre-dawn hours. They left the cigarettes just outside the front door, and when he let the hostage retrieve them, officers pulled her to safety. No injuries were reported. "This is a great ending for everybody involved," sheriff's Lt. Keith Douglas said. Jess Martinez, 47, an unemployed car salesman, was being held on bank robbery and hostage-taking charges, according to police. He turned down a request by The Associated Press for an interview.
Visalia man held on charges of bank robbery, hostage-taking San Diego Union Tribune
Calif. Hostage Standoff Ends Peacefully ABC News
Reuters - AXcess News - San Francisco Chronicle - Independent Online - all 824 related »
Ending a 10 1/2-hour standoff, SWAT officers stormed a bank Thursday and seized a robber who had taken eight hostages with what turned out to be a pellet gun, authorities said. The officers moved in after using a pack of Kool cigarettes to trick the man into letting go of his last hostage in the pre-dawn hours. They left the cigarettes just outside the front door, and when he let the hostage retrieve them, officers pulled her to safety. No injuries were reported. "This is a great ending for everybody involved," sheriff's Lt. Keith Douglas said. Jess Martinez, 47, an unemployed car salesman, was being held on bank robbery and hostage-taking charges, according to police. He turned down a request by The Associated Press for an interview.
Visalia man held on charges of bank robbery, hostage-taking San Diego Union Tribune
Calif. Hostage Standoff Ends Peacefully ABC News
Reuters - AXcess News - San Francisco Chronicle - Independent Online - all 824 related »
General Says Troops in Iraq 'Stretched' ABC News
Top U.S. Commander in Iraq Acknowledges Army `stretched' but Says It Can Accomplish Its Mission. The top U.S. commander in Iraq acknowledged on Thursday that the U.S. Army was stretched but insisted forces here were capable of accomplishing their mission and any recommendation to reduce troops further would be dictated by the situation on the battlefield. U.S. officials said Gen. George Casey was speaking about the Army in general and not specifically about the 136,000-strong force in Iraq. However, his comments are likely to fuel a debate inside the U.S. government over whether the United States can sustain the fight long enough to break the back of the Sunni Arab-led insurgency. "The forces are stretched and I don't think there's any question of that," Casey told reporters. "But the Army has been for the last several years going through a modernization strategy that will produce more units and more ready units."
A fuel tanker burns after being hit with gunfire from unknown attackers, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2006, in Baghdad, Iraq. No one was reported injured in the attack. (AP Photo/Asaad Muhsin)
Casey said he had discussed manpower strains with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker on Wednesday and that the Army chief of staff feels he can sustain missions around the world. Casey was adamant that the troops in Iraq were getting the job done. "So, yep, folks are stretched here but they certainly accomplish their mission, and the forces that you've seen on the ground are absolutely magnificent," Casey added. In Washington, President Bush brushed aside talk that the United States could not prevail in Iraq. "If the question is whether or not we can win victory in Iraq, our commanders will have the troops necessary to do that. If the question is, Can we help keep the peace in a place like the Far East? Absolutely," Bush told reporters. "And let me use the Far East as an example of what I'm talking about," the president continued. "There were some 30,000 on the South Korean peninsula. As you might remember, we reduced the amount of manpower and replaced it with technology." Meanwhile, the U.S. command announced that two more American soldiers died Wednesday one in a bombing south of Baghdad and a second of wounds suffered in a rocket attack in Ramadi. At least 2,238 members of the U.S. military have died since the war began, according to an Associated Press count. At least 11 Iraqis were killed Thursday in attacks around the country, police said. Also Thursday, the military released five Iraqi women detainees, a move demanded by the kidnappers of American reporter Jill Carroll. Officials said the women were part of a group of about 420 Iraqis to be released Thursday and Friday and that their freedom was not connected to efforts to free Carroll, who was seized in Baghdad on Jan. 7. However, Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal said intensive efforts were under way to release Carroll, a freelancer for the Christian Science Monitor, and "God willing, that she will be released." Casey spoke after attending a ceremony in which Polish troops transferred leadership of the south-central region of Iraq to Iraqi forces, the first such large-scale handover since the conflict began in 2003. The transfer of authority for the sector, which includes about 25 percent of the country, was part of a larger strategy by the U.S.-led coalition to build up Iraqi forces and give them greater role in security a move that could enable American and other international troops to draw down. In a study for the Pentagon, Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to crush the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disputed reports that the military was overextended, suggesting Wednesday that talk of an overburdened force was "either out of date or just misdirected." Pentagon officials announced this week that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq has been cut to about 136,000 their lowest level since last summer. Two years ago the U.S. force dropped to about 110,000 but was boosted after insurgent violence spiked. Last month, Casey said he expects the troop levels to be brought to about 130,000 by the beginning of March and that more cuts could be made later in the year if conditions permit and more Iraqi soldiers finish their training. At least 11 Iraqis were killed Thursday in attacks around the country, police said. Also Thursday, the military released five Iraqi women detainees, a move demanded by the kidnappers of American reporter Jill Carroll. Officials said the women were part of a group of about 420 Iraqis to be released Thursday and Friday and that their freedom was not connected to efforts to free Carroll, who was seized in Baghdad on Jan. 7. However, Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal said intensive efforts were under way to release Carroll, a freelancer for the Christian Science Monitor, and "God willing, that she will be released." Casey spoke after attending a ceremony in which Polish troops transferred leadership of the south-central region of Iraq to Iraqi forces, the first such large-scale handover since the conflict began in 2003. The transfer of authority for the sector, which includes about 25 percent of the country, was part of a larger strategy by the U.S.-led coalition to build up Iraqi forces and give them greater role in security a move that could enable American and other international troops to draw down. In a study for the Pentagon, Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to crush the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disputed reports that the military was overextended, suggesting Wednesday that talk of an overburdened force was "either out of date or just misdirected." Pentagon officials announced this week that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq has been cut to about 136,000 their lowest level since last summer. Two years ago the U.S. force dropped to about 110,000 but was boosted after insurgent violence spiked. Last month, Casey said he expects the troop levels to be brought to about 130,000 by the beginning of March and that more cuts could be made later in the year if conditions permit and more Iraqi soldiers finish their training.
`Forces are stretched,' top US general in Iraq says San Jose Mercury News
Top US commander in Iraq admits troops stretched Xinhua
TIME - Special Broadcasting Service - Boston Globe - Christian Science Monitor - all 1,026 related »
Top U.S. Commander in Iraq Acknowledges Army `stretched' but Says It Can Accomplish Its Mission. The top U.S. commander in Iraq acknowledged on Thursday that the U.S. Army was stretched but insisted forces here were capable of accomplishing their mission and any recommendation to reduce troops further would be dictated by the situation on the battlefield. U.S. officials said Gen. George Casey was speaking about the Army in general and not specifically about the 136,000-strong force in Iraq. However, his comments are likely to fuel a debate inside the U.S. government over whether the United States can sustain the fight long enough to break the back of the Sunni Arab-led insurgency. "The forces are stretched and I don't think there's any question of that," Casey told reporters. "But the Army has been for the last several years going through a modernization strategy that will produce more units and more ready units."
A fuel tanker burns after being hit with gunfire from unknown attackers, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2006, in Baghdad, Iraq. No one was reported injured in the attack. (AP Photo/Asaad Muhsin)
Casey said he had discussed manpower strains with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker on Wednesday and that the Army chief of staff feels he can sustain missions around the world. Casey was adamant that the troops in Iraq were getting the job done. "So, yep, folks are stretched here but they certainly accomplish their mission, and the forces that you've seen on the ground are absolutely magnificent," Casey added. In Washington, President Bush brushed aside talk that the United States could not prevail in Iraq. "If the question is whether or not we can win victory in Iraq, our commanders will have the troops necessary to do that. If the question is, Can we help keep the peace in a place like the Far East? Absolutely," Bush told reporters. "And let me use the Far East as an example of what I'm talking about," the president continued. "There were some 30,000 on the South Korean peninsula. As you might remember, we reduced the amount of manpower and replaced it with technology." Meanwhile, the U.S. command announced that two more American soldiers died Wednesday one in a bombing south of Baghdad and a second of wounds suffered in a rocket attack in Ramadi. At least 2,238 members of the U.S. military have died since the war began, according to an Associated Press count. At least 11 Iraqis were killed Thursday in attacks around the country, police said. Also Thursday, the military released five Iraqi women detainees, a move demanded by the kidnappers of American reporter Jill Carroll. Officials said the women were part of a group of about 420 Iraqis to be released Thursday and Friday and that their freedom was not connected to efforts to free Carroll, who was seized in Baghdad on Jan. 7. However, Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal said intensive efforts were under way to release Carroll, a freelancer for the Christian Science Monitor, and "God willing, that she will be released." Casey spoke after attending a ceremony in which Polish troops transferred leadership of the south-central region of Iraq to Iraqi forces, the first such large-scale handover since the conflict began in 2003. The transfer of authority for the sector, which includes about 25 percent of the country, was part of a larger strategy by the U.S.-led coalition to build up Iraqi forces and give them greater role in security a move that could enable American and other international troops to draw down. In a study for the Pentagon, Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to crush the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disputed reports that the military was overextended, suggesting Wednesday that talk of an overburdened force was "either out of date or just misdirected." Pentagon officials announced this week that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq has been cut to about 136,000 their lowest level since last summer. Two years ago the U.S. force dropped to about 110,000 but was boosted after insurgent violence spiked. Last month, Casey said he expects the troop levels to be brought to about 130,000 by the beginning of March and that more cuts could be made later in the year if conditions permit and more Iraqi soldiers finish their training. At least 11 Iraqis were killed Thursday in attacks around the country, police said. Also Thursday, the military released five Iraqi women detainees, a move demanded by the kidnappers of American reporter Jill Carroll. Officials said the women were part of a group of about 420 Iraqis to be released Thursday and Friday and that their freedom was not connected to efforts to free Carroll, who was seized in Baghdad on Jan. 7. However, Maj. Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal said intensive efforts were under way to release Carroll, a freelancer for the Christian Science Monitor, and "God willing, that she will be released." Casey spoke after attending a ceremony in which Polish troops transferred leadership of the south-central region of Iraq to Iraqi forces, the first such large-scale handover since the conflict began in 2003. The transfer of authority for the sector, which includes about 25 percent of the country, was part of a larger strategy by the U.S.-led coalition to build up Iraqi forces and give them greater role in security a move that could enable American and other international troops to draw down. In a study for the Pentagon, Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to crush the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disputed reports that the military was overextended, suggesting Wednesday that talk of an overburdened force was "either out of date or just misdirected." Pentagon officials announced this week that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq has been cut to about 136,000 their lowest level since last summer. Two years ago the U.S. force dropped to about 110,000 but was boosted after insurgent violence spiked. Last month, Casey said he expects the troop levels to be brought to about 130,000 by the beginning of March and that more cuts could be made later in the year if conditions permit and more Iraqi soldiers finish their training.
`Forces are stretched,' top US general in Iraq says San Jose Mercury News
Top US commander in Iraq admits troops stretched Xinhua
TIME - Special Broadcasting Service - Boston Globe - Christian Science Monitor - all 1,026 related »
US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
By Adam Brookes
BBC Pentagon correspondent
A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.
Bloggers beware.
As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer.
From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.
The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act.
Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.
The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.
Propaganda
The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.
All these are engaged in information operations.
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.
"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.
"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on.
The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.
"In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.
Credibility problem
Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness.
When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone. It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system
Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications.
And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon.
But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear.
The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking.
It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support.
It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials".
It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.
'Fight the net'
When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone.
It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.
"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads.
The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap.
The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers, enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence.
"Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing."
US digital ambition
And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".
US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".
Consider that for a moment.
The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.
Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?
The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.
And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm
Published: 2006/01/27 18:05:49 GMT
© BBC MMVI
By Adam Brookes
BBC Pentagon correspondent
A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.
Bloggers beware.
As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer.
From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.
The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act.
Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.
The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.
Propaganda
The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.
All these are engaged in information operations.
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.
"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.
"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on.
The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.
"In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.
Credibility problem
Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness.
When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone. It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system
Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications.
And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon.
But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear.
The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking.
It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support.
It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials".
It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.
'Fight the net'
When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone.
It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.
"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads.
The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap.
The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers, enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence.
"Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing."
US digital ambition
And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".
US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".
Consider that for a moment.
The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.
Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?
The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.
And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm
Published: 2006/01/27 18:05:49 GMT
© BBC MMVI
US Senate passes resolution condemning Iran Fri Jan 27, 6:24 PM ET
The U.S. Senate on Friday unanimously passed a resolution condemning Iran for its nuclear program and backing efforts to report it to the U.N. Security Council.
The resolution, approved by a voice vote, cites Iran's "many failures ... to comply faithfully with its nuclear non-proliferations obligations."
It "strongly urges" the International Atomic Energy Agency at its special meeting on Thursday to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over suspicions it is secretly trying to develop atomic bombs.
The resolution also calls on all Security Council members, particularly Russia and China, to "act expeditiously" to deal with Iran's suspected noncompliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, the five veto-wielding powers of the 15-member Security Council, plus Germany plan to meet in London on Monday to try to resolve differences over whether to send Iran to the council. Russia and China to date have opposed a formal referral.
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.
The U.S. Senate on Friday unanimously passed a resolution condemning Iran for its nuclear program and backing efforts to report it to the U.N. Security Council.
The resolution, approved by a voice vote, cites Iran's "many failures ... to comply faithfully with its nuclear non-proliferations obligations."
It "strongly urges" the International Atomic Energy Agency at its special meeting on Thursday to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over suspicions it is secretly trying to develop atomic bombs.
The resolution also calls on all Security Council members, particularly Russia and China, to "act expeditiously" to deal with Iran's suspected noncompliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, the five veto-wielding powers of the 15-member Security Council, plus Germany plan to meet in London on Monday to try to resolve differences over whether to send Iran to the council. Russia and China to date have opposed a formal referral.
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.
Misfire leaves delegate gun-shy Roanoke Times
Del. Jack Reid accidently blasted a bullet into a bulletproof vest hanging on his Capitol office door. A state legislator accidently discharged a small handgun in his Capitol Square office Thursday morning, hitting a bulletproof vest that happened to be hanging on his door. Del. Jack Reid, R-Henrico County, publicly apologized on the floor of the House of Delegates and in private meetings with the chamber's Republican and Democratic caucuses. Reid suffered a cut on his hand in the accident, but there were no other injuries. Reid, 63, said the accident happened about 8:50 a.m, after he arrived at his seventh-floor legislative office in the General Assembly Building. The building was teeming with activity at the time, with legislators, staffers, lobbyists and citizens visiting offices and attending committee meetings.
Lawmaker Says Gun Went Off by Accident Los Angeles Times
Virginia lawmaker's gun discharges in office; bullet stopped by ... Daily Press
WRIC - NBC 17.com - Myrtle Beach Sun News - Virginian Pilot - all 161 related »
Del. Jack Reid accidently blasted a bullet into a bulletproof vest hanging on his Capitol office door. A state legislator accidently discharged a small handgun in his Capitol Square office Thursday morning, hitting a bulletproof vest that happened to be hanging on his door. Del. Jack Reid, R-Henrico County, publicly apologized on the floor of the House of Delegates and in private meetings with the chamber's Republican and Democratic caucuses. Reid suffered a cut on his hand in the accident, but there were no other injuries. Reid, 63, said the accident happened about 8:50 a.m, after he arrived at his seventh-floor legislative office in the General Assembly Building. The building was teeming with activity at the time, with legislators, staffers, lobbyists and citizens visiting offices and attending committee meetings.
Lawmaker Says Gun Went Off by Accident Los Angeles Times
Virginia lawmaker's gun discharges in office; bullet stopped by ... Daily Press
WRIC - NBC 17.com - Myrtle Beach Sun News - Virginian Pilot - all 161 related »
Hil's for filibuster New York Daily News
Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday backed a rebel band of Senate Dems seeking to filibuster a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. Democratic leaders had warned that filibuster efforts were going nowhere and would let President Bush score easy political points, but Clinton said, "I oppose his nomination and support efforts to block his confirmation." "I do not think Judge Alito would advance the principles Americans hold most dear," she said, adding she would vote against a move to cut off a filibuster should one occur. Any senator can filibuster - or command the floor to block a vote. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture to end a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made it clear earlier in the day that the party didn't have the votes to defeat a cloture vote, so a filibuster was doomed to failure. Nevertheless, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) have pushed for a filibuster, a move that delights Republicans. "If the Democratic left does a filibuster led by Kerry, that's found money for us," a top GOP official said. The filibuster tactic could have repercussions for Clinton. Her move is bound to be seen as an appeal to the liberal base that dominates the Democratic presidential primaries, following several Senate votes that could be seen as attempts to move to the center. In an interview on the "CBS Evening News," Bush said of Clinton's 2008 chances, "She's formidable." A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he had made no decision on a filibuster and declined comment on Clinton's move.
An uphill battle for filibuster votes Boston Globe
The filibuster fiasco Salon
Raw Story - Detroit Free Press - Washington Post - Miami Herald - all 2,016 related »
Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday backed a rebel band of Senate Dems seeking to filibuster a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. Democratic leaders had warned that filibuster efforts were going nowhere and would let President Bush score easy political points, but Clinton said, "I oppose his nomination and support efforts to block his confirmation." "I do not think Judge Alito would advance the principles Americans hold most dear," she said, adding she would vote against a move to cut off a filibuster should one occur. Any senator can filibuster - or command the floor to block a vote. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture to end a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made it clear earlier in the day that the party didn't have the votes to defeat a cloture vote, so a filibuster was doomed to failure. Nevertheless, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) have pushed for a filibuster, a move that delights Republicans. "If the Democratic left does a filibuster led by Kerry, that's found money for us," a top GOP official said. The filibuster tactic could have repercussions for Clinton. Her move is bound to be seen as an appeal to the liberal base that dominates the Democratic presidential primaries, following several Senate votes that could be seen as attempts to move to the center. In an interview on the "CBS Evening News," Bush said of Clinton's 2008 chances, "She's formidable." A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he had made no decision on a filibuster and declined comment on Clinton's move.
An uphill battle for filibuster votes Boston Globe
The filibuster fiasco Salon
Raw Story - Detroit Free Press - Washington Post - Miami Herald - all 2,016 related »
Insulin for inhalation approved in US Globe and Mail
The first inhaled version of insulin won US approval yesterday, offering an alternative for some of the daily shots millions of diabetics use to control blood sugar and prevent complications from the disease. The new product is a short-acting powder form of insulin that can be taken before meals. Many patients, including nearly all Type 1 diabetics, still will need to get long-acting insulin by injection, Food and Drug Administration officials said.
Pfizer inhaled insulin wins US approval Reuters
FDA approves inhaled form of insulin DetNews.com
Los Angeles Times - Seattle Post Intelligencer - Washington Post - Newsday - all 672 related »
The first inhaled version of insulin won US approval yesterday, offering an alternative for some of the daily shots millions of diabetics use to control blood sugar and prevent complications from the disease. The new product is a short-acting powder form of insulin that can be taken before meals. Many patients, including nearly all Type 1 diabetics, still will need to get long-acting insulin by injection, Food and Drug Administration officials said.
Pfizer inhaled insulin wins US approval Reuters
FDA approves inhaled form of insulin DetNews.com
Los Angeles Times - Seattle Post Intelligencer - Washington Post - Newsday - all 672 related »
GDP growth unexpected slows; home sales hot Reuters
The US economy ended 2005 on a surprisingly soft note as consumer spending grew at the slowest rate since 2001 and businesses were less eager to boost investment, a government report on Friday showed. The Commerce Department said gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity within U.S. borders, expanded at a weak 1.1 percent annual rate in the October-December period -- little more than a quarter of the third quarter's 4.1 percent rate. It was the weakest growth rate for any three months since 0.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2004, much below what Wall Street had anticipated, and initially sent stock futures and the dollar tumbling and bond prices soaring. But later data showing new-home sales strengthened in December, together with speculation that some of the fourth-quarter slowdown might prove temporary, helped the stock market post sharp gains by midday. The GDP report surprised analysts, partly because it implied such widespread softness in key drivers of economic activity. Consumer spending, which fuels two-thirds of the economy, grew at only a 1.1 percent rate, sharply below the third-quarter rate and the weakest since a 1 percent gain in second quarter of 2001.
Spending Slowdown Curbs Growth Washington Post
US economic growth slows Globe and Mail
BusinessWeek - Bloomberg - Los Angeles Times - TheStreet.com (subscription) - all 391 related »
The US economy ended 2005 on a surprisingly soft note as consumer spending grew at the slowest rate since 2001 and businesses were less eager to boost investment, a government report on Friday showed. The Commerce Department said gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity within U.S. borders, expanded at a weak 1.1 percent annual rate in the October-December period -- little more than a quarter of the third quarter's 4.1 percent rate. It was the weakest growth rate for any three months since 0.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2004, much below what Wall Street had anticipated, and initially sent stock futures and the dollar tumbling and bond prices soaring. But later data showing new-home sales strengthened in December, together with speculation that some of the fourth-quarter slowdown might prove temporary, helped the stock market post sharp gains by midday. The GDP report surprised analysts, partly because it implied such widespread softness in key drivers of economic activity. Consumer spending, which fuels two-thirds of the economy, grew at only a 1.1 percent rate, sharply below the third-quarter rate and the weakest since a 1 percent gain in second quarter of 2001.
Spending Slowdown Curbs Growth Washington Post
US economic growth slows Globe and Mail
BusinessWeek - Bloomberg - Los Angeles Times - TheStreet.com (subscription) - all 391 related »
Gates raises stakes in tuberculosis battle Sydney Morning Herald
Microsoft boss Bill Gates pledged on Friday to triple his funding to eradicating tuberculosis across the world as the World Economic Forum in Switzerland took aim at containing and eradicating illness. Gates joined British treasury chief Gordon Brown at the forum in Davos to announce the Global Plan to Stop Tuberculosis, an initiative for funding efforts against the disease in the developing world. Funding health care initiatives, at least with private money, had been problematic, Gates said. "In health, there's real problems in that the people who have these diseases don't have the money to justify the investment," he said at a seminar with Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Some 15 million people die prematurely annually because of a lack of drugs. He said his Gates Foundation would triple the amount of money it has dedicated to TB research from $US300 million ($400 million) to $US900 million by 2015.
Gates pledges $900m for TB eradication Khaleej Times
Gates pledges $900m to fight against TB Guardian Unlimited
Calgary Sun - Special Broadcasting Service - Scotsman - International Herald Tribune - all 322 related »
Microsoft boss Bill Gates pledged on Friday to triple his funding to eradicating tuberculosis across the world as the World Economic Forum in Switzerland took aim at containing and eradicating illness. Gates joined British treasury chief Gordon Brown at the forum in Davos to announce the Global Plan to Stop Tuberculosis, an initiative for funding efforts against the disease in the developing world. Funding health care initiatives, at least with private money, had been problematic, Gates said. "In health, there's real problems in that the people who have these diseases don't have the money to justify the investment," he said at a seminar with Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Some 15 million people die prematurely annually because of a lack of drugs. He said his Gates Foundation would triple the amount of money it has dedicated to TB research from $US300 million ($400 million) to $US900 million by 2015.
Gates pledges $900m for TB eradication Khaleej Times
Gates pledges $900m to fight against TB Guardian Unlimited
Calgary Sun - Special Broadcasting Service - Scotsman - International Herald Tribune - all 322 related »
Chevron Earnings Hit Record Los Angeles Times
Despite steep hurricane-related costs, oil giant Chevron Corp.'s profit jumped to a record $4.1 billion in the fourth quarter, boosted mostly by the same high oil, natural gas and gasoline prices that have stretched household budgets and enraged politicians over the last year. Chevron's quarterly earnings were up 20% compared with $3.4 billion a year earlier. However, the per-share results of $1.86, up from $1.63 a share in the fourth quarter of 2004, were 3 cents below analyst expectations, according to a survey by Thomson Financial.
Rising Oil Prices Help Lift Chevron Profit to Quarterly Record New York Times
Chevron's profits up, but still miss Wall Street estimates San Jose Mercury News
Seattle Times - Reuters - Houston Chronicle - ABC News - all 196 related »
Despite steep hurricane-related costs, oil giant Chevron Corp.'s profit jumped to a record $4.1 billion in the fourth quarter, boosted mostly by the same high oil, natural gas and gasoline prices that have stretched household budgets and enraged politicians over the last year. Chevron's quarterly earnings were up 20% compared with $3.4 billion a year earlier. However, the per-share results of $1.86, up from $1.63 a share in the fourth quarter of 2004, were 3 cents below analyst expectations, according to a survey by Thomson Financial.
Rising Oil Prices Help Lift Chevron Profit to Quarterly Record New York Times
Chevron's profits up, but still miss Wall Street estimates San Jose Mercury News
Seattle Times - Reuters - Houston Chronicle - ABC News - all 196 related »
As fears persist, oil prices head up Houston Chronicle
Crude oil futures climbed back above $67 a barrel Friday amid nagging supply fears linked to Iran's nuclear standoff and militant attacks in Nigeria. Adding to the bullish tone, Saudi Arabia Oil Minister Ali Naimi said prices are unlikely to fall in the near term, and OPEC's president suggested the global economy could live with $60 a barrel. But observers say OPEC is unlikely to alter its policy of pumping at full capacity when it meets in Vienna, Austria, next week, rejecting for now suggestions by Iran and Venezuela that it must cut its output to keep prices from dropping. Light, sweet crude for March delivery gained $1.50 to settle at $67.76 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. March Brent crude futures in London rose $1.32 to settle at $66.24 a barrel. In New York, heating oil gained 2.89 cents to $1.8069 a gallon, while gasoline futures advanced by 5.21 cents to settle at $1.7364 a gallon. Natural gas rose 17.1 cents to $8.40 per million British thermal units.
Oil Prices: The New Reality BusinessWeek
Crude Oil Rises on Concern Iran Standoff May Disrupt Supplies Bloomberg
MarketWatch - Forbes - CBS News - ABC News - all 441 related »
Crude oil futures climbed back above $67 a barrel Friday amid nagging supply fears linked to Iran's nuclear standoff and militant attacks in Nigeria. Adding to the bullish tone, Saudi Arabia Oil Minister Ali Naimi said prices are unlikely to fall in the near term, and OPEC's president suggested the global economy could live with $60 a barrel. But observers say OPEC is unlikely to alter its policy of pumping at full capacity when it meets in Vienna, Austria, next week, rejecting for now suggestions by Iran and Venezuela that it must cut its output to keep prices from dropping. Light, sweet crude for March delivery gained $1.50 to settle at $67.76 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. March Brent crude futures in London rose $1.32 to settle at $66.24 a barrel. In New York, heating oil gained 2.89 cents to $1.8069 a gallon, while gasoline futures advanced by 5.21 cents to settle at $1.7364 a gallon. Natural gas rose 17.1 cents to $8.40 per million British thermal units.
Oil Prices: The New Reality BusinessWeek
Crude Oil Rises on Concern Iran Standoff May Disrupt Supplies Bloomberg
MarketWatch - Forbes - CBS News - ABC News - all 441 related »
Pelosi Questions Bush's Spying Program Forbes
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi says President Bush should have used his extensive authority under the law to monitor suspected terrorists rather than approve the National Security Agency's disputed monitoring program. "I would not want any president - Democrat or Republican - to have the expanded power the administration is claiming in this case," Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview with The Associated Press. Pelosi did not say the NSA's surveillance program was illegal. But she said the administration should follow the procedures in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows government lawyers to ask a secretive court for warrants for surveillance in the United States during national security investigations.
Domestic Spying Defense Washington Post
Experts challenge need for warrantless spying San Jose Mercury News
Asian Tribune - New York Times - The State - MSNBC - all 298 related »
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi says President Bush should have used his extensive authority under the law to monitor suspected terrorists rather than approve the National Security Agency's disputed monitoring program. "I would not want any president - Democrat or Republican - to have the expanded power the administration is claiming in this case," Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview with The Associated Press. Pelosi did not say the NSA's surveillance program was illegal. But she said the administration should follow the procedures in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows government lawyers to ask a secretive court for warrants for surveillance in the United States during national security investigations.
Domestic Spying Defense Washington Post
Experts challenge need for warrantless spying San Jose Mercury News
Asian Tribune - New York Times - The State - MSNBC - all 298 related »
January 29, 2006
Health Care, Vexing to Clinton, Is Now at Top of Bush's Agenda
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 More than 12 years after President Bill Clinton unveiled his plan to remake the nation's health care system, President Bush is moving the issue once again to the top of the national agenda and is expected to push a series of health care proposals in his State of the Union address on Tuesday.
Where Mr. Clinton was driven by a desire to guarantee health insurance for every American, Mr. Bush is focusing primarily on health costs, which he says are swamping employers and threatening economic growth. Where Mr. Clinton favored a larger role for government, Mr. Bush has a fundamentally different philosophy, built on the idea that placing more responsibility in the hands of individuals will create market pressure to hold down costs.
The long-running debate has taken on new urgency as more and more companies find themselves struggling to pay for employee health benefits. Health care costs have been a big factor in the troubles of the domestic auto industry, among others.
But some policy experts, Republicans and Democrats alike, say the Bush proposals, which are built around tax breaks, may further drive up health spending and costs by fueling the demand for health care. Such unintended effects show how difficult it is to apply economic theory to the complexities of the current health care system.
By making health care a prominent theme of his prime-time address to the nation, Mr. Bush hopes to regain the initiative on domestic policy. Success with his health care proposals, following the failure of his effort to overhaul Social Security, would allow the president to build political momentum heading into the midterm elections this fall.
The White House has indicated that Mr. Bush will propose tax deductions for out-of-pocket medical expenses, rules to encourage the use of health savings accounts and incentives for small businesses across the country to band together and buy health insurance, exempt from state regulation.
Regina E. Herzlinger, a professor at Harvard Business School, said, "Insuring the uninsured is a fine objective, but how will this control the health costs that are hobbling our global competitiveness? Health savings accounts will increase coverage, and that's great. But they are being touted as a way to control costs, and I very much doubt that claim."
Democrats see the Bush proposals as a pastiche of old and new ideas that falls far short of what is required to tame the explosive growth in health costs.
Many economists say that the tax code, by subsidizing the purchase of health insurance, has fostered excessive use of health care services, driving up costs. Rather than proposing any limit on this subsidy, Mr. Bush wants to make it more widely available, to people who buy health care and insurance on their own.
Under current law, employers who pay health insurance premiums for employees can deduct the payments as a business expense on their tax returns, and the payments are not counted as taxable income for the employees. But such subsidies are unavailable to people who buy insurance themselves. President Bush sees that difference as unfair.
Allan B. Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy, said, "Health care purchased by an employer is done on a pretax basis, before your payroll taxes, before your income taxes. If you work for an employer who cannot afford to provide health insurance and so you go out and buy it, you have to use after-tax dollars."
In an interview, Mr. Hubbard continued, "Another unfairness is that if you buy health care with your insurance, you use pretax dollars. If you pay for it out of pocket, you have to use after-tax dollars. That encourages you to insure health care events that are routine. Insurance was never created to deal with the routine."
People use health savings accounts to pay routine medical expenses and buy high-deductible insurance policies to cover larger expenses. Mr. Bush says this arrangement encourages people to take more responsibility for all aspects of their care, including its cost.
"It's the opposite of federal control," Mr. Bush told a group of small-business owners this month. "It is patient control."
The White House had been hoping to highlight the new Medicare drug benefit as a model, showing how private health plans could deliver better benefits at lower cost than the government. But if Mr. Bush mentions it in his State of the Union address, he will invite catcalls from Democrats.
Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader, said the drug benefit had become "a fiasco, a disaster," because it was written by Republicans who placed too much trust in private markets.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said, "Health savings accounts are brought to you by the same people who brought you the confusing, special-interest-driven Medicare prescription drug bill."
Health policy experts raise many questions about Mr. Bush's proposals: Would the new tax breaks go to people who already had insurance or would buy it anyway? Would they undermine the system of employer-provided health insurance? Would healthy individuals be more likely to take the new options, leaving employers to pay for sick people with higher health costs?
Stuart M. Butler, a vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Bush was focusing more on costs than on coverage for the uninsured. The tax proposals, he said, are "a bit of a gamble," forced on the president by the bizarre politics of health care.
Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who worked at the Treasury under President Clinton, said, "The new tax breaks would be expensive and regressive, offering the largest benefits to the highest-income taxpayers."
In diagnosing flaws in the health care system, Mr. Bush could lift whole sentences from Mr. Clinton's address to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 22, 1993.
Opening his campaign for "health security," Mr. Clinton said, "Our medical bills are growing at over twice the rate of inflation." He warned that "rising costs are a special nightmare for our small businesses," and that "health care costs will devour more and more and more of our budget."
The Clinton plan died in Congress, after months of criticism from small businesses, health insurance companies and Republicans, who called it a costly, complex "big government" scheme.
Since then, national health spending has doubled, to $1.9 trillion. Health care now accounts for one-sixth of the nation's economy. Medicare and Medicaid, which accounted for 15.5 percent of federal spending in 1993, now consume almost 21 percent.
In Mr. Bush's first term, the number of people without health insurance increased more than 1 million a year, to 45.8 million in 2004, the last year for which official figures were available. .
Democrats and consumer groups led the campaign for health care legislation in 1993. Now business executives and small-business owners express a similar sense of urgency.
In his recent meeting with small-business owners, Mr. Bush said, "Government policy has got to aim at the increasing cost of health care." The number of uninsured is rising because health costs are going up, he said, "so the government needs to address the cost."
While they are not required to provide health benefits, many large employers are committed to doing so, despite the rapidly rising costs. Employers see health benefits as a way to attract workers and to keep them productive, said E. Neil Trautwein, assistant vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers.
Over the years, many employers have become expert in buying health coverage for employees, and they do not want to drop this responsibility or dismantle the current system.
But employers have been clamoring for policy-makers to address the needs of the uninsured. Employers say they indirectly pay for the uninsured, because the cost of their care is factored into the prices charged by hospitals and other health care providers.
"The health care cost crisis has a lot to do with the growing number of uninsured," said Katie W. Mahoney, manager of health policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Health Care, Vexing to Clinton, Is Now at Top of Bush's Agenda
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 More than 12 years after President Bill Clinton unveiled his plan to remake the nation's health care system, President Bush is moving the issue once again to the top of the national agenda and is expected to push a series of health care proposals in his State of the Union address on Tuesday.
Where Mr. Clinton was driven by a desire to guarantee health insurance for every American, Mr. Bush is focusing primarily on health costs, which he says are swamping employers and threatening economic growth. Where Mr. Clinton favored a larger role for government, Mr. Bush has a fundamentally different philosophy, built on the idea that placing more responsibility in the hands of individuals will create market pressure to hold down costs.
The long-running debate has taken on new urgency as more and more companies find themselves struggling to pay for employee health benefits. Health care costs have been a big factor in the troubles of the domestic auto industry, among others.
But some policy experts, Republicans and Democrats alike, say the Bush proposals, which are built around tax breaks, may further drive up health spending and costs by fueling the demand for health care. Such unintended effects show how difficult it is to apply economic theory to the complexities of the current health care system.
By making health care a prominent theme of his prime-time address to the nation, Mr. Bush hopes to regain the initiative on domestic policy. Success with his health care proposals, following the failure of his effort to overhaul Social Security, would allow the president to build political momentum heading into the midterm elections this fall.
The White House has indicated that Mr. Bush will propose tax deductions for out-of-pocket medical expenses, rules to encourage the use of health savings accounts and incentives for small businesses across the country to band together and buy health insurance, exempt from state regulation.
Regina E. Herzlinger, a professor at Harvard Business School, said, "Insuring the uninsured is a fine objective, but how will this control the health costs that are hobbling our global competitiveness? Health savings accounts will increase coverage, and that's great. But they are being touted as a way to control costs, and I very much doubt that claim."
Democrats see the Bush proposals as a pastiche of old and new ideas that falls far short of what is required to tame the explosive growth in health costs.
Many economists say that the tax code, by subsidizing the purchase of health insurance, has fostered excessive use of health care services, driving up costs. Rather than proposing any limit on this subsidy, Mr. Bush wants to make it more widely available, to people who buy health care and insurance on their own.
Under current law, employers who pay health insurance premiums for employees can deduct the payments as a business expense on their tax returns, and the payments are not counted as taxable income for the employees. But such subsidies are unavailable to people who buy insurance themselves. President Bush sees that difference as unfair.
Allan B. Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy, said, "Health care purchased by an employer is done on a pretax basis, before your payroll taxes, before your income taxes. If you work for an employer who cannot afford to provide health insurance and so you go out and buy it, you have to use after-tax dollars."
In an interview, Mr. Hubbard continued, "Another unfairness is that if you buy health care with your insurance, you use pretax dollars. If you pay for it out of pocket, you have to use after-tax dollars. That encourages you to insure health care events that are routine. Insurance was never created to deal with the routine."
People use health savings accounts to pay routine medical expenses and buy high-deductible insurance policies to cover larger expenses. Mr. Bush says this arrangement encourages people to take more responsibility for all aspects of their care, including its cost.
"It's the opposite of federal control," Mr. Bush told a group of small-business owners this month. "It is patient control."
The White House had been hoping to highlight the new Medicare drug benefit as a model, showing how private health plans could deliver better benefits at lower cost than the government. But if Mr. Bush mentions it in his State of the Union address, he will invite catcalls from Democrats.
Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader, said the drug benefit had become "a fiasco, a disaster," because it was written by Republicans who placed too much trust in private markets.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said, "Health savings accounts are brought to you by the same people who brought you the confusing, special-interest-driven Medicare prescription drug bill."
Health policy experts raise many questions about Mr. Bush's proposals: Would the new tax breaks go to people who already had insurance or would buy it anyway? Would they undermine the system of employer-provided health insurance? Would healthy individuals be more likely to take the new options, leaving employers to pay for sick people with higher health costs?
Stuart M. Butler, a vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Bush was focusing more on costs than on coverage for the uninsured. The tax proposals, he said, are "a bit of a gamble," forced on the president by the bizarre politics of health care.
Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who worked at the Treasury under President Clinton, said, "The new tax breaks would be expensive and regressive, offering the largest benefits to the highest-income taxpayers."
In diagnosing flaws in the health care system, Mr. Bush could lift whole sentences from Mr. Clinton's address to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 22, 1993.
Opening his campaign for "health security," Mr. Clinton said, "Our medical bills are growing at over twice the rate of inflation." He warned that "rising costs are a special nightmare for our small businesses," and that "health care costs will devour more and more and more of our budget."
The Clinton plan died in Congress, after months of criticism from small businesses, health insurance companies and Republicans, who called it a costly, complex "big government" scheme.
Since then, national health spending has doubled, to $1.9 trillion. Health care now accounts for one-sixth of the nation's economy. Medicare and Medicaid, which accounted for 15.5 percent of federal spending in 1993, now consume almost 21 percent.
In Mr. Bush's first term, the number of people without health insurance increased more than 1 million a year, to 45.8 million in 2004, the last year for which official figures were available. .
Democrats and consumer groups led the campaign for health care legislation in 1993. Now business executives and small-business owners express a similar sense of urgency.
In his recent meeting with small-business owners, Mr. Bush said, "Government policy has got to aim at the increasing cost of health care." The number of uninsured is rising because health costs are going up, he said, "so the government needs to address the cost."
While they are not required to provide health benefits, many large employers are committed to doing so, despite the rapidly rising costs. Employers see health benefits as a way to attract workers and to keep them productive, said E. Neil Trautwein, assistant vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers.
Over the years, many employers have become expert in buying health coverage for employees, and they do not want to drop this responsibility or dismantle the current system.
But employers have been clamoring for policy-makers to address the needs of the uninsured. Employers say they indirectly pay for the uninsured, because the cost of their care is factored into the prices charged by hospitals and other health care providers.
"The health care cost crisis has a lot to do with the growing number of uninsured," said Katie W. Mahoney, manager of health policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
January 29, 2006
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.
Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.
Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," he said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."
Mr. Acosta said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel whom the public could perceive as speaking for the agency. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.
Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, is a leading authority on the earth's climate system. He directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute on Morningside Heights in Manhattan.
Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.
In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.
He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled, and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.
But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.
In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."
He said he was particularly incensed that the directives affecting his statements had come through informal telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.
Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."
The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet." The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.
After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.
Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.
In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.
Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.
But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal." Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview after Mr. Acosta, in NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would not face any retribution for doing so.
Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was asked about the conversations he flatly denied saying anything of the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta.
Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to go out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have a dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?"
Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr. Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what she told them when the conversations occurred.
"He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D. Travis, an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists, to inform the public, and this kind of attempted muzzling of the science community is really rather dangerous. If we just accept it, then we're contributing to the problem."
Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-December at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr. Hansen be better controlled.
In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's scientific contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public statements clearly as his personal views.
"He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world," Dr. Cicerone said. "I've heard Hansen speak many times and I've read many of his papers, starting in the late 70's. Every single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it's been."
The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing.
One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department. For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of warming and adapt to problems.
In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he identifies the views as his own.
"One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I plan on saying or writing," he wrote.
Many people who work with Dr. Hansen said that politics was not a factor in his dispute with the Bush administration.
"The thing that has always struck me about him is I don't think he's political at all," said Mark R. Hess, director of public affairs for the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., a position that also covers the Goddard Institute in New York.
"He really is not about concerning himself with whose administration is in charge, whether it's Republicans, Democrats or whatever," Mr. Hess said. "He's a pretty down-the-road conservative independent-minded person.
"What he cares deeply about is being a scientist, his research, and I think he feels a true obligation to be able to talk about that in whatever fora are offered to him."
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.
Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.
Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," he said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."
Mr. Acosta said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel whom the public could perceive as speaking for the agency. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.
Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, is a leading authority on the earth's climate system. He directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute on Morningside Heights in Manhattan.
Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.
In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.
He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled, and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.
But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.
In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."
He said he was particularly incensed that the directives affecting his statements had come through informal telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.
Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."
The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet." The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.
After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.
Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.
In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.
Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.
But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal." Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview after Mr. Acosta, in NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would not face any retribution for doing so.
Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was asked about the conversations he flatly denied saying anything of the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta.
Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to go out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have a dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?"
Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr. Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what she told them when the conversations occurred.
"He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D. Travis, an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists, to inform the public, and this kind of attempted muzzling of the science community is really rather dangerous. If we just accept it, then we're contributing to the problem."
Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-December at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr. Hansen be better controlled.
In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's scientific contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public statements clearly as his personal views.
"He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world," Dr. Cicerone said. "I've heard Hansen speak many times and I've read many of his papers, starting in the late 70's. Every single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it's been."
The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing.
One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department. For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of warming and adapt to problems.
In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he identifies the views as his own.
"One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I plan on saying or writing," he wrote.
Many people who work with Dr. Hansen said that politics was not a factor in his dispute with the Bush administration.
"The thing that has always struck me about him is I don't think he's political at all," said Mark R. Hess, director of public affairs for the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., a position that also covers the Goddard Institute in New York.
"He really is not about concerning himself with whose administration is in charge, whether it's Republicans, Democrats or whatever," Mr. Hess said. "He's a pretty down-the-road conservative independent-minded person.
"What he cares deeply about is being a scientist, his research, and I think he feels a true obligation to be able to talk about that in whatever fora are offered to him."
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Pentagon Can Now Fund Foreign Militaries
Defense Secretary Pushed for New Powers to Better Deal With Emergencies
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 29, 2006; A10
Congress has granted unusual authority for the Pentagon to spend as much as $200 million of its own budget to aid foreign militaries, a break with the traditional practice of channeling foreign military assistance through the State Department.
The move, included in a little-noticed provision of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act passed last month, marks a legislative victory for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who pushed hard for the new powers to deal with emergency situations.
But it has drawn warnings from foreign policy specialists inside and outside the government, who say it could lead to growth of a separate military assistance effort not subject to the same constraints applied to foreign aid programs that are administered by the State Department. Such constraints are meant to ensure that aid recipients meet certain standards, including respect for human rights and protection of legitimate civilian authorities.
"It's important that diplomats remain the ones to make the decisions about U.S. foreign assistance," said George Withers, a senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America and a former staff member on the House Armed Services Committee. "They can ensure such decisions are taken in the broader context of U.S. foreign policy."
Many lawmakers, too, were initially cool to Rumsfeld's request. The Armed Services committees in both the House and Senate declined to write the provision into their original defense authorization bills, citing concerns about a lack of jurisdiction and an absence of detail about where the money would be spent.
But the Pentagon pressed its case, with senior commanders joining top officials in weighing in with reluctant members.
"This was the most heavily lobbied we've been by the Pentagon in the several years I've been here," said one Senate staff member. "They really, really wanted this."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also threw her support behind the measure, overruling lower-ranking staff members who had argued that existing laws were sufficient and who had cautioned against granting the Pentagon such flexibility, department officials said. She joined Rumsfeld last summer in a letter to Congress urging passage of the legislation.
The initiative addresses an issue that both the Pentagon and the State Department have identified as crucial in fighting terrorism and bolstering stability abroad -- namely, "building partnership capacity" in Africa and other developing regions.
Administration officials complain that attempts to provide such security assistance, especially in crisis situations, have often been hampered by a patchwork of legal restrictions and by a division of responsibilities among U.S. government departments. Improving security in a failing foreign nation, for instance, might involve drawing on the Pentagon for military training, the State Department for police training, the Department of Homeland Security for border protection and the Treasury Department for financial enforcement. Cobbling such pieces together can take many months, officials say.
After striking out with the Armed Services committees, Pentagon officials found an ally in Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has a particular interest in Africa. Inhofe agreed to propose the new authority on the Senate floor as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. To ensure compliance with existing foreign aid rules, language was included saying that funds for the missions would be transferred from the Pentagon to the State Department before being expended and would be subject to limitations of the Foreign Assistance Act.
These conditions were dropped in a later Senate-House conference. But other conditions were added still reflecting congressional reservations.
The final version -- Section 1206 of the authorization act -- says the Pentagon can provide training, equipment and supplies "to build the capacity" of foreign militaries to conduct counterterrorist operations or join with U.S. forces in stability operations. But the section also stipulates that orders for such aid must originate with the president, and it requires the Pentagon to work closely with the State Department in formulating and implementing the assistance.
This new authority cannot be used to provide any assistance banned by other U.S. laws, the provision adds. Further, the measure grants less money than initially requested -- $200 million instead of $750 million. And it expires after two years, far short of the open-ended mandate that Rumsfeld had sought.
"We're calling it a pilot program," said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "But I think it'll prove its worth."
Defense officials say they are pleased with the outcome. "It's a very good start," said Jeffrey Nadaner, deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations. "For the Congress, which hasn't done this before, we think it's a bold, cooperative move."
Reaction at the upper levels of the State Department also has been positive. Under a separate provision approved with the train-and-equip measure, the department is getting $200 million from the Pentagon to bolster a new Reconstruction and Stabilization Office for coordinating civilian assistance. This provision stirred its own controversy among lawmakers, who as a matter of principle have opposed shifting Pentagon funds to the State Department.
Having gained this much, the Pentagon and State Department are now setting their sights on a more ambitious overhaul of foreign assistance rules.
"In the longer run, we need to have our assistance structured in a way that will give us even broader flexibility," said Philip Zelikow, the State Department's counselor. "The president and his advisers must be able to devise a program that can allocate money as needed among whatever agencies have the skill sets to deliver the capabilities, whether State, Defense, Justice or other government agencies."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Defense Secretary Pushed for New Powers to Better Deal With Emergencies
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 29, 2006; A10
Congress has granted unusual authority for the Pentagon to spend as much as $200 million of its own budget to aid foreign militaries, a break with the traditional practice of channeling foreign military assistance through the State Department.
The move, included in a little-noticed provision of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act passed last month, marks a legislative victory for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who pushed hard for the new powers to deal with emergency situations.
But it has drawn warnings from foreign policy specialists inside and outside the government, who say it could lead to growth of a separate military assistance effort not subject to the same constraints applied to foreign aid programs that are administered by the State Department. Such constraints are meant to ensure that aid recipients meet certain standards, including respect for human rights and protection of legitimate civilian authorities.
"It's important that diplomats remain the ones to make the decisions about U.S. foreign assistance," said George Withers, a senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America and a former staff member on the House Armed Services Committee. "They can ensure such decisions are taken in the broader context of U.S. foreign policy."
Many lawmakers, too, were initially cool to Rumsfeld's request. The Armed Services committees in both the House and Senate declined to write the provision into their original defense authorization bills, citing concerns about a lack of jurisdiction and an absence of detail about where the money would be spent.
But the Pentagon pressed its case, with senior commanders joining top officials in weighing in with reluctant members.
"This was the most heavily lobbied we've been by the Pentagon in the several years I've been here," said one Senate staff member. "They really, really wanted this."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also threw her support behind the measure, overruling lower-ranking staff members who had argued that existing laws were sufficient and who had cautioned against granting the Pentagon such flexibility, department officials said. She joined Rumsfeld last summer in a letter to Congress urging passage of the legislation.
The initiative addresses an issue that both the Pentagon and the State Department have identified as crucial in fighting terrorism and bolstering stability abroad -- namely, "building partnership capacity" in Africa and other developing regions.
Administration officials complain that attempts to provide such security assistance, especially in crisis situations, have often been hampered by a patchwork of legal restrictions and by a division of responsibilities among U.S. government departments. Improving security in a failing foreign nation, for instance, might involve drawing on the Pentagon for military training, the State Department for police training, the Department of Homeland Security for border protection and the Treasury Department for financial enforcement. Cobbling such pieces together can take many months, officials say.
After striking out with the Armed Services committees, Pentagon officials found an ally in Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has a particular interest in Africa. Inhofe agreed to propose the new authority on the Senate floor as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. To ensure compliance with existing foreign aid rules, language was included saying that funds for the missions would be transferred from the Pentagon to the State Department before being expended and would be subject to limitations of the Foreign Assistance Act.
These conditions were dropped in a later Senate-House conference. But other conditions were added still reflecting congressional reservations.
The final version -- Section 1206 of the authorization act -- says the Pentagon can provide training, equipment and supplies "to build the capacity" of foreign militaries to conduct counterterrorist operations or join with U.S. forces in stability operations. But the section also stipulates that orders for such aid must originate with the president, and it requires the Pentagon to work closely with the State Department in formulating and implementing the assistance.
This new authority cannot be used to provide any assistance banned by other U.S. laws, the provision adds. Further, the measure grants less money than initially requested -- $200 million instead of $750 million. And it expires after two years, far short of the open-ended mandate that Rumsfeld had sought.
"We're calling it a pilot program," said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "But I think it'll prove its worth."
Defense officials say they are pleased with the outcome. "It's a very good start," said Jeffrey Nadaner, deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations. "For the Congress, which hasn't done this before, we think it's a bold, cooperative move."
Reaction at the upper levels of the State Department also has been positive. Under a separate provision approved with the train-and-equip measure, the department is getting $200 million from the Pentagon to bolster a new Reconstruction and Stabilization Office for coordinating civilian assistance. This provision stirred its own controversy among lawmakers, who as a matter of principle have opposed shifting Pentagon funds to the State Department.
Having gained this much, the Pentagon and State Department are now setting their sights on a more ambitious overhaul of foreign assistance rules.
"In the longer run, we need to have our assistance structured in a way that will give us even broader flexibility," said Philip Zelikow, the State Department's counselor. "The president and his advisers must be able to devise a program that can allocate money as needed among whatever agencies have the skill sets to deliver the capabilities, whether State, Defense, Justice or other government agencies."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
.S. Policy Seen as Big Loser in Palestinian Vote
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; A16
Standing in a sunny Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, surrounded by his top foreign policy advisers, President Bush issued a clarion call for resolving the deadly Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."
This week, Palestinians gave their answer, handing a landslide victory in national legislative elections to Hamas, which has claimed responsibility for dozens of suicide bombings and desires the elimination of Israel. Bush's statement calling for new leaders was aimed at the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but in the same speech he also said it was necessary to thwart Hamas -- formally the Islamic Resistance Movement -- and other militant groups.
The election outcome signals a dramatic failure in the administration's strategy for Middle East peace, according to analysts and some U.S. officials. Since the United States cannot deal with an organization labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department, Hamas's victory is likely to curtail U.S. aid, limit official U.S. contacts with the Palestinian government and stall efforts to create an independent Palestinian state.
More broadly, Hamas's victory is seen as a setback in the administration's campaign for greater democracy in the Middle East. Elections in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and now the Palestinian territories have resulted in the defeat of secular and moderate parties and the rise of Islamic parties hostile to U.S. interests.
The administration has long been criticized for being reluctant to get involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; even after Bush's 2002 speech, the policy drifted except for occasional high-profile speeches and events. But after Arafat's death in late 2004 and the beginning of the new presidential term, Bush vowed things would be different, saying he would invest "political capital" in ensuring a Palestinian state before he leaves office three years from now.
The effort went wrong on three fronts, according to interviews inside and outside the administration:
· The administration put its hopes on the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and poured hundreds of millions of dollars to fund public works projects. But it failed to back him when he asked for concrete help, especially in his dealings with the Israelis.
· The administration was highly attuned to the shifts of Israeli politics but tone-deaf to the upheaval in Palestinian society. It was so focused on facilitating Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip that it did not press Israel to end settlement expansion, release additional prisoners or take other measures that might have reduced Palestinian indignation.
· Despite deep Israeli misgivings, the administration late last year shifted policy and decided Hamas could participate in the elections even though it had not disarmed its militias, in contrast to rules set for elections in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland.
To be sure, a large share of the blame for Hamas's victory rests with Abbas -- widely perceived as weak and indecisive -- and his quarreling and often corrupt Fatah party. The Palestinian Authority proved incapable of governing Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, adding to the perception of incompetence.
Analysts credit the Bush administration with focusing on building some governing institutions, such as a well-functioning Finance Ministry that handles the foreign aid that keeps the Palestinian Authority afloat. But many experts fault the administration for issuing high-sounding rhetoric without sustained involvement on the ground.
"There were eloquent speeches and praise for Abbas" but little else, said Robert Malley, director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East program, who was on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council staff. "There was an abstract faith in the idea that if you do the right thing, you will get a two-state solution."
The administration at the start of last year pledged it would take a low-key approach that would rely much more on nations in the region to carry the diplomatic burden. Officials were disdainful of the Clinton administration's deep involvement in the peace process, which they believed amounted to micromanaging. But over the course of the year, a top general was dispatched to help organize Palestinian security forces, former World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn was recruited to assist on the Gaza withdrawal and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November personally negotiated the opening of a border crossing.
The key to the administration's plan was Abbas, who was elected president after Arafat's death. Abbas had briefly been prime minister under Arafat in 2003, after international donors threatened to abandon Arafat if he did not allow the creation of a strong prime minister. Abbas quit after a few months, blaming both the United States and Israel for failing to back him up. Administration officials had said they would not repeat the mistake when he became president.
But Abbas faced a steep road. The administration was already perceived in the region as biased toward Israel, in part because Bush backed the Gaza withdrawal plan with pledges that Israel could keep large settlements and refuse the return of Palestinians in a final peace deal. Israel's departure from Gaza was designed to be a unilateral step, depriving Abbas of a negotiated peace victory he could claim; instead, Hamas asserted it had driven the Israelis out with its uncompromising approach.
Abbas cut a deal with Hamas, winning its agreement for a cease-fire in exchange for allowing it to participate in elections. But Abbas did not put conditions on its participation, such as giving up its weapons or even pledging not to attack Israelis -- a problem that did not capture the administration's attention until it was too late.
Abbas privately convinced U.S. officials that a Fatah victory would be a blow to Islamic extremism in the region, making the election showdown more enticing to an administration promoting democracy in the Middle East. He also pledged to quickly pass a law requiring the dismantling of militias as soon as the new legislature was elected. The original argument that he should take action against the militias sooner rather than later faded.
When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned in September that he would try to block Hamas's participation unless it disbanded its militia and accepted Israel's right to exist, the administration forced the Israelis to back off. "Elections are fundamental to the continued evolution and development of the Palestinian process," Rice said.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; A16
Standing in a sunny Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, surrounded by his top foreign policy advisers, President Bush issued a clarion call for resolving the deadly Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."
This week, Palestinians gave their answer, handing a landslide victory in national legislative elections to Hamas, which has claimed responsibility for dozens of suicide bombings and desires the elimination of Israel. Bush's statement calling for new leaders was aimed at the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but in the same speech he also said it was necessary to thwart Hamas -- formally the Islamic Resistance Movement -- and other militant groups.
The election outcome signals a dramatic failure in the administration's strategy for Middle East peace, according to analysts and some U.S. officials. Since the United States cannot deal with an organization labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department, Hamas's victory is likely to curtail U.S. aid, limit official U.S. contacts with the Palestinian government and stall efforts to create an independent Palestinian state.
More broadly, Hamas's victory is seen as a setback in the administration's campaign for greater democracy in the Middle East. Elections in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and now the Palestinian territories have resulted in the defeat of secular and moderate parties and the rise of Islamic parties hostile to U.S. interests.
The administration has long been criticized for being reluctant to get involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; even after Bush's 2002 speech, the policy drifted except for occasional high-profile speeches and events. But after Arafat's death in late 2004 and the beginning of the new presidential term, Bush vowed things would be different, saying he would invest "political capital" in ensuring a Palestinian state before he leaves office three years from now.
The effort went wrong on three fronts, according to interviews inside and outside the administration:
· The administration put its hopes on the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and poured hundreds of millions of dollars to fund public works projects. But it failed to back him when he asked for concrete help, especially in his dealings with the Israelis.
· The administration was highly attuned to the shifts of Israeli politics but tone-deaf to the upheaval in Palestinian society. It was so focused on facilitating Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip that it did not press Israel to end settlement expansion, release additional prisoners or take other measures that might have reduced Palestinian indignation.
· Despite deep Israeli misgivings, the administration late last year shifted policy and decided Hamas could participate in the elections even though it had not disarmed its militias, in contrast to rules set for elections in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland.
To be sure, a large share of the blame for Hamas's victory rests with Abbas -- widely perceived as weak and indecisive -- and his quarreling and often corrupt Fatah party. The Palestinian Authority proved incapable of governing Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, adding to the perception of incompetence.
Analysts credit the Bush administration with focusing on building some governing institutions, such as a well-functioning Finance Ministry that handles the foreign aid that keeps the Palestinian Authority afloat. But many experts fault the administration for issuing high-sounding rhetoric without sustained involvement on the ground.
"There were eloquent speeches and praise for Abbas" but little else, said Robert Malley, director of the International Crisis Group's Middle East program, who was on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council staff. "There was an abstract faith in the idea that if you do the right thing, you will get a two-state solution."
The administration at the start of last year pledged it would take a low-key approach that would rely much more on nations in the region to carry the diplomatic burden. Officials were disdainful of the Clinton administration's deep involvement in the peace process, which they believed amounted to micromanaging. But over the course of the year, a top general was dispatched to help organize Palestinian security forces, former World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn was recruited to assist on the Gaza withdrawal and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November personally negotiated the opening of a border crossing.
The key to the administration's plan was Abbas, who was elected president after Arafat's death. Abbas had briefly been prime minister under Arafat in 2003, after international donors threatened to abandon Arafat if he did not allow the creation of a strong prime minister. Abbas quit after a few months, blaming both the United States and Israel for failing to back him up. Administration officials had said they would not repeat the mistake when he became president.
But Abbas faced a steep road. The administration was already perceived in the region as biased toward Israel, in part because Bush backed the Gaza withdrawal plan with pledges that Israel could keep large settlements and refuse the return of Palestinians in a final peace deal. Israel's departure from Gaza was designed to be a unilateral step, depriving Abbas of a negotiated peace victory he could claim; instead, Hamas asserted it had driven the Israelis out with its uncompromising approach.
Abbas cut a deal with Hamas, winning its agreement for a cease-fire in exchange for allowing it to participate in elections. But Abbas did not put conditions on its participation, such as giving up its weapons or even pledging not to attack Israelis -- a problem that did not capture the administration's attention until it was too late.
Abbas privately convinced U.S. officials that a Fatah victory would be a blow to Islamic extremism in the region, making the election showdown more enticing to an administration promoting democracy in the Middle East. He also pledged to quickly pass a law requiring the dismantling of militias as soon as the new legislature was elected. The original argument that he should take action against the militias sooner rather than later faded.
When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned in September that he would try to block Hamas's participation unless it disbanded its militia and accepted Israel's right to exist, the administration forced the Israelis to back off. "Elections are fundamental to the continued evolution and development of the Palestinian process," Rice said.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
2003 Draft Legislation Covered Eavesdropping
Justice Dept. Officials Call Measure Unrelated; Critics Say Bush Claims Are Undermined
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; A02
Legislation drafted by Justice Department lawyers in 2003 to strengthen the USA Patriot Act would have provided legal backing for several aspects of the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. But officials said yesterday that was not the intent.
Most lawmakers and the public were not aware at the time that President Bush had already issued a secret order allowing the National Security Agency to intercept international calls involving U.S. citizens and legal residents.
Some critics of the NSA program said the draft legislation raises questions about recent administration claims that Bush had clear legal authority to order warrantless domestic spying in late 2001 and had no need to go to Congress for explicit approval.
"It's rather damning to their current view that they didn't need legislation," said Timothy H. Edgar, a national security lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Clearly the lawyers at the Justice Department, or some of them, felt that legislation was needed to allow the government to do what it was doing."
But the Justice Department said that the measures were not drafted to help the NSA effort.
"These proposals were drafted by junior staffers and never formally presented to the attorney general or the White House," said department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos. "They were not drafted with the NSA program in mind."
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 -- dubbed "Patriot II" by critics -- was leaked to the media in February 2003 and soon abandoned by Justice officials, who characterized it at the time as an "early draft" written by staff lawyers. The proposal included several provisions that, in retrospect, would have affected the NSA's program of monitoring telephone calls and e-mails, which was disclosed last month in press reports.
One provision would have made it clear that the president could order wiretapping without court supervision for 15 days after Congress approved the use of military force, as it did against al Qaeda. Current law allows such spying for 15 days without a judge's approval only when Congress issues a declaration of war.
Justice officials have argued more recently that the two types of declarations are legally equivalent.
Another section of the 2003 proposal would have made it easier for the NSA to obtain lists of telephone calls placed or received by U.S. citizens and residents.
A third provision would have created a "statutory defense" for agents who conducted surveillance under "lawful authorization" from the president or attorney general, meaning they could not be prosecuted for violating federal law, according to the draft. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs domestic spying, provides such a defense only if the surveillance was approved by a secret intelligence court established by that law.
Some legal experts who question the president's authority to order warrantless eavesdropping said the latter proposal could be used to justify the legality of the entire NSA program, because it refers to surveillance activity ordered by the president or attorney general and not overseen by either the FISA or criminal courts.
"It would have done it through the back door and in such a way that it would have been unlikely that Congress would have picked up on what was meant," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties advocacy group in Washington.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said last month that the administration had considered seeking legislation authorizing the NSA program but had determined it would be impossible and could expose the highly classified program to the public. Scolinos said Gonzales was not referring to the 2003 draft proposals, which she characterized as a compendium of ideas compiled by staff lawyers.
"It is common when drafting any new policy to debate various ideas and proposals," she said.
Officials have said the NSA program was known only to a relatively small group of senior officials at Justice, including then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and his deputies.
In Senate testimony in March 2003, Ashcroft said some proposals for legislation strengthening the Patriot Act were under consideration but nothing formal had been drafted.
Many legal scholars and lawmakers have said Bush's NSA order may violate either FISA or the Constitution. An analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service also concluded that the warrantless surveillance effort directly conflicts with Congress's intentions in passing the FISA law in 1978 and said other legal justifications were "not as well grounded" as the administration asserts.
The Justice Department and Gonzales have responded with a variety of statements and documents aimed at bolstering the administration's legal arguments in the weeks leading up to Feb. 6, when the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on the program. Committee Democrats sent a letter to Gonzales yesterday requesting documents related to electronic surveillance policies and the congressional authorization of force against al Qaeda.
Also yesterday, the Justice Department released a list of defenses of the "NSA terrorist surveillance program" under the heading "myth vs. reality," reiterating arguments that the effort is legal, is "narrowly focused" and follows in a tradition of warrantless eavesdropping during wartime.
The document also repeats recent claims by Gonzales and others that the FISA law is too cumbersome for use in rapidly intercepting overseas telephone calls, although it says the process is fine for purely domestic communications.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Justice Dept. Officials Call Measure Unrelated; Critics Say Bush Claims Are Undermined
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; A02
Legislation drafted by Justice Department lawyers in 2003 to strengthen the USA Patriot Act would have provided legal backing for several aspects of the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. But officials said yesterday that was not the intent.
Most lawmakers and the public were not aware at the time that President Bush had already issued a secret order allowing the National Security Agency to intercept international calls involving U.S. citizens and legal residents.
Some critics of the NSA program said the draft legislation raises questions about recent administration claims that Bush had clear legal authority to order warrantless domestic spying in late 2001 and had no need to go to Congress for explicit approval.
"It's rather damning to their current view that they didn't need legislation," said Timothy H. Edgar, a national security lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Clearly the lawyers at the Justice Department, or some of them, felt that legislation was needed to allow the government to do what it was doing."
But the Justice Department said that the measures were not drafted to help the NSA effort.
"These proposals were drafted by junior staffers and never formally presented to the attorney general or the White House," said department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos. "They were not drafted with the NSA program in mind."
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 -- dubbed "Patriot II" by critics -- was leaked to the media in February 2003 and soon abandoned by Justice officials, who characterized it at the time as an "early draft" written by staff lawyers. The proposal included several provisions that, in retrospect, would have affected the NSA's program of monitoring telephone calls and e-mails, which was disclosed last month in press reports.
One provision would have made it clear that the president could order wiretapping without court supervision for 15 days after Congress approved the use of military force, as it did against al Qaeda. Current law allows such spying for 15 days without a judge's approval only when Congress issues a declaration of war.
Justice officials have argued more recently that the two types of declarations are legally equivalent.
Another section of the 2003 proposal would have made it easier for the NSA to obtain lists of telephone calls placed or received by U.S. citizens and residents.
A third provision would have created a "statutory defense" for agents who conducted surveillance under "lawful authorization" from the president or attorney general, meaning they could not be prosecuted for violating federal law, according to the draft. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs domestic spying, provides such a defense only if the surveillance was approved by a secret intelligence court established by that law.
Some legal experts who question the president's authority to order warrantless eavesdropping said the latter proposal could be used to justify the legality of the entire NSA program, because it refers to surveillance activity ordered by the president or attorney general and not overseen by either the FISA or criminal courts.
"It would have done it through the back door and in such a way that it would have been unlikely that Congress would have picked up on what was meant," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties advocacy group in Washington.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said last month that the administration had considered seeking legislation authorizing the NSA program but had determined it would be impossible and could expose the highly classified program to the public. Scolinos said Gonzales was not referring to the 2003 draft proposals, which she characterized as a compendium of ideas compiled by staff lawyers.
"It is common when drafting any new policy to debate various ideas and proposals," she said.
Officials have said the NSA program was known only to a relatively small group of senior officials at Justice, including then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and his deputies.
In Senate testimony in March 2003, Ashcroft said some proposals for legislation strengthening the Patriot Act were under consideration but nothing formal had been drafted.
Many legal scholars and lawmakers have said Bush's NSA order may violate either FISA or the Constitution. An analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service also concluded that the warrantless surveillance effort directly conflicts with Congress's intentions in passing the FISA law in 1978 and said other legal justifications were "not as well grounded" as the administration asserts.
The Justice Department and Gonzales have responded with a variety of statements and documents aimed at bolstering the administration's legal arguments in the weeks leading up to Feb. 6, when the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on the program. Committee Democrats sent a letter to Gonzales yesterday requesting documents related to electronic surveillance policies and the congressional authorization of force against al Qaeda.
Also yesterday, the Justice Department released a list of defenses of the "NSA terrorist surveillance program" under the heading "myth vs. reality," reiterating arguments that the effort is legal, is "narrowly focused" and follows in a tradition of warrantless eavesdropping during wartime.
The document also repeats recent claims by Gonzales and others that the FISA law is too cumbersome for use in rapidly intercepting overseas telephone calls, although it says the process is fine for purely domestic communications.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Court-martial convicts US soldier BBC News
A US court-martial in Afghanistan has found an American soldier guilty of mistreating two prisoners at a military base in Uruzgan province. James R Hayes was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to maltreat and two counts of maltreatment, a statement from the US military in Kabul said. His punishment includes four months in prison in Kuwait. Another soldier faces a court-martial over the same incident which took place last July. His trial is due to start on Monday. The US military says the detainees did not require medical attention. Human rights groups have often accused US forces of abusing Afghans held at US detention centres in the country.
US soldier hit detainees in Afghanistan, punished Reuters AlertNet
Kabul: US soldier convicted of punching detainees Jerusalem Post
Seattle Post Intelligencer - Xinhua - Gulf Times - ABC Asia Pacific - all 103 related »
A US court-martial in Afghanistan has found an American soldier guilty of mistreating two prisoners at a military base in Uruzgan province. James R Hayes was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to maltreat and two counts of maltreatment, a statement from the US military in Kabul said. His punishment includes four months in prison in Kuwait. Another soldier faces a court-martial over the same incident which took place last July. His trial is due to start on Monday. The US military says the detainees did not require medical attention. Human rights groups have often accused US forces of abusing Afghans held at US detention centres in the country.
US soldier hit detainees in Afghanistan, punished Reuters AlertNet
Kabul: US soldier convicted of punching detainees Jerusalem Post
Seattle Post Intelligencer - Xinhua - Gulf Times - ABC Asia Pacific - all 103 related »
ABC's Woodruff, Cameraman Injured in Iraq
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
ABC News co-anchor Bob Woodruff and a cameraman were seriously injured Sunday in an attack and explosion while reporting from Iraq.
The two journalists were traveling with U.S. and Iraqi troops near Taji, about 12 miles north of Baghdad, when an improvised explosive device went off, ABC News President David Westin said. Both suffered serious head injuries and were taken into surgery at a U.S. military hospital in the area, the network said.
Both Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt were wearing body armor and helmets, the network said. The two had been embedded with the 4th Infantry Division and were traveling with an Iraqi Army unit.
The Iraqi mechanized vehicle they were riding in is considered more dangerous than U.S. vehicles. ABC said the two were traveling that way to get the perspective of the Iraqi military.
The U.S. military confirmed that Woodruff and Vogt were injured in an attack near Taji and said an investigation is under way. "They were with an Iraqi Army unit at the time the attack occurred and are at a U.S. military medical facility now," U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said.
Woodruff, 44, became co-anchor of ABC News' "World News Tonight" with Elizabeth Vargas earlier this month, replacing the late Peter Jennings. In an unusual approach to evening news shows, one of the two co-anchors frequently reports from the studio in New York while the other reports from the field, as Woodruff was doing in Iraq.
Last week, Woodruff spent three days in Israel reporting on the outcome of the Palestinian elections. He was to have been in Iraq through the State of the Union address on Tuesday, according to ABC.
Woodruff, a father of four, grew up in Michigan and became a corporate lawyer in New York. He took a leave of absence to teach at a school in China, helped CBS News during the Tiananmen Square uprising and became hooked on journalism.
He has since covered the Justice Department and reported from Iraq, Afghanistan, Belgrade and Kosovo.
"When I realized there was a job that existed in this world where I could be in the middle of huge world events and actually get paid for it, it was an epiphany for me," Woodruff told The Associated Press in a recent interview.
Doug Vogt, 46, is a three-time Emmy award winning cameraman from Canada, with 25 years as a professional cameraman, the last 20 based in Europe covering global events for CBC, BBC and now exclusively for ABC News. He lives in Aix-en-Provence, France.
Dozens of journalists have been injured, killed or kidnapped in Iraq since the war began. The most visible among the American TV reporters was David Bloom of NBC News, who died from an apparent blood clot while traveling south of Baghdad on April 6, 2003.
Another journalist, Jill Carroll, a freelance reporter for The Christian Science Monitor, was kidnapped by gunmen Jan. 7 and is being held in Iraq. Some 250 foreigners have been taken captive since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, and at least 39 have been killed.
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.
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
ABC News co-anchor Bob Woodruff and a cameraman were seriously injured Sunday in an attack and explosion while reporting from Iraq.
The two journalists were traveling with U.S. and Iraqi troops near Taji, about 12 miles north of Baghdad, when an improvised explosive device went off, ABC News President David Westin said. Both suffered serious head injuries and were taken into surgery at a U.S. military hospital in the area, the network said.
Both Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt were wearing body armor and helmets, the network said. The two had been embedded with the 4th Infantry Division and were traveling with an Iraqi Army unit.
The Iraqi mechanized vehicle they were riding in is considered more dangerous than U.S. vehicles. ABC said the two were traveling that way to get the perspective of the Iraqi military.
The U.S. military confirmed that Woodruff and Vogt were injured in an attack near Taji and said an investigation is under way. "They were with an Iraqi Army unit at the time the attack occurred and are at a U.S. military medical facility now," U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said.
Woodruff, 44, became co-anchor of ABC News' "World News Tonight" with Elizabeth Vargas earlier this month, replacing the late Peter Jennings. In an unusual approach to evening news shows, one of the two co-anchors frequently reports from the studio in New York while the other reports from the field, as Woodruff was doing in Iraq.
Last week, Woodruff spent three days in Israel reporting on the outcome of the Palestinian elections. He was to have been in Iraq through the State of the Union address on Tuesday, according to ABC.
Woodruff, a father of four, grew up in Michigan and became a corporate lawyer in New York. He took a leave of absence to teach at a school in China, helped CBS News during the Tiananmen Square uprising and became hooked on journalism.
He has since covered the Justice Department and reported from Iraq, Afghanistan, Belgrade and Kosovo.
"When I realized there was a job that existed in this world where I could be in the middle of huge world events and actually get paid for it, it was an epiphany for me," Woodruff told The Associated Press in a recent interview.
Doug Vogt, 46, is a three-time Emmy award winning cameraman from Canada, with 25 years as a professional cameraman, the last 20 based in Europe covering global events for CBC, BBC and now exclusively for ABC News. He lives in Aix-en-Provence, France.
Dozens of journalists have been injured, killed or kidnapped in Iraq since the war began. The most visible among the American TV reporters was David Bloom of NBC News, who died from an apparent blood clot while traveling south of Baghdad on April 6, 2003.
Another journalist, Jill Carroll, a freelance reporter for The Christian Science Monitor, was kidnapped by gunmen Jan. 7 and is being held in Iraq. Some 250 foreigners have been taken captive since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, and at least 39 have been killed.
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.
Bush State of Union part of election-year strategy
29 Jan 2006 13:13:33 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech will stress his optimistic vision for Iraq and the U.S. economy in a strategy aimed at giving Republicans a potential road map to victory in November and boosting his own weakened standing.
Sweeping proposals along the lines of his big Social Security revamp -- which fizzled after its high-profile roll-out a year ago -- were not expected in the annual speech on Tuesday night before millions watching on television.
Bush goes into the speech burdened by a stubbornly low job approval rating of about 43 percent, reflecting disapproval of his handling of the Iraq war and soaring gasoline prices.
The White House called the speech "thematic in nature."
"The president will have some new policies that he will talk about that will reflect the priorities that the American people care most about, but this is more of a visionary and directional speech than it is a laundry list of proposals," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Aides described the speech as optimistic in tone, saying he will argue as he has in many recent speeches that progress is being made in Iraq, and that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are sound despite an anemic growth rate of 1.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2005.
Bush is also expected to touch on Iran amid U.S. attempts to rein in Tehran's nuclear program. He is likely to argue anew that a U.S. surveillance program aimed at possible al Qaeda links to and from the United States is legal despite Democratic charges it amounts to unlawful domestic spying.
Domestically, Bush is expected to focus on a package of initiatives to rein in the soaring cost of U.S. health care by expanding the use of tax-preferred savings accounts and giving tax breaks to Americans without employer-provided health insurance so they can purchase health plans on their own.
WARY OF MIDTERM ELECTION LOSSES
The initiatives will build on some measures already enacted by Congress. Bush may also revive some past proposals including a push to rein in malpractice insurance lawsuits.
Bush's challenge is to outline a plan that Republicans who control Congress can use to try to avoid what has been the historical norm -- the party in power loses seats in midterm elections, election years in which a president is not chosen.
"I'm expecting the reframing of priorities and outlining of goals that can be accomplished early in the year to give Republicans a platform to run on," said Republican strategist Scott Reed.
"Most people have made up their minds about him one way or the other, but there's still a persuadable group in the middle who can be convinced that he's doing a good job, who are not at this point convinced," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.
Political experts said Bush's challenge is to set the tone for the campaign year. Typically, Republican candidates would be largely in lock-step with their leader. But given Bush's weakened position, this year they will choose whether they want to latch on to his agenda or go off on their own.
Stephen Hess, a professor at George Washington University who helped write State of the Union speeches for President Dwight Eisenhower, predicted a more partisan speech this year than in years past.
"I think for those who are watching it, there's going to be a lot more Republicans jumping up and Democrats sitting on their hands," he said.
Democrats eager to regain control of either the House of Representatives, the Senate or both were not waiting to hear the speech before criticizing him for a "growing credibility problem" manifested by an influence-peddling probe involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a major Republican fund-raiser.
"In his speech, the president needs to tell the American people what he is going to do to end the culture of corruption and lay out solutions that will make America strong," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
AlertNet news is provided by
© 1998-2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, 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.
29 Jan 2006 13:13:33 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech will stress his optimistic vision for Iraq and the U.S. economy in a strategy aimed at giving Republicans a potential road map to victory in November and boosting his own weakened standing.
Sweeping proposals along the lines of his big Social Security revamp -- which fizzled after its high-profile roll-out a year ago -- were not expected in the annual speech on Tuesday night before millions watching on television.
Bush goes into the speech burdened by a stubbornly low job approval rating of about 43 percent, reflecting disapproval of his handling of the Iraq war and soaring gasoline prices.
The White House called the speech "thematic in nature."
"The president will have some new policies that he will talk about that will reflect the priorities that the American people care most about, but this is more of a visionary and directional speech than it is a laundry list of proposals," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Aides described the speech as optimistic in tone, saying he will argue as he has in many recent speeches that progress is being made in Iraq, and that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are sound despite an anemic growth rate of 1.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2005.
Bush is also expected to touch on Iran amid U.S. attempts to rein in Tehran's nuclear program. He is likely to argue anew that a U.S. surveillance program aimed at possible al Qaeda links to and from the United States is legal despite Democratic charges it amounts to unlawful domestic spying.
Domestically, Bush is expected to focus on a package of initiatives to rein in the soaring cost of U.S. health care by expanding the use of tax-preferred savings accounts and giving tax breaks to Americans without employer-provided health insurance so they can purchase health plans on their own.
WARY OF MIDTERM ELECTION LOSSES
The initiatives will build on some measures already enacted by Congress. Bush may also revive some past proposals including a push to rein in malpractice insurance lawsuits.
Bush's challenge is to outline a plan that Republicans who control Congress can use to try to avoid what has been the historical norm -- the party in power loses seats in midterm elections, election years in which a president is not chosen.
"I'm expecting the reframing of priorities and outlining of goals that can be accomplished early in the year to give Republicans a platform to run on," said Republican strategist Scott Reed.
"Most people have made up their minds about him one way or the other, but there's still a persuadable group in the middle who can be convinced that he's doing a good job, who are not at this point convinced," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.
Political experts said Bush's challenge is to set the tone for the campaign year. Typically, Republican candidates would be largely in lock-step with their leader. But given Bush's weakened position, this year they will choose whether they want to latch on to his agenda or go off on their own.
Stephen Hess, a professor at George Washington University who helped write State of the Union speeches for President Dwight Eisenhower, predicted a more partisan speech this year than in years past.
"I think for those who are watching it, there's going to be a lot more Republicans jumping up and Democrats sitting on their hands," he said.
Democrats eager to regain control of either the House of Representatives, the Senate or both were not waiting to hear the speech before criticizing him for a "growing credibility problem" manifested by an influence-peddling probe involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a major Republican fund-raiser.
"In his speech, the president needs to tell the American people what he is going to do to end the culture of corruption and lay out solutions that will make America strong," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
AlertNet news is provided by
© 1998-2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, 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.
Bush State of Union part of election-year strategy
29 Jan 2006 13:13:33 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech will stress his optimistic vision for Iraq and the U.S. economy in a strategy aimed at giving Republicans a potential road map to victory in November and boosting his own weakened standing.
Sweeping proposals along the lines of his big Social Security revamp -- which fizzled after its high-profile roll-out a year ago -- were not expected in the annual speech on Tuesday night before millions watching on television.
Bush goes into the speech burdened by a stubbornly low job approval rating of about 43 percent, reflecting disapproval of his handling of the Iraq war and soaring gasoline prices.
The White House called the speech "thematic in nature."
"The president will have some new policies that he will talk about that will reflect the priorities that the American people care most about, but this is more of a visionary and directional speech than it is a laundry list of proposals," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Aides described the speech as optimistic in tone, saying he will argue as he has in many recent speeches that progress is being made in Iraq, and that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are sound despite an anemic growth rate of 1.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2005.
Bush is also expected to touch on Iran amid U.S. attempts to rein in Tehran's nuclear program. He is likely to argue anew that a U.S. surveillance program aimed at possible al Qaeda links to and from the United States is legal despite Democratic charges it amounts to unlawful domestic spying.
Domestically, Bush is expected to focus on a package of initiatives to rein in the soaring cost of U.S. health care by expanding the use of tax-preferred savings accounts and giving tax breaks to Americans without employer-provided health insurance so they can purchase health plans on their own.
WARY OF MIDTERM ELECTION LOSSES
The initiatives will build on some measures already enacted by Congress. Bush may also revive some past proposals including a push to rein in malpractice insurance lawsuits.
Bush's challenge is to outline a plan that Republicans who control Congress can use to try to avoid what has been the historical norm -- the party in power loses seats in midterm elections, election years in which a president is not chosen.
"I'm expecting the reframing of priorities and outlining of goals that can be accomplished early in the year to give Republicans a platform to run on," said Republican strategist Scott Reed.
"Most people have made up their minds about him one way or the other, but there's still a persuadable group in the middle who can be convinced that he's doing a good job, who are not at this point convinced," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.
Political experts said Bush's challenge is to set the tone for the campaign year. Typically, Republican candidates would be largely in lock-step with their leader. But given Bush's weakened position, this year they will choose whether they want to latch on to his agenda or go off on their own.
Stephen Hess, a professor at George Washington University who helped write State of the Union speeches for President Dwight Eisenhower, predicted a more partisan speech this year than in years past.
"I think for those who are watching it, there's going to be a lot more Republicans jumping up and Democrats sitting on their hands," he said.
Democrats eager to regain control of either the House of Representatives, the Senate or both were not waiting to hear the speech before criticizing him for a "growing credibility problem" manifested by an influence-peddling probe involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a major Republican fund-raiser.
"In his speech, the president needs to tell the American people what he is going to do to end the culture of corruption and lay out solutions that will make America strong," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
AlertNet news is provided by
© 1998-2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, 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.
29 Jan 2006 13:13:33 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech will stress his optimistic vision for Iraq and the U.S. economy in a strategy aimed at giving Republicans a potential road map to victory in November and boosting his own weakened standing.
Sweeping proposals along the lines of his big Social Security revamp -- which fizzled after its high-profile roll-out a year ago -- were not expected in the annual speech on Tuesday night before millions watching on television.
Bush goes into the speech burdened by a stubbornly low job approval rating of about 43 percent, reflecting disapproval of his handling of the Iraq war and soaring gasoline prices.
The White House called the speech "thematic in nature."
"The president will have some new policies that he will talk about that will reflect the priorities that the American people care most about, but this is more of a visionary and directional speech than it is a laundry list of proposals," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Aides described the speech as optimistic in tone, saying he will argue as he has in many recent speeches that progress is being made in Iraq, and that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are sound despite an anemic growth rate of 1.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2005.
Bush is also expected to touch on Iran amid U.S. attempts to rein in Tehran's nuclear program. He is likely to argue anew that a U.S. surveillance program aimed at possible al Qaeda links to and from the United States is legal despite Democratic charges it amounts to unlawful domestic spying.
Domestically, Bush is expected to focus on a package of initiatives to rein in the soaring cost of U.S. health care by expanding the use of tax-preferred savings accounts and giving tax breaks to Americans without employer-provided health insurance so they can purchase health plans on their own.
WARY OF MIDTERM ELECTION LOSSES
The initiatives will build on some measures already enacted by Congress. Bush may also revive some past proposals including a push to rein in malpractice insurance lawsuits.
Bush's challenge is to outline a plan that Republicans who control Congress can use to try to avoid what has been the historical norm -- the party in power loses seats in midterm elections, election years in which a president is not chosen.
"I'm expecting the reframing of priorities and outlining of goals that can be accomplished early in the year to give Republicans a platform to run on," said Republican strategist Scott Reed.
"Most people have made up their minds about him one way or the other, but there's still a persuadable group in the middle who can be convinced that he's doing a good job, who are not at this point convinced," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.
Political experts said Bush's challenge is to set the tone for the campaign year. Typically, Republican candidates would be largely in lock-step with their leader. But given Bush's weakened position, this year they will choose whether they want to latch on to his agenda or go off on their own.
Stephen Hess, a professor at George Washington University who helped write State of the Union speeches for President Dwight Eisenhower, predicted a more partisan speech this year than in years past.
"I think for those who are watching it, there's going to be a lot more Republicans jumping up and Democrats sitting on their hands," he said.
Democrats eager to regain control of either the House of Representatives, the Senate or both were not waiting to hear the speech before criticizing him for a "growing credibility problem" manifested by an influence-peddling probe involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a major Republican fund-raiser.
"In his speech, the president needs to tell the American people what he is going to do to end the culture of corruption and lay out solutions that will make America strong," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
AlertNet news is provided by
© 1998-2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, 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.
January 30, 2006
Rice Admits U.S. Underestimated Hamas Strength
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
LONDON, Jan. 29 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that the United States had failed to understand the depth of hostility among Palestinians toward their longtime leaders. The hostility led to an election victory by the militant group Hamas that has reduced to tatters crucial assumptions underlying American policies and hopes in the Middle East.
"I've asked why nobody saw it coming," Ms. Rice said, speaking of her own staff. "It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse."
Immediately after the election, Bush administration officials said the results reflected a Palestinian desire for change and not necessarily an embrace of Hamas, which the United States, Israel and the European Union consider a terrorist organization sworn to Israel's destruction. But Ms. Rice's comments seemed to reflect a certain second-guessing over how the administration had failed to foresee, or factor into its thinking, the possibility of a Hamas victory.
Indeed, Hamas's victory has set off a debate whether the administration was so wedded to its belief in democracy that it could not see the dangers of holding elections in regions where Islamist groups were strong and democratic institutions weak.
"There is a lot of blame to go around," said Martin Indyk, a top Middle East negotiator in the Clinton administration, referring to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his Fatah party. "But on the American side, the conceptual failure that contributed to disaster was the president's belief that democracy and elections solve everything."
Ms. Rice pointed out that the election results surprised just about everyone. "I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas's strong showing," she said on her way to London for meetings on the Middle East, Iran and other matters. "Some say that Hamas itself was caught off guard by its strong showing."
With increasing vehemence in the last few days, administration officials have defended their decision to back Mr. Abbas with American aid and to rebuff Israel when it warned that the election should not be held as long as Hamas participated while refusing to lay down its arms. Those officials continue to lay most of the blame on Mr. Abbas for not offering a positive alternative to Hamas.
American officials say they were never comfortable with Mr. Abbas's decision that the elections be held without the disarmament of Hamas, but they went along with it because there was no alternative. One official recounted how President Bush had personally but unsuccessfully appealed to Mr. Abbas at the White House last October to disarm Hamas before the elections.
"The fact is, Abu Mazen wouldn't do it," said the official, referring to Mr. Abbas. "He said he wouldn't do it, because he said he couldn't do it."
What Mr. Abbas instead offered at the White House was a plan to avoid a civil war among Palestinians by winning the election and only then disarming Hamas and folding it into the mainstream. The administration resolved, in turn, to support Mr. Abbas's political party with whatever diplomacy or resources it could.
Even while acknowledging the failure to foresee a Hamas victory, Ms. Rice said the American decisions were basically correct. Contrary to some reports that even Mr. Abbas wanted the elections delayed, she said a postponement was neither possible nor desirable.
"Our constant discussions with Abu Mazen suggested that he wanted to go ahead with the elections and go ahead with them on time," Ms. Rice said. "We had to support that. I just don't understand the argument that somehow it would have gotten better the longer it went on."
At another point, she said: "You ask yourself, Are you going to support a policy of denying the Palestinians elections that had been promised to them at a certain point in time because people were fearful of the outcome?"
Others noted that the Palestinian elections had been postponed once already, from last summer to January, to give Mr. Abbas and Fatah time to capitalize on the pullout of Israeli settlers from Gaza in August.
To help Mr. Abbas, the United States and its European partners mobilized hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for the Palestinians to meet their payrolls, field their security forces, make welfare payments and build infrastructure.
The total outside assistance to the Palestinians runs to more than $1 billion a year. Now Ms. Rice will meet in London on Monday with top officials of Europe, the United Nations and Russia to call on Hamas to abandon its vow to destroy Israel and to disarm and negotiate a two-state solution in the Middle East, or risk having this aid cut off.
"You've got to hedge against the risk that elections are going to lead to precisely this result," said Mr. Indyk, the former Middle East negotiator. "The hedge is to build civil society and democratic institutions first. But this administration doesn't listen to that."
Many experts blame the Palestinians for most of their problems, particularly the corruption and mismanagement in Mr. Abbas's Fatah organization. Hamas, by contrast, capitalized on its image of integrity and its record of delivering services.
Mr. Abbas is widely described as bitter that he failed to strengthen his hand by getting American help in persuading Israel to curb settlement growth, release prisoners and lift the checkpoints and roadblocks choking off livelihoods in the West Bank. By all accounts, Mr. Abbas's frustration with the administration on this score was met with frustration on the American side that he was not doing enough to crack down on violence and root out corruption.
The administration was also under pressure from Europeans to try to coax Hamas into the mainstream, and it did not want to rebuff their advice at a time when it was trying to work closely with the Europeans on isolating Iran.
Administration officials said that even in the analysis of Israelis, Hamas's behavior in accepting a period of "calm" in the last year ceasing its attacks on Israeli civilians meant that it was willing to break with other groups like Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Israeli and American officials felt that such a trend was to be encouraged.
As for Mr. Abbas's position on disarming Hamas after the elections, an administration official said: "Our sense was that there was a certain logic to his presentation, and we did not see that we could force an alternative on him. But we were also skeptical."
The administration then immediately began working with European and other allies to set up "normative standards" for any group participating in the political process. Those standards are to be the focus of the talks in London, with the financing cutoff an implicit threat to Hamas. But a cutoff could force Hamas to turn to other sources, like Iran, for help.
Ms. Rice told reporters that she was convinced of the wisdom of instilling democracy in the Middle East. Elections have brought into office anti-American Islamic radicals in Egypt, Lebanon and Iran, but Ms. Rice said the alternative was trying to bottle up seething anger in the region that could lead to more terrorist attacks in the West.
"There is a huge transition going on in the Middle East, as a whole and in its parts," she said. "The outcomes that we're seeing in any number of places, I will be the first to say, have a sense of unpredictability about them. That's the nature of big historic change. It's simply the way it is."
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Rice Admits U.S. Underestimated Hamas Strength
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
LONDON, Jan. 29 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that the United States had failed to understand the depth of hostility among Palestinians toward their longtime leaders. The hostility led to an election victory by the militant group Hamas that has reduced to tatters crucial assumptions underlying American policies and hopes in the Middle East.
"I've asked why nobody saw it coming," Ms. Rice said, speaking of her own staff. "It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse."
Immediately after the election, Bush administration officials said the results reflected a Palestinian desire for change and not necessarily an embrace of Hamas, which the United States, Israel and the European Union consider a terrorist organization sworn to Israel's destruction. But Ms. Rice's comments seemed to reflect a certain second-guessing over how the administration had failed to foresee, or factor into its thinking, the possibility of a Hamas victory.
Indeed, Hamas's victory has set off a debate whether the administration was so wedded to its belief in democracy that it could not see the dangers of holding elections in regions where Islamist groups were strong and democratic institutions weak.
"There is a lot of blame to go around," said Martin Indyk, a top Middle East negotiator in the Clinton administration, referring to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his Fatah party. "But on the American side, the conceptual failure that contributed to disaster was the president's belief that democracy and elections solve everything."
Ms. Rice pointed out that the election results surprised just about everyone. "I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas's strong showing," she said on her way to London for meetings on the Middle East, Iran and other matters. "Some say that Hamas itself was caught off guard by its strong showing."
With increasing vehemence in the last few days, administration officials have defended their decision to back Mr. Abbas with American aid and to rebuff Israel when it warned that the election should not be held as long as Hamas participated while refusing to lay down its arms. Those officials continue to lay most of the blame on Mr. Abbas for not offering a positive alternative to Hamas.
American officials say they were never comfortable with Mr. Abbas's decision that the elections be held without the disarmament of Hamas, but they went along with it because there was no alternative. One official recounted how President Bush had personally but unsuccessfully appealed to Mr. Abbas at the White House last October to disarm Hamas before the elections.
"The fact is, Abu Mazen wouldn't do it," said the official, referring to Mr. Abbas. "He said he wouldn't do it, because he said he couldn't do it."
What Mr. Abbas instead offered at the White House was a plan to avoid a civil war among Palestinians by winning the election and only then disarming Hamas and folding it into the mainstream. The administration resolved, in turn, to support Mr. Abbas's political party with whatever diplomacy or resources it could.
Even while acknowledging the failure to foresee a Hamas victory, Ms. Rice said the American decisions were basically correct. Contrary to some reports that even Mr. Abbas wanted the elections delayed, she said a postponement was neither possible nor desirable.
"Our constant discussions with Abu Mazen suggested that he wanted to go ahead with the elections and go ahead with them on time," Ms. Rice said. "We had to support that. I just don't understand the argument that somehow it would have gotten better the longer it went on."
At another point, she said: "You ask yourself, Are you going to support a policy of denying the Palestinians elections that had been promised to them at a certain point in time because people were fearful of the outcome?"
Others noted that the Palestinian elections had been postponed once already, from last summer to January, to give Mr. Abbas and Fatah time to capitalize on the pullout of Israeli settlers from Gaza in August.
To help Mr. Abbas, the United States and its European partners mobilized hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for the Palestinians to meet their payrolls, field their security forces, make welfare payments and build infrastructure.
The total outside assistance to the Palestinians runs to more than $1 billion a year. Now Ms. Rice will meet in London on Monday with top officials of Europe, the United Nations and Russia to call on Hamas to abandon its vow to destroy Israel and to disarm and negotiate a two-state solution in the Middle East, or risk having this aid cut off.
"You've got to hedge against the risk that elections are going to lead to precisely this result," said Mr. Indyk, the former Middle East negotiator. "The hedge is to build civil society and democratic institutions first. But this administration doesn't listen to that."
Many experts blame the Palestinians for most of their problems, particularly the corruption and mismanagement in Mr. Abbas's Fatah organization. Hamas, by contrast, capitalized on its image of integrity and its record of delivering services.
Mr. Abbas is widely described as bitter that he failed to strengthen his hand by getting American help in persuading Israel to curb settlement growth, release prisoners and lift the checkpoints and roadblocks choking off livelihoods in the West Bank. By all accounts, Mr. Abbas's frustration with the administration on this score was met with frustration on the American side that he was not doing enough to crack down on violence and root out corruption.
The administration was also under pressure from Europeans to try to coax Hamas into the mainstream, and it did not want to rebuff their advice at a time when it was trying to work closely with the Europeans on isolating Iran.
Administration officials said that even in the analysis of Israelis, Hamas's behavior in accepting a period of "calm" in the last year ceasing its attacks on Israeli civilians meant that it was willing to break with other groups like Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Israeli and American officials felt that such a trend was to be encouraged.
As for Mr. Abbas's position on disarming Hamas after the elections, an administration official said: "Our sense was that there was a certain logic to his presentation, and we did not see that we could force an alternative on him. But we were also skeptical."
The administration then immediately began working with European and other allies to set up "normative standards" for any group participating in the political process. Those standards are to be the focus of the talks in London, with the financing cutoff an implicit threat to Hamas. But a cutoff could force Hamas to turn to other sources, like Iran, for help.
Ms. Rice told reporters that she was convinced of the wisdom of instilling democracy in the Middle East. Elections have brought into office anti-American Islamic radicals in Egypt, Lebanon and Iran, but Ms. Rice said the alternative was trying to bottle up seething anger in the region that could lead to more terrorist attacks in the West.
"There is a huge transition going on in the Middle East, as a whole and in its parts," she said. "The outcomes that we're seeing in any number of places, I will be the first to say, have a sense of unpredictability about them. That's the nature of big historic change. It's simply the way it is."
Copyright 2006The New York Times
January 30, 2006
Conservatives See Court Shift as Culmination
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Last February, as rumors swirled about the failing health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a team of conservative grass-roots organizers, public relations specialists and legal strategists met to prepare a battle plan to ensure any vacancies were filled by like-minded jurists.
The team recruited conservative lawyers to study the records of 18 potential nominees including Judges John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. and trained more than three dozen lawyers across the country to respond to news reports on the president's eventual pick.
"We boxed them in," one lawyer present during the strategy meetings said with pride in an interview over the weekend. This lawyer and others present who described the meeting were granted anonymity because the meetings were confidential and because the team had told its allies not to exult publicly until the confirmation vote was cast.
Now, on the eve of what is expected to be the Senate confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, coming four months after Chief Justice Roberts was installed, those planners stand on the brink of a watershed for the conservative movement.
In 1982, the year after Mr. Alito first joined the Reagan administration, that movement was little more than the handful of legal scholars who gathered at Yale for the first meeting of the Federalist Society, a newly formed conservative legal group.
Judge Alito's ascent to join Chief Justice Roberts on the court "would have been beyond our best expectations," said Spencer Abraham, one of the society's founders, a former secretary of energy under President Bush and now the chairman of the Committee for Justice, one of many conservative organizations set up to support judicial nominees.
He added, "I don't think we would have put a lot of money on it in a friendly wager."
Judge Alito's confirmation is also the culmination of a disciplined campaign begun by the Reagan administration to seed the lower federal judiciary with like-minded jurists who could reorient the federal courts toward a view of the Constitution much closer to its 18th-century authors' intent, including a much less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power. It was a philosophy promulgated by Edwin Meese III, attorney general in the Reagan administration, that became the gospel of the Federalist Society and the nascent conservative legal movement.
Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito were among the cadre of young conservative lawyers attracted to the Reagan administration's Justice Department. And both advanced to the pool of promising young jurists whom strategists like C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel in the first Bush administration and an adviser to the current White House, sought to place throughout the federal judiciary to groom for the highest court.
"It is a Reagan personnel officer's dream come true," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University who worked with Mr. Alito and Mr. Roberts in the Reagan administration. "It is a graduation. These individuals have been in study and preparation for these roles all their professional lives."
As each progressed in legal stature, others were laying the infrastructure of the movement. After the 1987 defeat of the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork conservatives vowed to build a counterweight to the liberal forces that had mobilized to stop him.
With grants from major conservative donors like the John M. Olin Foundation, the Federalist Society functioned as a kind of shadow conservative bar association, planting chapters in law schools around the country that served as a pipeline to prestigious judicial clerkships.
During their narrow and politically costly victory in the 1991 confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas, the Federalist Society lawyers forged new ties with the increasingly sophisticated network of grass-roots conservative Christian groups like Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs and the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. Many conservative Christian pastors and broadcasters had railed for decades against Supreme Court decisions that outlawed school prayer and endorsed abortion rights.
During the Clinton administration, Federalist Society members and allies had come to dominate the membership and staff of the Judiciary Committee, which turned back many of the administration's nominees. "There was a Republican majority of the Senate, and it tempered the nature of the nominations being made," said Mr. Abraham, the Federalist Society founder who was a senator on the Judiciary Committee at the time.
By 2000, the decades of organizing and battles had fueled a deep demand in the Republican base for change on the court. Mr. Bush tapped into that demand by promising to name jurists in the mold of conservative Justices Thomas and Scalia.
When Mr. Bush named Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, as the successor to Justice O'Connor, he faced a revolt from his conservative base, which complained about her dearth of qualifications and ideological bona fides.
"It was a striking example of the grass roots having strong opinions that ran counter to the party leaders about what was attainable," said Stephen G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern University and another founding member of the Federalist Society.
But in October, when President Bush withdrew Ms. Miers's nomination and named Judge Alito, the same network quickly mobilized behind him.
Conservatives had begun planning for a nomination fight as long ago as that February meeting, which was led by Leonard A. Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society and informal adviser to the White House, Mr. Meese and Mr. Gray.
They laid out a two-part strategy to roll out behind whomever the president picked, people present said. The plan: first, extol the nonpartisan legal credentials of the nominee, steering the debate away from the nominee's possible influence over hot-button issues. Second, attack the liberal groups they expected to oppose any Bush nominee.
The team worked through a newly formed group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, to coordinate grass-roots pressure on Democratic senators from conservative states. And they stayed in constant contact with scores of conservative groups around the country to brief them about potential nominees and to make sure they all stuck to the same message. They fine-tuned their strategy for Judge Alito when he was nominated in October by recruiting Italian-American groups to protest the use of the nickname "Scalito," which would have linked him to the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
In November, some Democrats believed they had a chance to defeat the nomination after the disclosure of a 1985 memorandum Judge Alito wrote in the Reagan administration about his conservative legal views on abortion, affirmative action and other subjects.
"It was a done deal," one of the Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the staff is forbidden to talk publicly about internal meetings. "This was the most evidence we have ever had about a Supreme Court nominee's true beliefs."
Mr. Leo and other lawyers supporting Judge Alito were inclined to shrug off the memorandum, which described views that were typical in their circles, people involved in the effort said. But executives at Creative Response Concepts, the team's public relations firm, quickly convinced them it was "a big deal" that could become the centerpiece of the Democrats' attacks, one of the people said.
"The call came in right away," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice and another lawyer on the Alito team.
Responding to Mr. Alito's 1985 statement that he disagreed strongly with the abortion-rights precedents, for example, "The answer was, 'Of course he was opposed to abortion,' " Mr. Sekulow said. "He worked for the Reagan administration, he was a lawyer representing a client, and it may well have reflected his personal beliefs. But look what he has done as judge."
His supporters deluged news organizations with phone calls, press releases and lawyers to interview, all noting that on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Alito had voted to uphold and to strike down abortion restrictions.
Democrats contended that those arguments were irrelevant because on the lower court Judge Alito was bound by Supreme Court precedent, whereas as a justice he could vote to overturn any precedents with which he disagreed.
By last week it was clear that the judge had enough votes to win confirmation. And the last gasp of resistance came in a Democratic caucus meeting on Wednesday when Senator Edward M. Kennedy, joined by Senator John Kerry, both of Massachusetts, unsuccessfully tried to persuade the party to organize a filibuster.
No one defended Judge Alito or argued that he did not warrant opposition, Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. Instead, opponents of the filibuster argued about the political cost of being accused of obstructionism by conservatives.
Still, on the brink of this victory, some in the conservative movement say the battle over the court has just begun. Justice O'Connor was the swing vote on many issues, but replacing her with a more dependable conservative would bring that faction of the court at most to four justices, not five, and thus not enough to truly reshape the court or overturn precedents like those upholding abortion rights.
"It has been a long time coming," Judge Bork said, "but more needs to be done."
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Conservatives See Court Shift as Culmination
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Last February, as rumors swirled about the failing health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a team of conservative grass-roots organizers, public relations specialists and legal strategists met to prepare a battle plan to ensure any vacancies were filled by like-minded jurists.
The team recruited conservative lawyers to study the records of 18 potential nominees including Judges John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. and trained more than three dozen lawyers across the country to respond to news reports on the president's eventual pick.
"We boxed them in," one lawyer present during the strategy meetings said with pride in an interview over the weekend. This lawyer and others present who described the meeting were granted anonymity because the meetings were confidential and because the team had told its allies not to exult publicly until the confirmation vote was cast.
Now, on the eve of what is expected to be the Senate confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, coming four months after Chief Justice Roberts was installed, those planners stand on the brink of a watershed for the conservative movement.
In 1982, the year after Mr. Alito first joined the Reagan administration, that movement was little more than the handful of legal scholars who gathered at Yale for the first meeting of the Federalist Society, a newly formed conservative legal group.
Judge Alito's ascent to join Chief Justice Roberts on the court "would have been beyond our best expectations," said Spencer Abraham, one of the society's founders, a former secretary of energy under President Bush and now the chairman of the Committee for Justice, one of many conservative organizations set up to support judicial nominees.
He added, "I don't think we would have put a lot of money on it in a friendly wager."
Judge Alito's confirmation is also the culmination of a disciplined campaign begun by the Reagan administration to seed the lower federal judiciary with like-minded jurists who could reorient the federal courts toward a view of the Constitution much closer to its 18th-century authors' intent, including a much less expansive view of its application to individual rights and federal power. It was a philosophy promulgated by Edwin Meese III, attorney general in the Reagan administration, that became the gospel of the Federalist Society and the nascent conservative legal movement.
Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito were among the cadre of young conservative lawyers attracted to the Reagan administration's Justice Department. And both advanced to the pool of promising young jurists whom strategists like C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel in the first Bush administration and an adviser to the current White House, sought to place throughout the federal judiciary to groom for the highest court.
"It is a Reagan personnel officer's dream come true," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University who worked with Mr. Alito and Mr. Roberts in the Reagan administration. "It is a graduation. These individuals have been in study and preparation for these roles all their professional lives."
As each progressed in legal stature, others were laying the infrastructure of the movement. After the 1987 defeat of the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork conservatives vowed to build a counterweight to the liberal forces that had mobilized to stop him.
With grants from major conservative donors like the John M. Olin Foundation, the Federalist Society functioned as a kind of shadow conservative bar association, planting chapters in law schools around the country that served as a pipeline to prestigious judicial clerkships.
During their narrow and politically costly victory in the 1991 confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas, the Federalist Society lawyers forged new ties with the increasingly sophisticated network of grass-roots conservative Christian groups like Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs and the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. Many conservative Christian pastors and broadcasters had railed for decades against Supreme Court decisions that outlawed school prayer and endorsed abortion rights.
During the Clinton administration, Federalist Society members and allies had come to dominate the membership and staff of the Judiciary Committee, which turned back many of the administration's nominees. "There was a Republican majority of the Senate, and it tempered the nature of the nominations being made," said Mr. Abraham, the Federalist Society founder who was a senator on the Judiciary Committee at the time.
By 2000, the decades of organizing and battles had fueled a deep demand in the Republican base for change on the court. Mr. Bush tapped into that demand by promising to name jurists in the mold of conservative Justices Thomas and Scalia.
When Mr. Bush named Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, as the successor to Justice O'Connor, he faced a revolt from his conservative base, which complained about her dearth of qualifications and ideological bona fides.
"It was a striking example of the grass roots having strong opinions that ran counter to the party leaders about what was attainable," said Stephen G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern University and another founding member of the Federalist Society.
But in October, when President Bush withdrew Ms. Miers's nomination and named Judge Alito, the same network quickly mobilized behind him.
Conservatives had begun planning for a nomination fight as long ago as that February meeting, which was led by Leonard A. Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society and informal adviser to the White House, Mr. Meese and Mr. Gray.
They laid out a two-part strategy to roll out behind whomever the president picked, people present said. The plan: first, extol the nonpartisan legal credentials of the nominee, steering the debate away from the nominee's possible influence over hot-button issues. Second, attack the liberal groups they expected to oppose any Bush nominee.
The team worked through a newly formed group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, to coordinate grass-roots pressure on Democratic senators from conservative states. And they stayed in constant contact with scores of conservative groups around the country to brief them about potential nominees and to make sure they all stuck to the same message. They fine-tuned their strategy for Judge Alito when he was nominated in October by recruiting Italian-American groups to protest the use of the nickname "Scalito," which would have linked him to the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
In November, some Democrats believed they had a chance to defeat the nomination after the disclosure of a 1985 memorandum Judge Alito wrote in the Reagan administration about his conservative legal views on abortion, affirmative action and other subjects.
"It was a done deal," one of the Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the staff is forbidden to talk publicly about internal meetings. "This was the most evidence we have ever had about a Supreme Court nominee's true beliefs."
Mr. Leo and other lawyers supporting Judge Alito were inclined to shrug off the memorandum, which described views that were typical in their circles, people involved in the effort said. But executives at Creative Response Concepts, the team's public relations firm, quickly convinced them it was "a big deal" that could become the centerpiece of the Democrats' attacks, one of the people said.
"The call came in right away," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice and another lawyer on the Alito team.
Responding to Mr. Alito's 1985 statement that he disagreed strongly with the abortion-rights precedents, for example, "The answer was, 'Of course he was opposed to abortion,' " Mr. Sekulow said. "He worked for the Reagan administration, he was a lawyer representing a client, and it may well have reflected his personal beliefs. But look what he has done as judge."
His supporters deluged news organizations with phone calls, press releases and lawyers to interview, all noting that on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Alito had voted to uphold and to strike down abortion restrictions.
Democrats contended that those arguments were irrelevant because on the lower court Judge Alito was bound by Supreme Court precedent, whereas as a justice he could vote to overturn any precedents with which he disagreed.
By last week it was clear that the judge had enough votes to win confirmation. And the last gasp of resistance came in a Democratic caucus meeting on Wednesday when Senator Edward M. Kennedy, joined by Senator John Kerry, both of Massachusetts, unsuccessfully tried to persuade the party to organize a filibuster.
No one defended Judge Alito or argued that he did not warrant opposition, Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. Instead, opponents of the filibuster argued about the political cost of being accused of obstructionism by conservatives.
Still, on the brink of this victory, some in the conservative movement say the battle over the court has just begun. Justice O'Connor was the swing vote on many issues, but replacing her with a more dependable conservative would bring that faction of the court at most to four justices, not five, and thus not enough to truly reshape the court or overturn precedents like those upholding abortion rights.
"It has been a long time coming," Judge Bork said, "but more needs to be done."
Copyright 2006The New York Times
January 30, 2006
ABC News Anchor Is Badly Injured by Bomb in Iraq
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and JACQUES STEINBERG
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 29 One of the new co-anchors of ABC's evening newscast, Bob Woodruff, and a network cameraman suffered head wounds and other serious injuries on Sunday when a large roadside bomb struck the Iraqi military vehicle carrying them north of the capital.
The injuries represented the latest crisis for a network news division that has been reeling since Peter Jennings, the longtime anchor of "World News Tonight," died of lung cancer in August. Mr. Woodruff was described as being in serious but stable condition after surgery at an American military hospital, and ABC officials said his brain appeared to be uninjured. But it was not immediately clear when or whether he could resume his co-anchor duties.
For years now, "World News Tonight" has been lagging in the ratings, and ABC has much money and prestige riding on its new co-anchor format, which was intended to stand out from its competitors by having Mr. Woodruff and his partner, Elizabeth Vargas, take turns reporting from the field while the other stays in New York.
By nightfall in New York, after Ms. Vargas had closed the Sunday evening edition of "World News Tonight," Mr. Woodruff and the cameraman, Doug Vogt, were on board an air ambulance that was about to take off to fly the two men to an Army hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, according to a statement from David Westin, president of ABC News.
Mr. Woodruff had serious head lacerations and broke several ribs, in addition to other wounds to his upper body. "The next few days," Mr. Westin said in an earlier statement, "will be critical."
Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Vogt were wounded while standing in the hatch of an Iraqi vehicle near Taji, a restive area northwest of Baghdad. They had been part of a four-member news team accompanying units of the Fourth Infantry Division and had initially been traveling in an American Army armored Humvee. But before the attack, they switched to the more lightly armored and thus, more vulnerable Iraqi vehicle, the network reported.
Although both men were wearing body armor, helmets and ballistic glasses, they were exposed to the blast because they were standing in the vehicle, ABC's White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz, said on the network's Sunday morning public affairs program, "This Week." She said there were reports that the explosion was followed by small-arms fire.
Ms. Raddatz and others at the network sought to emphasize that the two were not taking unnecessary risks.
In an on-camera conversation with Ms. Raddatz, George Stephanopoulos, the host of "This Week," observed that his two colleagues were "not being hot dogs here." Ms. Raddatz, who has also traveled with American troops in Iraq in recent months, concurred that both colleagues were "very careful."
Moments earlier, Ms. Raddatz had underscored the dangers facing Mr. Woodruff and other journalists when trying to shadow American troops as they prepare Iraqis to take over their own security. Insurgents frequently use roadside bombs and other explosive devices to attack Iraqi troops, whose soft-skinned trucks and lightly armored vehicles are an easier target than the heavier and thicker American troop carriers. Standing in a hatch increases the risks.
"If you're going to cover the Iraqi military forces, you have to be with them," Ms. Raddatz said. "You have to see how they live."
After much internal wrangling at ABC including an unsuccessful attempt to appoint one of the network's most recognizable anchors, Charles Gibson, as Mr. Jennings's successor in the short term Mr. Westin had sought to herald a period of newfound stability for the network, when he announced early last month that he was appointing Mr. Woodruff, 44, and Ms. Vargas, 43, as co-anchors.
Since his first night as co-anchor, on Jan. 3, Mr. Woodruff has crisscrossed the globe, from Tehran to Jerusalem to northern California, and back again to Jerusalem, in an effort to imbue the program with an on-the-scene immediacy and vitality that ABC executives hoped could improve the program's ratings against its main competitors, NBC and CBS.
For the moment, the standings remain much as they had in recent years, when the broadcasts had been presided over by the so-called Big 3 anchors. NBC, led since Tom Brokaw's retirement in December 2004 by Brian Williams, is comfortably in first place; ABC remains a solid second; and CBS, with Bob Schieffer serving as anchor until a permanent successor to Dan Rather is appointed, is trailing in third.
At least in the short run, Mr. Woodruff's recovery figures to focus even more attention on the three broadcasts, particularly if he makes a quick return, but an extended leave could also upend ABC News, at a moment when Katie Couric of NBC's dominant "Today" show is mulling whether to further shake up the evening news race by jumping to the "CBS Evening News."
All three evening news broadcasts have been losing viewers for years, as people's workdays push past 6:30 p.m. when the evening news typically begins and the Internet is increasingly sought out as a news source.
Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Vogt, 46, arrived in Baghdad on Friday after covering the Palestinian elections. Their forthcoming reports, including on the progress American troops were making training Iraqi security forces, were pegged to President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night, and Mr. Woodruff was to have played some role in analyzing the speech from Iraq.
There was no indication that the Iraqi vehicle carrying Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Vogt was a target because there were journalists inside.
Yet the attack was the latest to strike journalists in Iraq. In separate attacks last year, insurgents tried to destroy the two Baghdad hotels most popular with foreign journalists, the Hamra and the Palestine. On Jan. 7, the American journalist Jill Carroll was kidnapped in western Baghdad.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York watchdog group, at least 61 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the United States invaded in 2003. Bombings and other insurgent attacks killed 36 journalists while American fire killed 14, the group says.
Ms. Raddatz said Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Vogt were first rushed to the Green Zone, the heavily fortified American and Iraqi government compound in central Baghdad, and then taken by helicopter to Balad.
A military spokesman, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said one Iraqi soldier was also wounded in the attack, which he said occurred north of Taji about 12:25 p.m. Officials did not provide information on the nature and extent of his injuries.
Mr. Vogt, who was born in Alberta, Canada, and lives in France with his wife and three daughters, has been with ABC News for 15 years, covering events in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, the network said. He was in Iran earlier this month, with Mr. Woodruff.
ABC journalists, many of them trained by Mr. Jennings, streamed into the network's news headquarters on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on Sunday morning, to monitor bulletins including some from the highest echelons of the Pentagon on the fate of one of Mr. Jennings's designated heirs.
That Mr. Woodruff was seriously injured in the line of duty in Iraq also evoked memories, for colleagues across broadcast journalism, of the death of his close friend David Bloom of NBC. Mr. Bloom died in Iraq in April 2003 after suffering a blood clot that was apparently a result, at least in part, of extended time spent cramped in a military vehicle.
The two network war correspondents had met initially through their wives, at a benefit dinner in Washington. At the time Mr. Bloom died, Mr. Woodruff was also on assignment with the American military in Iraq. He immediately departed for the United States, to be of support to his own wife and four children, as well as to Mr. Bloom's widow, Melanie, and her children.
At the time, Mr. Woodruff was quoted as telling The Daily News of New York that "every time you come back you ascribe it to luck." He added, "I've got four kids and without question it's the kind of work I love doing. So it's a dilemma."
Just before Mr. Bloom died, Mr. Woodruff had told The Daily News, Mr. Bloom had sent a message to him through the main assignment desk of ABC News in New York. It said, "I just wanted to make sure you're all right keep your head down."
Mr. Woodruff's route to a broadcast network anchor chair was a circuitous one. Mr. Woodruff graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1987 and was briefly a corporate lawyer for the firm of Shearman & Sterling.
He began to make the transition to journalism two years later, while living in China. At the time, Mr. Woodruff, fluent in Mandarin, was teaching American law to Chinese lawyers, and was hired by CBS News as a translator during its coverage of the crackdown at Tiananmen Square.
Susan Zirinsky, who was directing CBS's coverage in China at the time, said in an interview on Sunday that from the outset, Mr. Woodruff "had to be on the scene." She added, "He knew real reporting took place there."
Upon returning to the United States to resume his career as a corporate lawyer, Mr. Woodruff confided in Ms. Zirinsky, as she recalled: "I can't go back to doing what I was going to do. I love your business so much."
"I told him to get over it," said Ms. Zirinsky, now executive producer of the CBS newsmagazine "48 Hours." "He went and achieved the all-time American dream."
Mr. Woodruff's first job as a news reporter was for an NBC affiliate in Northern California. He later joined ABC as a correspondent, in 1996, and has reported from the campaign trail (he traveled with the presidential campaign of Senator John Edwards in 2004) and from abroad, covering the tsunami in Asia and, earlier, life within North Korea.
Richard A. Oppel Jr. reported from Baghdad for this article, and Jacques Steinberg from New York. Bill Carter and Christine Hauser contributed reporting from New York.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
ABC News Anchor Is Badly Injured by Bomb in Iraq
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and JACQUES STEINBERG
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 29 One of the new co-anchors of ABC's evening newscast, Bob Woodruff, and a network cameraman suffered head wounds and other serious injuries on Sunday when a large roadside bomb struck the Iraqi military vehicle carrying them north of the capital.
The injuries represented the latest crisis for a network news division that has been reeling since Peter Jennings, the longtime anchor of "World News Tonight," died of lung cancer in August. Mr. Woodruff was described as being in serious but stable condition after surgery at an American military hospital, and ABC officials said his brain appeared to be uninjured. But it was not immediately clear when or whether he could resume his co-anchor duties.
For years now, "World News Tonight" has been lagging in the ratings, and ABC has much money and prestige riding on its new co-anchor format, which was intended to stand out from its competitors by having Mr. Woodruff and his partner, Elizabeth Vargas, take turns reporting from the field while the other stays in New York.
By nightfall in New York, after Ms. Vargas had closed the Sunday evening edition of "World News Tonight," Mr. Woodruff and the cameraman, Doug Vogt, were on board an air ambulance that was about to take off to fly the two men to an Army hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, according to a statement from David Westin, president of ABC News.
Mr. Woodruff had serious head lacerations and broke several ribs, in addition to other wounds to his upper body. "The next few days," Mr. Westin said in an earlier statement, "will be critical."
Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Vogt were wounded while standing in the hatch of an Iraqi vehicle near Taji, a restive area northwest of Baghdad. They had been part of a four-member news team accompanying units of the Fourth Infantry Division and had initially been traveling in an American Army armored Humvee. But before the attack, they switched to the more lightly armored and thus, more vulnerable Iraqi vehicle, the network reported.
Although both men were wearing body armor, helmets and ballistic glasses, they were exposed to the blast because they were standing in the vehicle, ABC's White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz, said on the network's Sunday morning public affairs program, "This Week." She said there were reports that the explosion was followed by small-arms fire.
Ms. Raddatz and others at the network sought to emphasize that the two were not taking unnecessary risks.
In an on-camera conversation with Ms. Raddatz, George Stephanopoulos, the host of "This Week," observed that his two colleagues were "not being hot dogs here." Ms. Raddatz, who has also traveled with American troops in Iraq in recent months, concurred that both colleagues were "very careful."
Moments earlier, Ms. Raddatz had underscored the dangers facing Mr. Woodruff and other journalists when trying to shadow American troops as they prepare Iraqis to take over their own security. Insurgents frequently use roadside bombs and other explosive devices to attack Iraqi troops, whose soft-skinned trucks and lightly armored vehicles are an easier target than the heavier and thicker American troop carriers. Standing in a hatch increases the risks.
"If you're going to cover the Iraqi military forces, you have to be with them," Ms. Raddatz said. "You have to see how they live."
After much internal wrangling at ABC including an unsuccessful attempt to appoint one of the network's most recognizable anchors, Charles Gibson, as Mr. Jennings's successor in the short term Mr. Westin had sought to herald a period of newfound stability for the network, when he announced early last month that he was appointing Mr. Woodruff, 44, and Ms. Vargas, 43, as co-anchors.
Since his first night as co-anchor, on Jan. 3, Mr. Woodruff has crisscrossed the globe, from Tehran to Jerusalem to northern California, and back again to Jerusalem, in an effort to imbue the program with an on-the-scene immediacy and vitality that ABC executives hoped could improve the program's ratings against its main competitors, NBC and CBS.
For the moment, the standings remain much as they had in recent years, when the broadcasts had been presided over by the so-called Big 3 anchors. NBC, led since Tom Brokaw's retirement in December 2004 by Brian Williams, is comfortably in first place; ABC remains a solid second; and CBS, with Bob Schieffer serving as anchor until a permanent successor to Dan Rather is appointed, is trailing in third.
At least in the short run, Mr. Woodruff's recovery figures to focus even more attention on the three broadcasts, particularly if he makes a quick return, but an extended leave could also upend ABC News, at a moment when Katie Couric of NBC's dominant "Today" show is mulling whether to further shake up the evening news race by jumping to the "CBS Evening News."
All three evening news broadcasts have been losing viewers for years, as people's workdays push past 6:30 p.m. when the evening news typically begins and the Internet is increasingly sought out as a news source.
Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Vogt, 46, arrived in Baghdad on Friday after covering the Palestinian elections. Their forthcoming reports, including on the progress American troops were making training Iraqi security forces, were pegged to President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night, and Mr. Woodruff was to have played some role in analyzing the speech from Iraq.
There was no indication that the Iraqi vehicle carrying Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Vogt was a target because there were journalists inside.
Yet the attack was the latest to strike journalists in Iraq. In separate attacks last year, insurgents tried to destroy the two Baghdad hotels most popular with foreign journalists, the Hamra and the Palestine. On Jan. 7, the American journalist Jill Carroll was kidnapped in western Baghdad.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York watchdog group, at least 61 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the United States invaded in 2003. Bombings and other insurgent attacks killed 36 journalists while American fire killed 14, the group says.
Ms. Raddatz said Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Vogt were first rushed to the Green Zone, the heavily fortified American and Iraqi government compound in central Baghdad, and then taken by helicopter to Balad.
A military spokesman, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said one Iraqi soldier was also wounded in the attack, which he said occurred north of Taji about 12:25 p.m. Officials did not provide information on the nature and extent of his injuries.
Mr. Vogt, who was born in Alberta, Canada, and lives in France with his wife and three daughters, has been with ABC News for 15 years, covering events in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, the network said. He was in Iran earlier this month, with Mr. Woodruff.
ABC journalists, many of them trained by Mr. Jennings, streamed into the network's news headquarters on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on Sunday morning, to monitor bulletins including some from the highest echelons of the Pentagon on the fate of one of Mr. Jennings's designated heirs.
That Mr. Woodruff was seriously injured in the line of duty in Iraq also evoked memories, for colleagues across broadcast journalism, of the death of his close friend David Bloom of NBC. Mr. Bloom died in Iraq in April 2003 after suffering a blood clot that was apparently a result, at least in part, of extended time spent cramped in a military vehicle.
The two network war correspondents had met initially through their wives, at a benefit dinner in Washington. At the time Mr. Bloom died, Mr. Woodruff was also on assignment with the American military in Iraq. He immediately departed for the United States, to be of support to his own wife and four children, as well as to Mr. Bloom's widow, Melanie, and her children.
At the time, Mr. Woodruff was quoted as telling The Daily News of New York that "every time you come back you ascribe it to luck." He added, "I've got four kids and without question it's the kind of work I love doing. So it's a dilemma."
Just before Mr. Bloom died, Mr. Woodruff had told The Daily News, Mr. Bloom had sent a message to him through the main assignment desk of ABC News in New York. It said, "I just wanted to make sure you're all right keep your head down."
Mr. Woodruff's route to a broadcast network anchor chair was a circuitous one. Mr. Woodruff graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1987 and was briefly a corporate lawyer for the firm of Shearman & Sterling.
He began to make the transition to journalism two years later, while living in China. At the time, Mr. Woodruff, fluent in Mandarin, was teaching American law to Chinese lawyers, and was hired by CBS News as a translator during its coverage of the crackdown at Tiananmen Square.
Susan Zirinsky, who was directing CBS's coverage in China at the time, said in an interview on Sunday that from the outset, Mr. Woodruff "had to be on the scene." She added, "He knew real reporting took place there."
Upon returning to the United States to resume his career as a corporate lawyer, Mr. Woodruff confided in Ms. Zirinsky, as she recalled: "I can't go back to doing what I was going to do. I love your business so much."
"I told him to get over it," said Ms. Zirinsky, now executive producer of the CBS newsmagazine "48 Hours." "He went and achieved the all-time American dream."
Mr. Woodruff's first job as a news reporter was for an NBC affiliate in Northern California. He later joined ABC as a correspondent, in 1996, and has reported from the campaign trail (he traveled with the presidential campaign of Senator John Edwards in 2004) and from abroad, covering the tsunami in Asia and, earlier, life within North Korea.
Richard A. Oppel Jr. reported from Baghdad for this article, and Jacques Steinberg from New York. Bill Carter and Christine Hauser contributed reporting from New York.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
January 30, 2006
In Election, a Fight to Lead the G.O.P. in a Crucial Year
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 House Republicans will choose a leader to replace Tom DeLay this week in a private election that holds major significance for their party's public image as they head uneasily toward crucial midterm elections.
Three lawmakers Roy Blunt of Missouri, John A. Boehner of Ohio and John Shadegg of Arizona are running for the majority leader post being vacated by Representative DeLay, the polarizing Texan who is credited with much of the party's Congressional success but who was pushed from leadership in part because of his ties to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
In light of the Abramoff scandal, a Republican House member's admission of bribery, and inquiries into the conduct of other lawmakers and former aides, an internal fight that would typically turn on legislative skills, fund-raising power and political savvy has centered on whether the contenders can help dispel an impression that Republicans are too cozy with special interests.
All three men are supporting various initiatives intended to limit the influence of lobbyists and promising other changes in the way the House does business. But the veteran lawmakers, particularly Mr. Blunt and Mr. Boehner, have faced questions about their own close connections to the capital's lobbying and fund-raising community.
Since Mr. DeLay announced on Jan. 7 that he would permanently give up the leadership post, the competitors have campaigned intensely for the job, reaching out to colleagues through hundreds of phone calls and meetings while bombarding them with policy statements and examples of favorable coverage in the news media.
The three men are little known to the public at large. But the winner of Thursday's secret ballot will become the new face for House Republicans.
With Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, the winner will be responsible for shaping the party's policies and strategies in a year that could pose the most serious threat to Republican control of the House since the Democratic majority was ousted in 1994. It will be the first time since the takeover that Mr. DeLay will be out of leadership.
"I'm kind of excited," said Representative Christopher Shays, a moderate Republican from Connecticut. "To have Tom DeLay leave? Whatever happens, it is going to be a better future."
As senior members of the House Republican ranks, the three candidates differ little on overarching party principles related to the economy, national security and social issues, though they disagree on details of some subjects like immigration. But the leadership race has been waged less on questions of legislative policy and more on their personal relationships and what each of them and their allies stress as their strong points.
Mr. Blunt, 56, the majority whip who has been serving as interim majority leader since Mr. DeLay's indictment in Texas last fall on campaign-related money laundering charges, has portrayed himself as a seasoned member of the leadership team essentially the incumbent. "This is no time for on-the-job training," Mr. Blunt said in an interview.
Mr. Boehner (pronounced BAY-ner), 56, the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee and a member of the House leadership in the 1990's, is emphasizing his legislative capabilities, pointing to major education and pension bills he delivered with rare bipartisan support. "I am the only one with broad legislative skills and experience," Mr. Boehner said.
Mr. Shadegg (pronounced SHAD-egg), also 56, a conservative leader who surrendered his post as chairman of the internal party policy committee when he entered the race, is selling himself as the candidate who can bring the new vision that he said the party needed given the scandals and the drifting away from a commitment to hold spending in check.
"We need a clean break from the past," said Mr. Shadegg, who entered the race five days after his two competitors, giving them a substantial head start. "We need someone who has no baggage going back to K Street or past practices."
Watchdog groups, Democrats and some Republicans have taken aim at Mr. Blunt and Mr. Boehner, asserting that they have built the type of networks coming under increasing scrutiny, with former aides who have become lobbyists seeking to persuade the lawmakers on policy matters while providing political and fund-raising support. Both men dismiss any suggestion of impropriety.
"I think people downtown appreciate me because I do what I say I am going to do and am honest with them," Mr. Boehner said. "There is just nothing in my relationship with them that is not aboveboard. Nothing. I have no reason to be ashamed of it."
Mr. Blunt has public pledges of support from more than 90 House members for an election that will take 117 votes to win. He has said that with private pledges he is already past that mark. He credits his lead to a close relationship with many members developed over years of helping with their campaigns and legislative needs. He said he believed he cemented their confidence by delivering tough victories on close votes last month.
"Our members understand how difficult it is, day after day, to put together a coalition of Republicans and a few Democrats when you can find them to get to 218 votes," said Mr. Blunt, referring to the figure that constitutes a bare House majority.
Mr. Shadegg said that under different circumstances, his lack of experience as a senior leader or committee chairman might be a legitimate issue. But he said the party needed an infusion of new thinking.
"I don't believe that either John Boehner or Roy Blunt are idea people," Mr. Shadegg said. "I believe we ought to push our conference to come up with the kind of ideas that capture the attention of the American people."
While Mr. Blunt said he expected to win with a majority on the first ballot, his competitors hope to deny him that victory and are following a second-ballot strategy. Under that script, the No. 2 finisher would hope to pick up the supporters of the third candidate and perhaps some of the winner's backers to pull off an upset in the second round. And with the voting conducted in secret, the existing pledges are less than ironclad.
Should Mr. Blunt win, it is likely that the chief deputy whip, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, would then be elected whip meaning the pair would have simply moved up one notch in the leadership. Some Republicans worry that such an outcome could signal to the public that Republicans did not see the need for significant change.
"The Republican Party is at a crossroads right now," said Representative Mark Souder of Indiana, who is backing Mr. Shadegg. "And that crossroads is where we are going to have to reform ourselves before the voters do it this fall."
Others say that the departure of Mr. DeLay is transformation enough and that all three candidates are capable of leading the party at a critical time.
"No one can argue that Blunt or Boehner or Shadegg is not up to the job," said Representative Sherwood Boehlert of New York, who is uncommitted in the race. "They have the skills to handle it."
Copyright 2006The New York Times
In Election, a Fight to Lead the G.O.P. in a Crucial Year
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 House Republicans will choose a leader to replace Tom DeLay this week in a private election that holds major significance for their party's public image as they head uneasily toward crucial midterm elections.
Three lawmakers Roy Blunt of Missouri, John A. Boehner of Ohio and John Shadegg of Arizona are running for the majority leader post being vacated by Representative DeLay, the polarizing Texan who is credited with much of the party's Congressional success but who was pushed from leadership in part because of his ties to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
In light of the Abramoff scandal, a Republican House member's admission of bribery, and inquiries into the conduct of other lawmakers and former aides, an internal fight that would typically turn on legislative skills, fund-raising power and political savvy has centered on whether the contenders can help dispel an impression that Republicans are too cozy with special interests.
All three men are supporting various initiatives intended to limit the influence of lobbyists and promising other changes in the way the House does business. But the veteran lawmakers, particularly Mr. Blunt and Mr. Boehner, have faced questions about their own close connections to the capital's lobbying and fund-raising community.
Since Mr. DeLay announced on Jan. 7 that he would permanently give up the leadership post, the competitors have campaigned intensely for the job, reaching out to colleagues through hundreds of phone calls and meetings while bombarding them with policy statements and examples of favorable coverage in the news media.
The three men are little known to the public at large. But the winner of Thursday's secret ballot will become the new face for House Republicans.
With Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, the winner will be responsible for shaping the party's policies and strategies in a year that could pose the most serious threat to Republican control of the House since the Democratic majority was ousted in 1994. It will be the first time since the takeover that Mr. DeLay will be out of leadership.
"I'm kind of excited," said Representative Christopher Shays, a moderate Republican from Connecticut. "To have Tom DeLay leave? Whatever happens, it is going to be a better future."
As senior members of the House Republican ranks, the three candidates differ little on overarching party principles related to the economy, national security and social issues, though they disagree on details of some subjects like immigration. But the leadership race has been waged less on questions of legislative policy and more on their personal relationships and what each of them and their allies stress as their strong points.
Mr. Blunt, 56, the majority whip who has been serving as interim majority leader since Mr. DeLay's indictment in Texas last fall on campaign-related money laundering charges, has portrayed himself as a seasoned member of the leadership team essentially the incumbent. "This is no time for on-the-job training," Mr. Blunt said in an interview.
Mr. Boehner (pronounced BAY-ner), 56, the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee and a member of the House leadership in the 1990's, is emphasizing his legislative capabilities, pointing to major education and pension bills he delivered with rare bipartisan support. "I am the only one with broad legislative skills and experience," Mr. Boehner said.
Mr. Shadegg (pronounced SHAD-egg), also 56, a conservative leader who surrendered his post as chairman of the internal party policy committee when he entered the race, is selling himself as the candidate who can bring the new vision that he said the party needed given the scandals and the drifting away from a commitment to hold spending in check.
"We need a clean break from the past," said Mr. Shadegg, who entered the race five days after his two competitors, giving them a substantial head start. "We need someone who has no baggage going back to K Street or past practices."
Watchdog groups, Democrats and some Republicans have taken aim at Mr. Blunt and Mr. Boehner, asserting that they have built the type of networks coming under increasing scrutiny, with former aides who have become lobbyists seeking to persuade the lawmakers on policy matters while providing political and fund-raising support. Both men dismiss any suggestion of impropriety.
"I think people downtown appreciate me because I do what I say I am going to do and am honest with them," Mr. Boehner said. "There is just nothing in my relationship with them that is not aboveboard. Nothing. I have no reason to be ashamed of it."
Mr. Blunt has public pledges of support from more than 90 House members for an election that will take 117 votes to win. He has said that with private pledges he is already past that mark. He credits his lead to a close relationship with many members developed over years of helping with their campaigns and legislative needs. He said he believed he cemented their confidence by delivering tough victories on close votes last month.
"Our members understand how difficult it is, day after day, to put together a coalition of Republicans and a few Democrats when you can find them to get to 218 votes," said Mr. Blunt, referring to the figure that constitutes a bare House majority.
Mr. Shadegg said that under different circumstances, his lack of experience as a senior leader or committee chairman might be a legitimate issue. But he said the party needed an infusion of new thinking.
"I don't believe that either John Boehner or Roy Blunt are idea people," Mr. Shadegg said. "I believe we ought to push our conference to come up with the kind of ideas that capture the attention of the American people."
While Mr. Blunt said he expected to win with a majority on the first ballot, his competitors hope to deny him that victory and are following a second-ballot strategy. Under that script, the No. 2 finisher would hope to pick up the supporters of the third candidate and perhaps some of the winner's backers to pull off an upset in the second round. And with the voting conducted in secret, the existing pledges are less than ironclad.
Should Mr. Blunt win, it is likely that the chief deputy whip, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, would then be elected whip meaning the pair would have simply moved up one notch in the leadership. Some Republicans worry that such an outcome could signal to the public that Republicans did not see the need for significant change.
"The Republican Party is at a crossroads right now," said Representative Mark Souder of Indiana, who is backing Mr. Shadegg. "And that crossroads is where we are going to have to reform ourselves before the voters do it this fall."
Others say that the departure of Mr. DeLay is transformation enough and that all three candidates are capable of leading the party at a critical time.
"No one can argue that Blunt or Boehner or Shadegg is not up to the job," said Representative Sherwood Boehlert of New York, who is uncommitted in the race. "They have the skills to handle it."
Copyright 2006The New York Times
January 30, 2006
Budget to Hurt Poor People On Medicaid, Report Says
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 Millions of low-income people would have to pay more for health care under a bill worked out by Congress, and some of them would forgo care or drop out of Medicaid because of the higher co-payments and premiums, the Congressional Budget Office says in a new report.
The Senate has already approved the measure, the first major effort to rein in federal benefit programs in eight years, and the House is expected to vote Wednesday, clearing the bill for President Bush.
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Mr. Bush plans to recommend a variety of steps to help people obtain health insurance and cope with rising health costs. But the bill, the Deficit Reduction Act, written by Congress over the last year with support from the White House, could reduce coverage and increase the number of uninsured, the budget office said.
Over all, the bill is estimated to save $38.8 billion in the next five years and $99.3 billion from 2006 to 2015, with cuts in student loans, crop subsidies and many other programs, the budget office said. Medicaid and Medicare account for half of the savings, 27 percent and 23 percent over 10 years.
The report gives Democrats new ammunition to attack the bill. But they appear unlikely to defeat it, since the House approved a nearly identical version of the legislation by a vote of 212 to 206 on Dec. 19.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the bill was needed because Medicaid had been growing at an unsustainable rate.
But Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said the budget office report confirmed that the bill would "cut access to care for some of our most vulnerable citizens."
The bill gives states sweeping new authority to charge premiums and co-payments under Medicaid.
"In response to the new premiums, some beneficiaries would not apply for Medicaid, would leave the program or would become ineligible due to nonpayment," the Congressional Budget Office said in its report, completed Friday night. "C.B.O. estimates that about 45,000 enrollees would lose coverage in fiscal year 2010 and that 65,000 would lose coverage in fiscal year 2015 because of the imposition of premiums. About 60 percent of those losing coverage would be children."
The budget office predicted that 13 million low-income people, about a fifth of Medicaid recipients, would face new or higher co-payments for medical services like doctor's visits and hospital care.
It said that by 2010 about 13 million low-income people would have to pay more for prescription drugs, and that this number would rise to 20 million by 2015.
"About one-third of those affected would be children, and almost half would be individuals with income below the poverty level," the report said in addressing co-payments for prescription drugs.
Under the bill, states could end Medicaid coverage for people who failed to pay premiums for 60 days or more. Doctors and hospitals could deny services to Medicaid beneficiaries who did not make the required co-payments.
The budget office said the new co-payments would save money by reducing the use of medical services.
"About 80 percent of the savings from higher cost-sharing would be due to decreased use of services," the report said.
The official estimates take into account the fact that "savings from the reduced use of certain services could be partly offset by higher spending in other areas, such as emergency room visits."
After talking to federal and state officials and reviewing Medicaid data, analysts at the Congressional Budget Office predicted that states would charge premiums to 1.3 million low-income people and cut benefits for 1.6 million people. Most of the cuts would affect dental, vision and mental health services, it said.
The bill also makes it more difficult for people to qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing home care by transferring assets to children or other relatives for less than fair market value.
This provision would delay Medicaid eligibility for 120,000 people, or about 15 percent of the new recipients of Medicaid nursing home benefits each year, the budget office said.
Under another provision of the bill, Medicaid would deny coverage of nursing home care to any person with home equity exceeding $500,000. States could increase the ceiling to $750,000. About 2,000 people a year would be denied nursing home benefits because of the cap on home equity, the budget office said.
Taken together, these provisions, requiring people to use more of their own assets to pay for nursing home care, are expected to save the federal government $6.4 billion over 10 years.
The budget office estimated that 35,000 Medicaid recipients would lose coverage because of new, more stringent requirements for them to prove United States citizenship. Most of those losing coverage would be illegal immigrants, but some would be citizens unable to supply the necessary documents, the report said.
Other provisions of the bill would establish stricter work requirements for welfare recipients and cut federal payments to the states for enforcing child support orders. The cut would save the federal government $4.1 billion over 10 years, but child support collections would decline as a result, the budget office said.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Budget to Hurt Poor People On Medicaid, Report Says
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 Millions of low-income people would have to pay more for health care under a bill worked out by Congress, and some of them would forgo care or drop out of Medicaid because of the higher co-payments and premiums, the Congressional Budget Office says in a new report.
The Senate has already approved the measure, the first major effort to rein in federal benefit programs in eight years, and the House is expected to vote Wednesday, clearing the bill for President Bush.
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Mr. Bush plans to recommend a variety of steps to help people obtain health insurance and cope with rising health costs. But the bill, the Deficit Reduction Act, written by Congress over the last year with support from the White House, could reduce coverage and increase the number of uninsured, the budget office said.
Over all, the bill is estimated to save $38.8 billion in the next five years and $99.3 billion from 2006 to 2015, with cuts in student loans, crop subsidies and many other programs, the budget office said. Medicaid and Medicare account for half of the savings, 27 percent and 23 percent over 10 years.
The report gives Democrats new ammunition to attack the bill. But they appear unlikely to defeat it, since the House approved a nearly identical version of the legislation by a vote of 212 to 206 on Dec. 19.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the bill was needed because Medicaid had been growing at an unsustainable rate.
But Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said the budget office report confirmed that the bill would "cut access to care for some of our most vulnerable citizens."
The bill gives states sweeping new authority to charge premiums and co-payments under Medicaid.
"In response to the new premiums, some beneficiaries would not apply for Medicaid, would leave the program or would become ineligible due to nonpayment," the Congressional Budget Office said in its report, completed Friday night. "C.B.O. estimates that about 45,000 enrollees would lose coverage in fiscal year 2010 and that 65,000 would lose coverage in fiscal year 2015 because of the imposition of premiums. About 60 percent of those losing coverage would be children."
The budget office predicted that 13 million low-income people, about a fifth of Medicaid recipients, would face new or higher co-payments for medical services like doctor's visits and hospital care.
It said that by 2010 about 13 million low-income people would have to pay more for prescription drugs, and that this number would rise to 20 million by 2015.
"About one-third of those affected would be children, and almost half would be individuals with income below the poverty level," the report said in addressing co-payments for prescription drugs.
Under the bill, states could end Medicaid coverage for people who failed to pay premiums for 60 days or more. Doctors and hospitals could deny services to Medicaid beneficiaries who did not make the required co-payments.
The budget office said the new co-payments would save money by reducing the use of medical services.
"About 80 percent of the savings from higher cost-sharing would be due to decreased use of services," the report said.
The official estimates take into account the fact that "savings from the reduced use of certain services could be partly offset by higher spending in other areas, such as emergency room visits."
After talking to federal and state officials and reviewing Medicaid data, analysts at the Congressional Budget Office predicted that states would charge premiums to 1.3 million low-income people and cut benefits for 1.6 million people. Most of the cuts would affect dental, vision and mental health services, it said.
The bill also makes it more difficult for people to qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing home care by transferring assets to children or other relatives for less than fair market value.
This provision would delay Medicaid eligibility for 120,000 people, or about 15 percent of the new recipients of Medicaid nursing home benefits each year, the budget office said.
Under another provision of the bill, Medicaid would deny coverage of nursing home care to any person with home equity exceeding $500,000. States could increase the ceiling to $750,000. About 2,000 people a year would be denied nursing home benefits because of the cap on home equity, the budget office said.
Taken together, these provisions, requiring people to use more of their own assets to pay for nursing home care, are expected to save the federal government $6.4 billion over 10 years.
The budget office estimated that 35,000 Medicaid recipients would lose coverage because of new, more stringent requirements for them to prove United States citizenship. Most of those losing coverage would be illegal immigrants, but some would be citizens unable to supply the necessary documents, the report said.
Other provisions of the bill would establish stricter work requirements for welfare recipients and cut federal payments to the states for enforcing child support orders. The cut would save the federal government $4.1 billion over 10 years, but child support collections would decline as a result, the budget office said.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
January 29, 2006
Hagel Urges Bush to Explain Spy Program
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:44 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday that President Bush has more explaining to do on his domestic spy program and cast doubt on the administration's assertion of broad executive power.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he is looking forward to congressional hearings on the legal justification for the secretive National Security Agency program. He remains unconvinced that Bush could allow the program without fully consulting with the courts or Congress.
The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings beginning Feb. 6; the Senate Intelligence Committee will hold similar closed-door sessions on the matter.
''If in fact the president does believe that our current laws are restricting him because of new technologies ... then he should come together with Congress and say we need to amend it,'' Hagel said on ABC's ''This Week.''
Bush has defended his decision to bypass a 1978 law that requires government lawyers to go to a secretive court for warrants to conduct domestic surveillance, saying the law is too cumbersome to deal with in a post-9/11 world of heightened security threats.
On Sunday, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett said Bush has ample constitutional authority as commander in chief and under a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing force in the war against terror. Additional briefings and debate with Congress could risk security by tipping off the enemy, he said.
''There's no way that we can confidently say that by having a debate about changing the law would not unearth new operational details that would only tell the enemy exactly how we're surveilling them,'' Bartlett said on CNN's ''Late Edition.'' ''That's something that is just unacceptable.''
Hagel and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said they remain open to hearing testimony from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration officials but were uncertain that a president could have broad ''blank check'' authority.
They said both Republicans and Democrats were equally committed to fighting terrorism, and they rejected as unhelpful efforts by White House aide Karl Rove to make national security the top partisan issue in the November midterm elections.
''I think that I can make certain that we have the tools that are necessary to monitor calls from al-Qaida to U.S. citizens without going overboard and creating a situation in which, randomly, we are rifling through the e-mails and cell calls of ordinary American citizens,'' said Obama, who appeared on ABC.
Added Hagel: ''National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party.''
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press
Hagel Urges Bush to Explain Spy Program
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:44 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday that President Bush has more explaining to do on his domestic spy program and cast doubt on the administration's assertion of broad executive power.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he is looking forward to congressional hearings on the legal justification for the secretive National Security Agency program. He remains unconvinced that Bush could allow the program without fully consulting with the courts or Congress.
The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings beginning Feb. 6; the Senate Intelligence Committee will hold similar closed-door sessions on the matter.
''If in fact the president does believe that our current laws are restricting him because of new technologies ... then he should come together with Congress and say we need to amend it,'' Hagel said on ABC's ''This Week.''
Bush has defended his decision to bypass a 1978 law that requires government lawyers to go to a secretive court for warrants to conduct domestic surveillance, saying the law is too cumbersome to deal with in a post-9/11 world of heightened security threats.
On Sunday, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett said Bush has ample constitutional authority as commander in chief and under a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing force in the war against terror. Additional briefings and debate with Congress could risk security by tipping off the enemy, he said.
''There's no way that we can confidently say that by having a debate about changing the law would not unearth new operational details that would only tell the enemy exactly how we're surveilling them,'' Bartlett said on CNN's ''Late Edition.'' ''That's something that is just unacceptable.''
Hagel and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said they remain open to hearing testimony from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration officials but were uncertain that a president could have broad ''blank check'' authority.
They said both Republicans and Democrats were equally committed to fighting terrorism, and they rejected as unhelpful efforts by White House aide Karl Rove to make national security the top partisan issue in the November midterm elections.
''I think that I can make certain that we have the tools that are necessary to monitor calls from al-Qaida to U.S. citizens without going overboard and creating a situation in which, randomly, we are rifling through the e-mails and cell calls of ordinary American citizens,'' said Obama, who appeared on ABC.
Added Hagel: ''National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party.''
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press
January 30, 2006
An Enron Jury Free of Grudges? Easy, Judge Says
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO and SIMON ROMERO
HOUSTON, Jan. 29 Chances are that in this city's pool of 2.3 million registered voters, there are at least 16 people who are not angry about the implosion of Enron, the largest business collapse in history. But finding them in a single day could be a challenge.
That has not deterred Judge Simeon T. Lake III of Federal District Court, who will begin the much-anticipated criminal trial of the former Enron chief executives Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling on Monday.
Judge Lake said in court on Thursday that he expected to choose a panel of 12 jurors and 4 alternates from 100 prospective members in one day. After examining responses to the jury questionnaires, Judge Lake indicated that he felt they did not show evidence of prejudice against the defendants. "I've been impressed by the apparent lack of bias or influence from media exposure," he said.
The lawyers defending Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling have contended for months that finding impartial jurors in Houston would be difficult, if not impossible. But the judge has rejected two requests to move the trial outside of Houston, where Enron was based, and has repeatedly denied pleas by the defense lawyers to allow them to question individual jurors during the final selection process, called voir dire.
The defense lawyers say they are deeply troubled by responses to jury questionnaires, which came back with mostly negative comments about Enron and the defendants. Many Houstonians hold a grudge against Enron's leadership for the company's collapse, which directly wiped out more than 4,000 jobs and retirement accounts and sent shock waves through the city's economy.
Edward J. Bronson, a jury consultant from California who was hired by the defense to study the potential juror responses, noted that among 280 questionnaires, "greed" appeared 272 times and "crook" appeared 55 times.
"Someone has to be held accountable for what happened to Enron," Leslie Pierce, a special education teacher, said here on Saturday. "How could these men not have known what was going on? People here will be in an uproar if they are not blamed."
The notion that a judge overseeing something as far-reaching and complex as the Enron trial could pick a jury in a day was assailed by several outside legal experts and jury consultants, who argued that rushing the process could only hurt the chances that Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling would get a fair hearing in Houston.
"To get this done in one day would be a travesty of justice," said Howard Varinsky, an independent jury consultant who worked for the prosecution in the Martha Stewart and Scott Peterson trials.
"About a week would be more appropriate," said Mr. Varinsky, who nevertheless believes Houston, the nation's fourth-largest city, is varied and big enough to produce objective jurors for the trial.
Of course, the one-day idea could simply be an effort by Judge Lake, who is known for his efficiency, to establish his authority and inject some urgency into the process. But if he proves to be serious, the defense could well begin a trial that is expected to last up to six months facing an uphill fight to disabuse jurors of any prejudices about Mr. Skilling and Mr. Lay. The government has charged Mr. Skilling with 31 counts of conspiracy, fraud and insider trading in connection with Enron's spectacular collapse in December 2001. Mr. Lay is charged with seven counts of fraud and conspiracy.
Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling are reportedly spending more than $20 million on their joint defense. Their lawyers have dedicated considerable resources to the jury issue, hiring pollsters, political scientists, sociologists and jury consultants to study the prospective pool, which began with 400 people. "This is a monumental problem," said Michael Ramsey, Mr. Lay's lead lawyer. "It overshadows all the other problems we have."
Trying in a defendant's hometown a case that involves allegations of corporate corruption is not always a disadvantage. In last year's trial of Richard M. Scrushy, the former chief executive of the HealthSouth Corporation, Mr. Scrushy, who is white, used the hometown venue to his advantage by working to appeal on an emotional level to the predominantly black jury.
Mr. Scrushy joined a black church in Birmingham and was accompanied to the courtroom by groups of black supporters, including pastors from local churches. One of those pastors recently said Mr. Scrushy had paid him and an employee to make public displays of their support.
Even with local hostility, "the courtroom is where you create the level playing field," said Donald V. Watkins, Mr. Scrushy's lead defense lawyer. "It is the forum where you can demonize the government's witnesses and humanize your client." Mr. Watkins said that before the trial, polling in Birmingham showed that more than 90 percent of residents there thought Mr. Scrushy was guilty. In the end, he was acquitted of all charges.
Still, it might be challenging for Mr. Skilling and Mr. Lay to turn Houston into an advantage. In the late 1990's Enron was the highest-profile company here, and even Houston's beloved downtown baseball stadium was first named after it. The effects of its collapse were deeply felt.
Richard Trippie, a pediatric dentist who lives in Baytown, about 25 miles east of Houston, said Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling "were playing fast and loose with other people's money." But, he said, "I think they will find enough people that don't have an ax to grind" to serve as jurors.
Moira Barela, a retired high school teacher, said of Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling, "They should throw the book at them." Her negative views about the men were shaped, she said, by watching the documentary "The Smartest Guys in the Room," which was showing at one Houston theater not far from Enron's former headquarters for more than six months. Still, she said, "There are still a lot of very conservative people in Houston who wouldn't think a big corporation could do any wrong."
The level of emotion in Houston was palpable in the pool of prospective jurors, which started out numbering 400 and was culled to 100, mostly through responses to a 76-question form. (If a jury cannot be chosen from the 100 on Monday, a few dozen prospective jurors remain in reserve.)
"In my experience I have never seen the type of vituperative responses and opinions expressed by 80 percent of the large jury panel as are present in this case," said Dick DeGuerin, a Houston defense lawyer, in a filing on behalf of Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling's second request to move the trial.
Mr. Bronson, the defense's jury consultant, said that only 18 jurors among the 280 whose questionnaires he analyzed said they did not harbor negative views about Enron "hardly a cross section of the Houston community," he said.
Sean M. Berkowitz, the director of the Enron Task Force at the Justice Department, said in a recent filing with the court that the detailed questionnaire provided "safeguards for determining the impartiality of jurors" that "exceed those sought by" Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling. Samantha Martin, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment further.
Mr. Bronson said Judge Lake should allow the lawyers ample time to question the jurors in court on Monday, a recommendation echoed by other outside legal experts. Federal judges like Judge Lake generally question jurors themselves in an effort to explore in greater depth the answers that the jurors have given to written questions, while in state courts lawyers are more involved in the process.
Abraham Abramovsky, a professor of criminal law at Fordham University, said the Enron trial was "a unique case and should be handled as such." He added: "If you want jurors to concentrate and really believe in the presumption of innocence, you have to show them that you really are concerned with prejudices and adverse publicity."
Without the chance to do additional questioning, Mr. Ramsey and Daniel Petrocelli, Mr. Skilling's lead lawyer, may have few options except to try to influence the jurors during the trial.
The defense could opt to hire a "shadow jury" composed of people who closely match the racial and economic profile of the jurors chosen by the court. The shadow jury would monitor the trial from the spectator benches in the courtroom and then be quizzed by consultants on their impressions, without ever knowing if they were working for the defense or for the prosecution. But Mr. Ramsey said he was not in favor of this approach, having been unsatisfied with a shadow jury he used in a high-profile murder case three years ago. "It is a total luxury item that can be misleading," he said.
Some in Houston say that in the end their city will not prove to be a liability for the defense. "This is probably the best place they could have gotten a trial," said Cameo Wachinsky, a film producer, as she walked out of a bookstore here on Saturday. "People are crooked here. This is Texas. They definitely will listen to both sides."
Kyle Whitmire contributed reporting from Birmingham, Ala., for this article.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
An Enron Jury Free of Grudges? Easy, Judge Says
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO and SIMON ROMERO
HOUSTON, Jan. 29 Chances are that in this city's pool of 2.3 million registered voters, there are at least 16 people who are not angry about the implosion of Enron, the largest business collapse in history. But finding them in a single day could be a challenge.
That has not deterred Judge Simeon T. Lake III of Federal District Court, who will begin the much-anticipated criminal trial of the former Enron chief executives Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling on Monday.
Judge Lake said in court on Thursday that he expected to choose a panel of 12 jurors and 4 alternates from 100 prospective members in one day. After examining responses to the jury questionnaires, Judge Lake indicated that he felt they did not show evidence of prejudice against the defendants. "I've been impressed by the apparent lack of bias or influence from media exposure," he said.
The lawyers defending Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling have contended for months that finding impartial jurors in Houston would be difficult, if not impossible. But the judge has rejected two requests to move the trial outside of Houston, where Enron was based, and has repeatedly denied pleas by the defense lawyers to allow them to question individual jurors during the final selection process, called voir dire.
The defense lawyers say they are deeply troubled by responses to jury questionnaires, which came back with mostly negative comments about Enron and the defendants. Many Houstonians hold a grudge against Enron's leadership for the company's collapse, which directly wiped out more than 4,000 jobs and retirement accounts and sent shock waves through the city's economy.
Edward J. Bronson, a jury consultant from California who was hired by the defense to study the potential juror responses, noted that among 280 questionnaires, "greed" appeared 272 times and "crook" appeared 55 times.
"Someone has to be held accountable for what happened to Enron," Leslie Pierce, a special education teacher, said here on Saturday. "How could these men not have known what was going on? People here will be in an uproar if they are not blamed."
The notion that a judge overseeing something as far-reaching and complex as the Enron trial could pick a jury in a day was assailed by several outside legal experts and jury consultants, who argued that rushing the process could only hurt the chances that Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling would get a fair hearing in Houston.
"To get this done in one day would be a travesty of justice," said Howard Varinsky, an independent jury consultant who worked for the prosecution in the Martha Stewart and Scott Peterson trials.
"About a week would be more appropriate," said Mr. Varinsky, who nevertheless believes Houston, the nation's fourth-largest city, is varied and big enough to produce objective jurors for the trial.
Of course, the one-day idea could simply be an effort by Judge Lake, who is known for his efficiency, to establish his authority and inject some urgency into the process. But if he proves to be serious, the defense could well begin a trial that is expected to last up to six months facing an uphill fight to disabuse jurors of any prejudices about Mr. Skilling and Mr. Lay. The government has charged Mr. Skilling with 31 counts of conspiracy, fraud and insider trading in connection with Enron's spectacular collapse in December 2001. Mr. Lay is charged with seven counts of fraud and conspiracy.
Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling are reportedly spending more than $20 million on their joint defense. Their lawyers have dedicated considerable resources to the jury issue, hiring pollsters, political scientists, sociologists and jury consultants to study the prospective pool, which began with 400 people. "This is a monumental problem," said Michael Ramsey, Mr. Lay's lead lawyer. "It overshadows all the other problems we have."
Trying in a defendant's hometown a case that involves allegations of corporate corruption is not always a disadvantage. In last year's trial of Richard M. Scrushy, the former chief executive of the HealthSouth Corporation, Mr. Scrushy, who is white, used the hometown venue to his advantage by working to appeal on an emotional level to the predominantly black jury.
Mr. Scrushy joined a black church in Birmingham and was accompanied to the courtroom by groups of black supporters, including pastors from local churches. One of those pastors recently said Mr. Scrushy had paid him and an employee to make public displays of their support.
Even with local hostility, "the courtroom is where you create the level playing field," said Donald V. Watkins, Mr. Scrushy's lead defense lawyer. "It is the forum where you can demonize the government's witnesses and humanize your client." Mr. Watkins said that before the trial, polling in Birmingham showed that more than 90 percent of residents there thought Mr. Scrushy was guilty. In the end, he was acquitted of all charges.
Still, it might be challenging for Mr. Skilling and Mr. Lay to turn Houston into an advantage. In the late 1990's Enron was the highest-profile company here, and even Houston's beloved downtown baseball stadium was first named after it. The effects of its collapse were deeply felt.
Richard Trippie, a pediatric dentist who lives in Baytown, about 25 miles east of Houston, said Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling "were playing fast and loose with other people's money." But, he said, "I think they will find enough people that don't have an ax to grind" to serve as jurors.
Moira Barela, a retired high school teacher, said of Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling, "They should throw the book at them." Her negative views about the men were shaped, she said, by watching the documentary "The Smartest Guys in the Room," which was showing at one Houston theater not far from Enron's former headquarters for more than six months. Still, she said, "There are still a lot of very conservative people in Houston who wouldn't think a big corporation could do any wrong."
The level of emotion in Houston was palpable in the pool of prospective jurors, which started out numbering 400 and was culled to 100, mostly through responses to a 76-question form. (If a jury cannot be chosen from the 100 on Monday, a few dozen prospective jurors remain in reserve.)
"In my experience I have never seen the type of vituperative responses and opinions expressed by 80 percent of the large jury panel as are present in this case," said Dick DeGuerin, a Houston defense lawyer, in a filing on behalf of Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling's second request to move the trial.
Mr. Bronson, the defense's jury consultant, said that only 18 jurors among the 280 whose questionnaires he analyzed said they did not harbor negative views about Enron "hardly a cross section of the Houston community," he said.
Sean M. Berkowitz, the director of the Enron Task Force at the Justice Department, said in a recent filing with the court that the detailed questionnaire provided "safeguards for determining the impartiality of jurors" that "exceed those sought by" Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling. Samantha Martin, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment further.
Mr. Bronson said Judge Lake should allow the lawyers ample time to question the jurors in court on Monday, a recommendation echoed by other outside legal experts. Federal judges like Judge Lake generally question jurors themselves in an effort to explore in greater depth the answers that the jurors have given to written questions, while in state courts lawyers are more involved in the process.
Abraham Abramovsky, a professor of criminal law at Fordham University, said the Enron trial was "a unique case and should be handled as such." He added: "If you want jurors to concentrate and really believe in the presumption of innocence, you have to show them that you really are concerned with prejudices and adverse publicity."
Without the chance to do additional questioning, Mr. Ramsey and Daniel Petrocelli, Mr. Skilling's lead lawyer, may have few options except to try to influence the jurors during the trial.
The defense could opt to hire a "shadow jury" composed of people who closely match the racial and economic profile of the jurors chosen by the court. The shadow jury would monitor the trial from the spectator benches in the courtroom and then be quizzed by consultants on their impressions, without ever knowing if they were working for the defense or for the prosecution. But Mr. Ramsey said he was not in favor of this approach, having been unsatisfied with a shadow jury he used in a high-profile murder case three years ago. "It is a total luxury item that can be misleading," he said.
Some in Houston say that in the end their city will not prove to be a liability for the defense. "This is probably the best place they could have gotten a trial," said Cameo Wachinsky, a film producer, as she walked out of a bookstore here on Saturday. "People are crooked here. This is Texas. They definitely will listen to both sides."
Kyle Whitmire contributed reporting from Birmingham, Ala., for this article.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
January 30, 2006
Greenspan, Another Monument in Washington, Prepares to Leave
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 It was a farewell dinner at the White House that only Alan Greenspan could have engineered.
In the Blue Room last Monday night, with President Bush as host, several dozen of Mr. Greenspan's closest friends gathered to toast him before he retires this week as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
But it was the list of guests, old friends whom Mr. Greenspan specifically asked the White House to invite, that highlighted his stature as both an icon and an iconoclast.
At one table was Vice President Dick Cheney, the hard-nosed combatant at the Bush White House, whose friendship with Mr. Greenspan began 30 years ago in the Ford White House.
But just a few tables away was Robert E. Rubin, a Treasury secretary under President Clinton and a man so disliked in the Bush White House that many officials use his name as a sneering put-down "Rubinomics."
The guest list also included Vernon E. Jordan Jr., the millionaire lawyer and ubiquitous adviser to Democratic leaders, and Peter G. Peterson, a Republican who has infuriated the White House by lambasting Mr. Bush's budget deficits.
The list underscores how Mr. Greenspan, despite being a lifelong Republican, had a knack for building friendships across the political spectrum and, almost unheard-of in today's bitterly divided capital, made few enemies in his 18-year tenure.
"He likes to be challenged by intelligent people," said Andrea Mitchell, Mr. Greenspan's wife and a correspondent for NBC News.
Now 79, Mr. Greenspan is scheduled to step down on Tuesday as the Fed's maestro and hand over the most powerful economic job in the world to Ben S. Bernanke, a former Fed governor and professor of economics at Princeton.
After serving a term longer than that of any other Fed chairman except William McChesney Martin Jr., who held the job from 1951 until 1970, Mr. Greenspan's departure will be a historic transition. Mr. Bernanke, who is expected to be confirmed by the Senate on Tuesday, is likely to usher in a new era at the Fed one that is less personalized, less idiosyncratic and perhaps less mysterious.
Mr. Greenspan is almost an institution in Washington ubiquitous on the party circuit and a constant dispenser of economic advice to top lawmakers and presidents, regardless of which party is in power. In sharp contrast, Mr. Bernanke had almost no political ties until a few years ago. Many of his closest friends said they never realized he was a Republican.
Mr. Bernanke has already told lawmakers that he will keep a lower political profile. Where Mr. Greenspan waded into explosive political debates over Social Security and tax cuts, Mr. Bernanke has vowed to stay silent on issues that are not directly tied to monetary policy.
Mr. Bernanke is a champion of greater openness and demystification at the Fed. He would like it to publicly peg its policies to an explicit target for inflation an idea that Mr. Greenspan opposes because it might restrict the Fed's maneuvering room.
But for all of Mr. Greenspan's flair, from his visibility at parties to his knack for catchy phrases like "irrational exuberance," many veterans of economic policy say it is a mistake to think no one can fill his shoes.
"Alan Greenspan played two roles one as chairman of the Federal Reserve and the second as an economic sage," said Gene B. Sperling, a former top economic adviser to President Clinton. "You need a lot of political savvy to rise to the level of economic sage, but I don't think you need so much simply to be a good Federal Reserve chairman."
Mr. Greenspan is not disappearing. He plans to write a book and start a consulting firm called Greenspan Associates. And while he does plan to write and comment on the economy, he has vowed to avoid any comment about monetary policy.
Ms. Mitchell, his wife, said he recently started figuring out how to do his own research on the Internet; he is still in the process of getting a personal e-mail address. "He spent his entire adult life trying to understand how the economy is organized, and he's not going to stop now," Ms. Mitchell said.
It remains to be seen whether Mr. Bernanke's background as an academic will lead to a different style of leadership at the Fed.
Mr. Greenspan's approach has been as much a matter of art as science, and his instincts and insights defied simple explanations. Though Mr. Greenspan loves nothing more than to crunch numbers, he was openly skeptical about economic models and preferred to look for "anomalies" that hint at new truths.
The most famous example was his recognition, long before the Fed's own staff, that productivity was climbing much faster than the government's official numbers showed.
Mr. Greenspan, who proved it by crunching his own numbers, once compared his effort to that of scientists who had originally inferred the existence of the planet Pluto without actually seeing it.
Mr. Bernanke puts a high value on economic models. But like his predecessor, Mr. Bernanke also has a strong appetite for diving into data, hunting for fresh ideas and coming up with his own bons mots.
In 2002, he startled some economists by declaring that the Fed could prevent deflation, an across-the-board drop in consumer prices, by printing money. The Fed, he said, had a novel technology "called a printing press."
Mr. Bernanke has also recognized the risks of overconfidence. He once described the process of setting monetary policy as similar to driving a car by looking in the rear-view mirror and being uncertain as to how it would react to a tap on the accelerator or the brake.
Many people still say Mr. Greenspan provided the crucial political endorsement for President Bush's tax cuts of 2001, arguing that the cuts were needed to reduce what seemed then like huge budget surpluses.
Mr. Bernanke is very different. He spent most of his career as an academic. He is a Republican, but had no ties to Mr. Bush until he was nominated as a Fed governor in 2002.
The Fed today is much freer from outside political pressure than it was when Mr. Greenspan arrived in 1987. Mr. Greenspan came under repeated pressure to lower interest rates in the 1980's and early 1990's from the first Bush administration, under George H. W. Bush.
That stopped when President Clinton took office, and has not resumed.
Current and former Fed governors say there is little disagreement between Republican and Democratic board members that the Fed's top priority is to maintain stable prices. The debates are primarily about differing views on where the economy is headed.
But the composition of the Fed's policy-making board has changed, as Democrats have gradually left the board and Mr. Bush has named Republicans to take their seats.
Indeed, on Friday Mr. Bush nominated two Republicans, both economists who have worked in his White House, to fill open seats on the Federal Reserve Board.
One of the nominees is Randall S. Kroszner, a professor at the University of Chicago who worked on the White House Council of Economic Advisers during Mr. Bush's first term. The other is Kevin M. Warsh, a former investment banker at Morgan Stanley, who is currently a special assistant to Mr. Bush on economic policy.
At this point, there are no signs the Fed has tilted its policies to make Mr. Bush's life easier.
Mr. Bernanke's biggest challenge is likely to come from the economy itself rather than from the politicians around him.
The government reported on Friday that economic growth slowed sharply in the last three months of 2005, to an annual rate of 1.1 percent, from 4.1 percent in the third quarter of 2005, and many economists worry that a slump in housing could lead to a broader slowdown.
Mr. Rubin, the former Treasury secretary who became a particularly close friend of Mr. Greenspan during the Clinton years, said Mr. Bernanke's biggest problem may prove to be the United States' soaring trade deficit and overall foreign indebtedness.
If the imbalances lead to a crisis for the dollar or a plunge in foreign confidence about the United States, Mr. Rubin said, the Federal Reserve could face unpleasant choices similar to those that Paul A. Volcker, Mr. Greenspan's predecessor, faced in taming inflation.
"It may be that the next Fed chairman will face a challenge a little more like what Volcker faced, which is a challenge routed in the economic conditions of this country," Mr. Rubin said. "In his case it was inflation. In this case, it may be the imbalances."
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Greenspan, Another Monument in Washington, Prepares to Leave
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 It was a farewell dinner at the White House that only Alan Greenspan could have engineered.
In the Blue Room last Monday night, with President Bush as host, several dozen of Mr. Greenspan's closest friends gathered to toast him before he retires this week as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
But it was the list of guests, old friends whom Mr. Greenspan specifically asked the White House to invite, that highlighted his stature as both an icon and an iconoclast.
At one table was Vice President Dick Cheney, the hard-nosed combatant at the Bush White House, whose friendship with Mr. Greenspan began 30 years ago in the Ford White House.
But just a few tables away was Robert E. Rubin, a Treasury secretary under President Clinton and a man so disliked in the Bush White House that many officials use his name as a sneering put-down "Rubinomics."
The guest list also included Vernon E. Jordan Jr., the millionaire lawyer and ubiquitous adviser to Democratic leaders, and Peter G. Peterson, a Republican who has infuriated the White House by lambasting Mr. Bush's budget deficits.
The list underscores how Mr. Greenspan, despite being a lifelong Republican, had a knack for building friendships across the political spectrum and, almost unheard-of in today's bitterly divided capital, made few enemies in his 18-year tenure.
"He likes to be challenged by intelligent people," said Andrea Mitchell, Mr. Greenspan's wife and a correspondent for NBC News.
Now 79, Mr. Greenspan is scheduled to step down on Tuesday as the Fed's maestro and hand over the most powerful economic job in the world to Ben S. Bernanke, a former Fed governor and professor of economics at Princeton.
After serving a term longer than that of any other Fed chairman except William McChesney Martin Jr., who held the job from 1951 until 1970, Mr. Greenspan's departure will be a historic transition. Mr. Bernanke, who is expected to be confirmed by the Senate on Tuesday, is likely to usher in a new era at the Fed one that is less personalized, less idiosyncratic and perhaps less mysterious.
Mr. Greenspan is almost an institution in Washington ubiquitous on the party circuit and a constant dispenser of economic advice to top lawmakers and presidents, regardless of which party is in power. In sharp contrast, Mr. Bernanke had almost no political ties until a few years ago. Many of his closest friends said they never realized he was a Republican.
Mr. Bernanke has already told lawmakers that he will keep a lower political profile. Where Mr. Greenspan waded into explosive political debates over Social Security and tax cuts, Mr. Bernanke has vowed to stay silent on issues that are not directly tied to monetary policy.
Mr. Bernanke is a champion of greater openness and demystification at the Fed. He would like it to publicly peg its policies to an explicit target for inflation an idea that Mr. Greenspan opposes because it might restrict the Fed's maneuvering room.
But for all of Mr. Greenspan's flair, from his visibility at parties to his knack for catchy phrases like "irrational exuberance," many veterans of economic policy say it is a mistake to think no one can fill his shoes.
"Alan Greenspan played two roles one as chairman of the Federal Reserve and the second as an economic sage," said Gene B. Sperling, a former top economic adviser to President Clinton. "You need a lot of political savvy to rise to the level of economic sage, but I don't think you need so much simply to be a good Federal Reserve chairman."
Mr. Greenspan is not disappearing. He plans to write a book and start a consulting firm called Greenspan Associates. And while he does plan to write and comment on the economy, he has vowed to avoid any comment about monetary policy.
Ms. Mitchell, his wife, said he recently started figuring out how to do his own research on the Internet; he is still in the process of getting a personal e-mail address. "He spent his entire adult life trying to understand how the economy is organized, and he's not going to stop now," Ms. Mitchell said.
It remains to be seen whether Mr. Bernanke's background as an academic will lead to a different style of leadership at the Fed.
Mr. Greenspan's approach has been as much a matter of art as science, and his instincts and insights defied simple explanations. Though Mr. Greenspan loves nothing more than to crunch numbers, he was openly skeptical about economic models and preferred to look for "anomalies" that hint at new truths.
The most famous example was his recognition, long before the Fed's own staff, that productivity was climbing much faster than the government's official numbers showed.
Mr. Greenspan, who proved it by crunching his own numbers, once compared his effort to that of scientists who had originally inferred the existence of the planet Pluto without actually seeing it.
Mr. Bernanke puts a high value on economic models. But like his predecessor, Mr. Bernanke also has a strong appetite for diving into data, hunting for fresh ideas and coming up with his own bons mots.
In 2002, he startled some economists by declaring that the Fed could prevent deflation, an across-the-board drop in consumer prices, by printing money. The Fed, he said, had a novel technology "called a printing press."
Mr. Bernanke has also recognized the risks of overconfidence. He once described the process of setting monetary policy as similar to driving a car by looking in the rear-view mirror and being uncertain as to how it would react to a tap on the accelerator or the brake.
Many people still say Mr. Greenspan provided the crucial political endorsement for President Bush's tax cuts of 2001, arguing that the cuts were needed to reduce what seemed then like huge budget surpluses.
Mr. Bernanke is very different. He spent most of his career as an academic. He is a Republican, but had no ties to Mr. Bush until he was nominated as a Fed governor in 2002.
The Fed today is much freer from outside political pressure than it was when Mr. Greenspan arrived in 1987. Mr. Greenspan came under repeated pressure to lower interest rates in the 1980's and early 1990's from the first Bush administration, under George H. W. Bush.
That stopped when President Clinton took office, and has not resumed.
Current and former Fed governors say there is little disagreement between Republican and Democratic board members that the Fed's top priority is to maintain stable prices. The debates are primarily about differing views on where the economy is headed.
But the composition of the Fed's policy-making board has changed, as Democrats have gradually left the board and Mr. Bush has named Republicans to take their seats.
Indeed, on Friday Mr. Bush nominated two Republicans, both economists who have worked in his White House, to fill open seats on the Federal Reserve Board.
One of the nominees is Randall S. Kroszner, a professor at the University of Chicago who worked on the White House Council of Economic Advisers during Mr. Bush's first term. The other is Kevin M. Warsh, a former investment banker at Morgan Stanley, who is currently a special assistant to Mr. Bush on economic policy.
At this point, there are no signs the Fed has tilted its policies to make Mr. Bush's life easier.
Mr. Bernanke's biggest challenge is likely to come from the economy itself rather than from the politicians around him.
The government reported on Friday that economic growth slowed sharply in the last three months of 2005, to an annual rate of 1.1 percent, from 4.1 percent in the third quarter of 2005, and many economists worry that a slump in housing could lead to a broader slowdown.
Mr. Rubin, the former Treasury secretary who became a particularly close friend of Mr. Greenspan during the Clinton years, said Mr. Bernanke's biggest problem may prove to be the United States' soaring trade deficit and overall foreign indebtedness.
If the imbalances lead to a crisis for the dollar or a plunge in foreign confidence about the United States, Mr. Rubin said, the Federal Reserve could face unpleasant choices similar to those that Paul A. Volcker, Mr. Greenspan's predecessor, faced in taming inflation.
"It may be that the next Fed chairman will face a challenge a little more like what Volcker faced, which is a challenge routed in the economic conditions of this country," Mr. Rubin said. "In his case it was inflation. In this case, it may be the imbalances."
Copyright 2006The New York Times
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.