You forgot to mention the $2 billion embassy as well.

My dear friend Snuffysmith .....

I have to say that this author above here has lost me as one of his or her "adherents" .....

Before I even became one ....

Because this individual is offering nothing constructive for me to grasp onto ....

As an American citizen ....

And I am assuming that the writer of this piece is from another country .....

And is therefore making assumptions about America and Americans that are not totally founded, at all .....

And so ....

There just is no place for me to "get traction" here .....

If I had to say something back to this person, it would be to watch and wait and see what happens themselves ....

For something is going on, for sure ...

But I believe it goes way back in time ...

Long before Ronald Raygun, who I did not think that awful much of, to be truthful .....

And so ....

Compared to other American leaders, George W. Bush is an ABERATION ....

But like Caligula and Nero of Rome ...

George W. Bush does exist ...

And so ...

WHAT IS THE MESSAGE WHEN NATIONS LIKE AMERICA END UP WITH PEOPLE LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH IN POSITIONS OF GREAT AUTHORITY AND POWER OVER THE LIVES OF LARGE NUMBERS OF HUMAN BEINGS ON THIS EARTH OF OURS?

What is that really saying about America?

What is that really saying about the American people?

These are the issues that I am interested in, myself ....

And so ....

And speaking about oil ....

And the American economy ...

Which is based on the ludicrous notion of continuous consumption WITHOUT END...

As if everything on this earth of OURS were in unlimited supply .....

How ridiculous .....

How childish ....

How American a notion that is ....

"Housing Slowdown Ripples Through Economy"

By DAVID KOENIG, AP Business Writer

1 hour, 39 minutes ago

DALLAS - The five-year housing boom is indeed over, judging from growing statistical evidence and the performance of some of the nation's leading builders, and the slowdown is already rippling through the economy.

In the last week, the Commerce Department reported that January sales of new single-family homes fell 5 percent — the fourth decline in seven months — and the backlog of unsold new homes hit a record.

And the National Association of Realtors said used home sales slipped 2.8 percent in January, the fourth straight drop and 5 percent below January 2005.

Builders also reported a few hiccups.

Upscale Toll Brothers Inc. said signed contracts in the November-January period fell 21 percent from a year ago, and KB Home reported more buyers backing out of contracts.

Still, the prospect of a housing slowdown appears less frightening than it did a few months ago, according to those who track the industry.

There seems to be little concern that a much-touted housing bubble will lead to a collapse in sales and prices.

New Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said last month housing would enter a moderate slowdown but not a crash.

William Mack, a housing analyst for Standard & Poor's, predicted "a soft landing.

The overall market is just taking a step back."

Explanations for the recent cooling-off vary.

Many people bought homes during the past five years and are staying put.

Some analysts blame a decline in consumer confidence.

And interest rates have been rising, especially for adjustable mortgages that allowed people to buy more expensive homes than they could have afforded with a 30-year loan.

"We started to see the strain in July and August, and by the fourth quarter the market definitely had slowed," said Layne Marceau, president of the Northern California region for Shea Homes, one of the nation's largest private builders.

Rising prices and interest rates pushed more buyers out of the market.

When prices finally did cool, sellers couldn't command a high enough price on their old house to buy the new one, said Marceau, who believes the slowdown is temporary.

Builders don't like to cut prices — it angers customers who paid more — but last week, Centex Corp. advertised $25,000 off on select homes in the Dallas area after making a successful similar offer in California.

Around the country, builders are throwing in incentives ranging from financing help to free upgrades like swimming pools and granite countertops.

Some equal 10 percent of the home's list price.

The median price of an existing single-family home has declined since peaking at $219,700 in July to $210,500 in January, according to the National Association of Realtors.

Few analysts expect a sharp drop in national averages, although they say there could be further declines in some areas that have been among the hottest markets in recent years.

David Seiders, chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, said California, Las Vegas, Florida and the Washington, D.C., area "have the largest potential for a price slowdown."

The rising prices in those markets were fed by speculators who bought homes intending to "flip" or sell them for a quick profit, Seiders said.

"The biggest fear I have is investor-owned units coming back on the market in large numbers," he said.

Analysts said markets in Florida and the Carolinas seemed to be holding up well.

Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. reported last week that home contracts jumped 61 percent in the Southeast but fell nearly 11 percent in the Southwest and 37 percent in the West during the November-January period.

The builder's profit was flat with a year earlier.

The slowdown that is showing up in national statistics hasn't reached all parts of the country.

"I've never seen a market as good as this," Mike Mishler said as he took a break from making finishing touches on a $1.6 million lakeside home near Dallas.

"Maybe it will slow down in a couple years, but right now we have lots of California folks coming in, and empty-nest people looking for new homes."

Mishler, president of the local builders association, says Texas markets are holding up because they are affordable — the median price in Dallas is $145,000 compared to the national average of $213,000.

But even in Dallas, the inventory of unsold homes rose to a record in the fourth quarter.

By price, the middle and upper ends of the new-home market did best in 2005, with solid increases in everything above $200,000, reflecting strongest markets were in high-priced areas along both coasts.

That pattern mostly continued in January, although there was a dip in the $400,000 to $750,000 segment compared to January 2005.

Housing has played a major role in the economic recovery since 2001, so even slower growth in home sales and prices could have major repercussions.

Asha Bangalore, an economist for The Northern Trust Co. in Chicago, estimates housing created 43 percent of all new jobs from late 2001 until mid-2005.

That included the obvious, such as jobs in construction and mortgage services, but also retail and service jobs that were created because consumers tapped their rising home equity to buy more things.

"The housing slowdown that we are seeing is very modest, not alarming, but I think the ripple effects are going to be enormous because of the employment factor," she said.

For now, home builders are busy finishing the houses that customers ordered last year.

In a sense, their 2006 results are already on the books, and they expect another good year.

"This will either be our most profitable or our second-most profitable year in the company's history," Joel Rassman, chief financial officer of Horsham, Penn.-based Toll Brothers, told investors this week.

Its profits rose about 50 percent in 2004 and nearly doubled last year.

Investors, however, have been bidding down the stocks of home builders since July, prompting executives to complain that their companies are undervalued despite record earnings.

The nine largest publicly traded builders have seen their shares fall 14 to 44 percent since their peaks, with Toll Brothers and Hovnanian the biggest losers.

Alex Barron, an analyst in San Francisco for JMP Securities, said builder stocks have been trading at relatively low multiples of their earnings since the late 1990s because investors always believed the strong housing market was too good to last.

"Investors kept saying, 'Next year housing will go down,'" Barron said.

"I guess they're finally right."
___

On the Net:

National Association of Realtors: http://www.realtor.org

National Association of Home Builders: http://www.nahb.org

And then there is CORRUPT GOVERNMENT here in OUR America ...

Where we have some of the very best politicians in the world that money can buy .....

"Senate begins consideration of lobby reform"

By Thomas Ferraro

43 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate began consideration of legislation on Monday that would require lobbyists to disclose more about their activities and ban gifts by lobbyists to members of Congress and staff.

The measure, which has strong bipartisan support in the wake of scandals that rocked the Republican-led Congress, would also impose stiff fines for violation of lobbying curbs.

The Senate hopes to complete action after voting on a long list of possible amendments later this week.

They include one that would deny congressional pensions to lawmakers convicted of accepting bribes.

That proposal was inspired largely by the case of former Republican U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California, who was sentenced last week to eight years and four months in jail for accepting $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.

Ethics reform became a top priority after lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in January in a wide-ranging public corruption case.

He is now cooperating with prosecutors and the probe may reach a number of lawmakers.

Members on both sides of the political aisle have demanded reform, saying lawmakers need to clean up Congress and reverse polls that show declining confidence in political leaders.

But some Democrats have blamed much of the recent ethical woes on a Republican "culture of corruption," and hope to use it to gain advantage in the November congressional elections.

"America deserves a government as good as its people," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said, "The American people expect us to work together to develop meaningful bipartisan solutions."

"We are obligated to protect the integrity of this great institution, and, most importantly, to represent the genuine interests of the voters who sent us here," Frist said.

The legislation before the Senate is the product of bills produced last week on bipartisan votes by two committees.

The Republican-led House of Representatives is expected to produce legislation of its own in coming weeks.

Reform is certainly needed. But can we count on the morality of the present Congress to pass effective legislation.

I don't think so.

And there is the JOKE of this whole thing, jeffmoskin ....

Right out there in plain sight for all to see .....

This CORRUPT CROWD that is in power in OUR Congress now wants us to believe that it can change itself ...

That it can cleanse itself of the CORRUPTION which PERVADES its ranks ......

WITHOUT AN ACTUAL CHANGE IN WHO OCCUPIES THOSE RANKS TAKING PLACE .....

In other words, NO PURGES ARE NEEDED, FOLKS ....

This is like a GUILD OF THIEVES promising the Mayor of a community and its inhabitants that they will no longer be thieves in that community, AND YOU CAN TAKE THEIR WORD ON IT AS LAW .....

Well give me a break, here .....

HOW STUPID DO YOU HAVE YOU HAVE TO BE, TO BE A "GOOD" AMERICAN ANYMORE, IS MY QUESTION ...

When I read these words of "Big Bill" Frist in that article above, "We are obligated to protect the integrity of this great institution, and, most importantly, to represent the genuine interests of the voters who sent us here,", I had to ask myself .....

WHO IS THIS GUY TRYING TO KID?

When exactly did "Big Bill" discover that the members of the UNITED STATES SENATE, of which he is one, were actually "obligated to protect the integrity of this great institution, and, most importantly, to represent the genuine interests of the voters who sent us here?"

It certainly does not seem to have been very long ago ......

Maybe right after "BIG JACK" Abramoff went down in flames for BUYING UP some of OUR CHOICE BEEF down there in Washington,. D.C. that is FOR SALE to the highest bidder, as if OUR Congress were little more than a fancy "CALL GIRL" ring ....

A MEAT MARKET for HIGH ROLLERS .....

Personally, I think that "Big Bill" Frist and his crowd down there are now trying to PLAY us, to GULL us, like a carnival barker tries to lure and gull the crowds at a rural county fair ...

And so ...

It will be interesting to watch this whole thing play out .....

It kind of takes us back to some earlier times in the history of OUR America, is what I think .....

And the eternal question of "American VALUES" .....

And exactly what they might be ...

In a country with a history of slave-owning and CORRUPTION such as OUR America has .....

It is very obvious, from the fact that "Big Bill" Frist is the "BIG CHEESE" in the United States Senate, that his "BRAND OF POLITICS" has been a real big seller on the market out there for quite some time now ...

And so ....

It will be interesting to see if there are really any Americans left in this country anymore who find the STINK OF CORRUPTION of this Congress down there in Washington, D.C. so overpowering that they can muster up the votes needed to defeat ICONS OF CORRUPTION in the U.S. Congress this fall ...

Or whether it will be same old, same old, all over again .....

And so ....

And speaking of the same old same old .....

YADA, YADA, YADA ....

Yeah, right, Alberto ...

Ah hah, yes, ah hah, OH, I SEE .......

"Gonzales Defends Treatment of Suspects"

By BETH GARDINER, Associated Press Writer

8 minutes ago

LONDON - The U.S. attorney general defended his country's treatment of terror suspects against criticism from Europe and elsewhere, saying Tuesday that the United States abhors torture and respects the rights of detainees.

Alberto Gonzales also said the U.S. did not transport terrorism suspects to nations where it was likely they could be tortured.

Human rights groups and other European critics have alleged that U.S. planes may be using European airports and air space to send suspects to nations that may torture them.

They have also criticized the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo, and a U.N. report last month called for the facility to be closed "without further delay" because it is effectively a torture camp where prisoners have no access to justice.

The U.S. attorney general — speaking Tuesday at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think-tank in London — vehemently denied such charges, but acknowledged that people might interpret the term "torture" in different ways.

The U.S. abides by its own definition, which he said was the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical suffering.

"The U.S. abhors torture and categorically rejects its use," Gonzales said, adding that where appropriate the U.S. sought assurances from foreign governments before transporting detainees there, and did not transport anyone "to a country if we believe it more likely than not that the individual would be tortured."

Gonzales also said the U.S. did not use airports in Europe or anywhere else to move detainees for the purpose of torture.

"The United States has always been and remains a great defender of human rights and the rule of law," Gonzales said.

"I regret that there has been concern or confusion about our commitment to the rule of law."

On the subject of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, Gonzales said detainees were treated properly and afforded with extensive legal protections.

The prison — opened January 2001 at the U.S. Naval base in southeast Cuba — now holds about 490 men suspected of having links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Though many inmates have spent several years at the camp, only a handful have been charged.

Gonzales defended their treatment and said the U.S. had to use all available tools to fight terror, reiterating U.S. claims that the detainees were "highly dangerous people" including terrorist trainers, bomb makers and potential suicide bombers.

"We are aware of no other nation in history that has afforded procedural protections like these to enemy combatants," he said.

Gonzales said the U.S. was continually reassessing the need for the camp to remain open, and could consider closing it if circumstances changed.

He acknowledged disagreements between the U.S. and Europe on tactics in the fight against terror, but said it was critical that the allies continued to work together.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair last week said Guantanamo was an "anomaly" that he hoped would be closed.

Gonzales said U.S. law also forbids cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in the United States or abroad by military or civilian personnel.

He declined to comment on alleged interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, such as water boarding, during which the victim believes he is about to drown, or the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners.

"If we went around this room, people would have different definitions of what constitutes torture, depending on the circumstances," he said.

end quotes

And if you went and asked George W. Bush what constituted torture, his answer would be NOTHING ...

NOTHING REALLY CONSTITUTES TORTURE .....

Which is to say that nothing actually is torture ....

Which means that anything that we do to human beings that might look like torture to someone else out there in the world ....

IS AN INDICATION OF DELUSION OR MENTAL ILLNESS ON THAT PERSON's PART ...

Because America is a nation that respects the RULE OF LAW ...

And Bert Gonzales is very, very sorry that there has been concern or confusion about his and George W. Bush's alleged commitment to the rule of law ....

And so ....

I guess that is just that ...

And we can all go home now ....

Believing that absolute crap as the gospel truth ....

Which brings me back to my question above here ....

HOW STUPID DO YOU HAVE YOU HAVE TO BE, TO BE A "GOOD" AMERICAN ANYMORE?

And so ....

"Iraq's Shiite PM Vows to Seek Re-Election"

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 56 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's Shiite prime minister declared Tuesday he will not be blackmailed into abandoning his bid for a second term, and the Kurdish president bowed to Shiite pressure to delay calling parliament into session until a deadlock is resolved over who should lead a unity government.

A new video broadcast on Arab television, meanwhile, showed three of the four hostage Christian Peacemaker activists.

American Tom Fox was not present.

In Washington, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld rejected suggestions Iraq is engulfed in a civil war but predicted there would be additional "bursts" of sectarian violence in the weeks ahead.

Rumsfeld also claimed that Iranian Revolutionary Guard elements had infiltrated Iraq to cause trouble.

"They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," he said.

"And we know it."

"And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment."

He would not be more specific except to say the infiltrators were members of the Al Quds Division of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

Rumsfeld asserted that media reports have exaggerated the violence in Iraq since an attack last month on a revered Shiite mosque touched off a wave of violent reprisals between sects.

"I do not believe they are in a civil war today," Rumsfeld said.

Tuesday, scattered bombings, mortar blasts and gunfire killed 16 people.

The unrelenting violence has complicated already snarled negotiations to form a government reflecting Iraq's main ethnic and religious communities, which the United States and its allies hope will stabilize the country so they can start pulling out troops.

The senior British general in Baghdad, Lt. Gen. Nick Houghton, told The Daily Telegraph that most of Britain's 8,000 troops could be withdrawn by mid-2008.

The Defense Ministry, however, described that as just one possible scenario and said everything depended on conditions on the ground.

Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari suggested that the current standoff over his nomination had grown out of a personal dispute with President Jalal Talabani, who is at the center of a campaign by Kurdish, Sunni and some secular Shiite politicians to deny him a second term.

"No one can make bargains with me by enlarging personal disagreements," al-Jaafari told reporters at his office.

"Dr. al-Jaafari will not be subdued by blackmail."

"Dr. al-Jaafari is not violating the constitution."

The Sunni Arab minority blames him for failing to control Shiite militiamen, who attacked Sunni mosques and clerics after the Feb. 22 bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra.

Kurds are angry because they believe al-Jaafari is holding up resolution of their claims to control the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

In a bid to force a showdown in the dispute, Talabani said Monday he would order parliament into session March 12 for the first time since the December elections and the Feb. 12 ratification of the results in line with constitutional directives.

Such a meeting would have started a 60-day countdown for lawmakers to elect a president, approve al-Jaafari's nomination as prime minister and sign off on his Cabinet.

Talabani was mistakenly counting on the signature of Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi, a Shiite who lost his own bid for the prime minister's nomination by one vote to al-Jaafari.

Talabani had in hand a power of attorney from the other vice president, Ghazi al-Yawer, a Sunni, who was out of the country.

The Shiite bloc closed ranks and Abdul-Mahdi declined to sign, for now.

A political committee representing the seven Shiite parties that make up the United Iraqi Alliance, the largest group in parliament, sent Talabani a letter Tuesday asking him to delay the first session until there is agreement on who should occupy top government positions, said Khaled al-Attiyah, an independent member of the alliance.

Parliament speaker Hajim al-Hassani said a new date would be set Thursday.

"Talks are still under way between the main blocs in the coming parliament," he said.

"We hope that during the coming days, we will be able to reach a basic level of agreement on when to call the Council of Representatives to convene."

Talabani planned to meet with Shiite leaders Tuesday night in a bid to resolve the crisis.

Shiite leaders are divided over a second term for al-Jaafari even though they came together Monday night to reject the move to drop him.

There were reports that Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American cleric whose backing insured al-Jaafari's nomination at the Shiite caucus last month, had threatened to order parliamentarians loyal to him to boycott the March 12 session if Abdul-Mahdi, the Shiite vice president, had signed the order to convene the legislature.

The political infighting has left a dangerous leadership vacuum in Iraq, underlined by the continuing violence and lawlessness.

The Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Teams said it did not know what to make of Fox's absence from the silent, 25-second video broadcast by Al-Jazeera television.

The three other hostages shown on the tape dated Feb. 28 were James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, of Canada; and Norman Kember, 74, of London.

Al-Jazeera said the exhausted-looking men appealed to their governments to work for their release.

The previously unknown Swords of Righteousness Brigades claimed responsibility for kidnapping Fox, 54, of Clear Brook, Va., and the other activists, who disappeared Nov. 26 in Baghdad.

The activists were last seen together on a video broadcast by Al-Jazeera on Jan. 28 and dated seven days earlier.

At that time, Al-Jazeera reported the captors said it was the "last chance" for U.S. and Iraqi authorities to release all Iraqi prisoners, or the hostages would be killed.

In its Tuesday statement, the Christian group said 14,600 Iraqis are "currently detained illegally by the Multinational Forces in Iraq."

Also still held hostage in Iraq is American reporter Jill Carroll, 28, who Interior Minister Bayan Jabr has said was being held by the Islamic Army in Iraq, the insurgent group that freed two French journalists in 2004 after four months in captivity.

Jabr said he believed the freelance reporter for The Christian Science Monitor was still alive, although the deadline set by her captors for the United States to meet their demands expired last month.

More than 250 foreigners have been taken hostage in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The Defense Ministry reported an increase in car bombings and mortar fire in the past week but said attacks appeared less effective.

Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed Jassim, head of the ministry's operations room, reported 552 attacks against U.S. and Iraqi security forces and civilians, of which 147 caused casualties.

In continuing violence Tuesday, a car bomb exploded near a restaurant on the fringe of Baghdad's Sadr City Shiite slum, killing three civilians and wounding three others.

Assailants attacked a Sunni mosque in west Baghdad with guns and grenades, killing a guard and torching two rooms.

The gunmen ambushed police when they responded, wounding five officers.

Two bombs targeting U.S. patrols in two other neighborhoods killed at least one civilian bystander and injured five others, police said.

There were no reports of American casualties.

Police said four Iraqi officers were killed in two separate attacks on police patrols in Baqouba and Beiji, north of Baghdad.

Two car bombs exploded almost simultaneously at separate sites in the mostly Shiite city of Hillah, south of Baghdad, wounding at least three people, police said.

At least three other people were reported killed in scattered shootings — a Sunni TV station official and an airport employee in Baghdad, and a police colonel in Beiji.

Police found four more bullet-ridden bodies — two of them with their eyes gouged out.

And from the TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF IRAQINAM ......

We wing our way back over to here .....

To the TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF ENRON .....

"Fastow Links Skilling to Losses at Enron"

By KRISTEN HAYS, AP Business Writer

1 hour, 32 minutes ago

HOUSTON - Former Enron Corp. Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow testified Tuesday he crafted and ran partnerships to help the company hide losses and inflate profits with the blessing of his boss, Jeffrey Skilling.

Fastow appeared contrite in his much-anticipated courtroom confrontation with Skilling and Enron founder Kenneth Lay, who are on trial for fraud and conspiracy stemming from Enron's spectacular 2001 collapse.

But he portrayed himself as a cog in a corrupt machine, with Skilling telling him, "Get me as much of that juice as you can," regarding the partnerships.

Fastow, 44, also fought back tears as he told jurors in a federal courtroom that his wife, Lea, pleaded guilty to a tax crime and finished a yearlong prison term last July for signing a tax return that didn't include illegal income from business deals unrelated to the partnerships.

He pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy in January 2004 at her urging, more than a year after he was originally indicted on charges of orchestrating schemes to manipulate Enron's books and enrich himself on the side.

His plea was contingent upon the government striking a deal for his wife, who was initially indicted in May 2003.

He said Tuesday he misled his wife, and told her the kickbacks — a series of checks written to her, him and their two young sons — were gifts.

She endorsed and deposited those checks.

Fastow stared at the floor as the checks, with his wife and sons' names, were displayed for jurors Tuesday on a massive screen.

"I did this," he said, tearful and fighting to compose himself.

"I led her to believe that."

The partnerships that he said Skilling approved — LJM1 and LJM2 — were named with initials of his wife and sons, Jeffrey and Matthew, though Fastow didn't share that detail with jurors.

Fastow, who agreed as part of his plea deal to serve 10 years in prison, is a key pillar of the government's quest to prove Lay and Skilling lied to Wall Street and to their own employees to conceal the crumbling finances that drove the company to seek bankruptcy protection in 2001.

The ex-CFO is central to the defense as well: Lawyers for Lay and Skilling say there was no overarching fraud at Enron, and that the only crimes at the company involved Fastow and two of his former lieutenants stealing money through his schemes.

When talking about his admitted frauds at the company rather than his home, Fastow spoke with confidence, appearing almost professorial.

He was known at Enron to have a quick temper, but under questioning from prosecutor John Hueston, he showed no combativeness.

He said the LJM partnerships gave Enron a buyer of risky investments or poor assets so the company could record income and wipe debt off its books.

Enron didn't mind that other buyers likely wouldn't touch them, he said.

"We were doing this to inflate our earnings, and I don't think we wanted to show people what we were doing," Fastow said.

He said the LJMs were legal and did many legal deals.

"Certain things I did as general partner of LJM were illegal," Fastow said.

He told jurors LJM1, set up in 1999, helped Enron head off potential future losses from its investment in a small Internet startup firm.

But it couldn't finance many other deals because it only had $15 million in investment capital, so Fastow talked to Skilling later that year about setting up LJM2 with at least $200 million.

"He said, `Get me as much of that juice as you can,'" Fastow recalled.

Skilling said the same thing in 2000 about a possible LJM3, though the third version never materialized, Fastow said.

At the time, Skilling was chief operating officer of Enron.

He succeeded Lay as chief executive for six months until resigning in August 2001, when Chairman Lay resumed that role.

LJM2's carefully coordinated deals often involved "warehousing" Enron assets, or pretending to buy them with a guarantee that the energy company would buy them back at a premium, Fastow said.

The deals allowed Enron "to report the numbers it wanted to report," he said.

Fastow also said Skilling was concerned about how detailed disclosures to investors about the partnerships would have to be.

"Because it would attract attention, and if dissected, people would see what the purpose of the partnership was, which was to mask potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of losses," Fastow testified.

The partnerships were lucrative for Fastow.

He was guaranteed a $500,000 annual fee when the first one was set up in 1999 and was also promised 2 percent of the invested capital in the partnerships.

Fastow said he raised almost $400 million for LJM2.

Fastow said such partnerships commonly give the general partner 2 percent of the invested capital — but the additional half a million dollars per year was an extra boost.

Enron's board, which included Skilling and Lay, approved the financial setup.

Fastow said Skilling told the board that Fastow invested $1 million of his own, and "He should get profits because he's got skin in the game."

The ex-CFO also testified that directors approved his role in the partnerships and waived Enron's code of conduct, which barred officers from participating in ventures that posed a conflict of interest.

Fastow described several deals in which LJM2 saved Enron from losses.

He said Skilling urged him to have one of the partnerships buy a minority stake in a troubled Brazilian power plant owned by Enron to help meet earnings targets.

Fastow balked.

"I told him it was a piece of (expletive), and no one would buy it," Fastow recalled.

He said he relented in part because he stood to make money personally on the deal and Skilling assured him he would lose no money.

He said he believed Skilling's verbal assurance, which wasn't written anywhere.

"The way we were using LJM was to help Enron prop up its numbers."

"I knew Enron would not want to leave LJM out in the cold because Enron would want to do more deals," he said.

The LJMs weren't the only entities created to help Enron manipulate earnings, Fastow said.

He discussed so-called Raptors, four fragile financial structures created in 2000 were backed by Enron stock and used to lock in the energy company's gains from asset values or investments and keep hundreds of millions of dollars in debt off the energy company's books.

"Raptor was hiding losses," he said.

During Fastow's testimony, Lay and Skilling occasionally took notes but showed little reaction.

Fastow is among 16 ex-Enron executives who have pleaded guilty to crimes.

The defense claims such witnesses confessed to crimes they didn't commit under pressure from the Justice Department's Enron Task Force.

Federal prosecutors can recommend lenient punishments for such cooperators — more than enough incentive, the defense claims, for them to tell the government what it wants to hear.

Fastow is unique in that he agreed up front to serve a decade in prison.

His only hope of serving less time will be to behave well in prison, possibly reducing his term by 18 months.

But the government has the option to prosecute Fastow on 96 other criminal counts originally brought against him if they deem his cooperation unsatisfactory.

Fastow also acknowledged committing crimes in order to manipulate Enron earnings and enrich himself.

He originally pleaded not guilty but changed the plea, he said, because "I thought it was in the best interest of my family not to go to trial, to take responsibility for my actions and to try to move forward in my life."
___

AP National Writer Erin McClam contributed to this report.

And then ...

There is TOMMY .....

"DeLay tries to fight off GOP challengers"

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 7, 2006

SUGAR LAND, Texas -- Rep. Tom DeLay tried to beat back three challengers for the Republican nomination Tuesday in his first election since he was indicted and forced to step aside as House majority leader.

While DeLay was widely expected to win, a close race could foretell a tough contest for the congressman in the fall.

For his part, DeLay said he was confident his constituents would see the campaign-finance case against him for what it is:

"a leftist abuse of power."

The other big Texas primary race Tuesday pitted two little-known Democrats against each other for the right to challenge Republican Gov. Rick Perry in a state where the GOP holds every statewide office.

Perry had little GOP opposition.

Texas voters could see a historic four-way race for governor in November if two independents with considerable political charisma -- Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and musician and professional wiseacre Kinky Friedman -- gather enough signatures from voters who do not vote in the primary to get onto the fall ballot.

In a third contest Tuesday, Democratic voters in a congressional district stretching from San Antonio to Laredo had to decide a rematch between freshman Rep. Henry Cuellar and Ciro Rodriguez, who served 3 1/2 terms in before losing to Cuellar in 2004 after two recounts and a court challenge.

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

Rodriguez seized on a photo of President Bush affectionately cupping Cuellar's cheeks at the recent State of the Union address to portray Cuellar as a stealth Republican.

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

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

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

Tuesday's contest was DeLay's first serious primary challenge in the 22 years since he took office.

Tom Campbell, a lawyer who was general counsel for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration during the first Bush administration, was considered the front-runner among DeLay's Republican challengers, who also included Mike Fjetland and Pat Baig.

Campbell portrayed himself as a man of integrity and branded DeLay "unelectable."

Texas law requires a runoff if no candidate gets more than 50 percent plus one.

While no independent polls were taken for the primary, a poll taken in January by the Houston Chronicle found that DeLay's support in his district was 22 percent.

Only about half of those who voted for him in 2004 said they would do so again.

But Republican strategist Allen Blakemore predicted DeLay would win with at least 60 percent of the vote.

"We have awakened the sleeping giant," Blakemore said.

DeLay, who cast his ballot with his wife, Christine, said he expected Republicans to come out in droves to send a message to his detractors.

"My constituents get it."

"They know what a leftist abuse of power this is," he said of the charges brought by District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat.

A documentary about Earle's investigation, "The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress," was set for release on Tuesday by a Hollywood producer whose last movie, sponsored by unions, took a critical look at Wal-Mart.

"I welcome it."

"As long as they spell my name correctly," DeLay said.

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

Lampson had no primary opponent Tuesday.

The state's top election official predicted only 13 percent of the 12.7 million registered voters would cast primary ballots, so Strayhorn and Friedman should not have much trouble finding the 45,000-plus voters they each need to sign their petitions over the next two months.

Strayhorn, who calls herself "one tough grandma," got elected comptroller as a Republican but is running for governor as an independent, avoiding a primary against the popular Perry.

She is the mother of White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

Friedman is a cigar-chomping cowboy musician whose backup group on the road was called the Texas Jewboys.

At least two veterans of the Iraq war are running for Congress from Texas.

David T. Harris, a Democrat, is expected to take on Rep. Joe Barton in November, and Van Taylor, a Republican, sought the nomination Tuesday to go up against Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards in the Crawford-area district that includes Bush's ranch.

------

Associated Press writer Kelley Shannon in Austin contributed to this report.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8672
March 8, 2006
Biddle's Pivot
The ominous implications of a new strategy for winning the war in Iraq
by Justin Raimondo
In Iraq, defeat stares us in the face. Efforts to "Iraq-ize" the campaign to crush the Sunni insurgency have the U.S. war effort sinking under the weight of its own implausibility, and American policymakers are flailing around in search of an alternative. As U.S. casualties mount and the specter of civil war materializes into a bloody reality, political support for the war on the home front is rapidly evaporating: a whopping 63 percent now say the invasion of Iraq "was not worth it," and even the troops in the field are coming around to the opinion that the best policy is to cut our losses and get out.

To circumvent this growing demand for withdrawal, the War Party has come up with a number of alternate plans, all of which involve a continued U.S. military presence. Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, has advocated what might be called the "downlow" strategy: withdraw to secure bases and attempt to protect the Iraqi civilian population from the consequences of spreading sectarian violence.

Seymour Hersh has reported that the plan now gaining favor is to keep a lower profile on the ground, while escalating the air war – with the idea that the Shi'ite-dominated central government and its supporters in the field would essentially act as spotters for U.S. warplanes, much as the Kosovo "Liberation" Army was used to home in on Serbian targets during Clinton's Balkan adventure and the "Northern Alliance" was utilized as the eyes and ears of the Americans during the initial stages of the Afghan war.

Now we have another entrant in the "win the war" sweepstakes: Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow in defense policy with the Council on Foreign Relations, tells us that the imposition of the Vietnam model on the Iraqi situation has led to a fundamental error. That error is based on a misperception of the insurgency as a nationalist uprising against the occupation, when in fact what is occurring is an inter-communal civil war pitting sectarian ethnic and religious groups against each other in a struggle for dominance. Nationalism, in Biddle's view, has little to do with it: it is, at best, a secondary factor, when the real issue is Sunni fear of Shi'ite hegemony – and retribution enacted by the latter against the former.

This misperception has led the U.S. into a strategic cul-de-sac. According to Biddle, the solution is not to help the Iraqis stand up so we can stand down, but precisely the opposite:

"Critical departures from the current strategy are also necessary. First, Washington must slow down the expansion of the Iraqi national military and police. Iraq will eventually need capable indigenous security forces, but their buildup must follow a broad communal compromise, not the other way around. If the development of the army and the police gets ahead of the agreement, the forces will either exclude the Sunnis and be effective but divisive or include the Sunnis but be weak. The latter result would mean lost effort and perhaps lives, but the former would probably be worse, because it would jeopardize any constitutional power-sharing deal that may emerge from Khalilzad's efforts. This dilemma leaves Washington with no choice but to continue providing enough U.S. forces to cap the violence in Iraq."

What this means, in effect, is that it is time to start tilting toward the Sunnis. If the Shi'ites continue to defy U.S. efforts to shape the political landscape of postwar Iraq, then we must play the Sunni card, employing force if necessary:

"Second, the United States must bring more pressure to bear on the parties in the constitutional negotiations. And the strongest pressure available is military: the United States must threaten to manipulate the military balance of power among Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds to coerce them to negotiate. Washington should use the prospect of a U.S.-trained and U.S.-supported Shi'ite-Kurdish force to compel the Sunnis to come to the negotiating table. At the same time, in order to get the Shi'ites and the Kurds to negotiate too, it should threaten either to withdraw prematurely, a move that would throw the country into disarray, or to back the Sunnis."

The idea is breathtaking: after years of propaganda directed at the alleged moral depravity of the Sunni-based Ba'athist regime, which – we were told – killed millions and was on a par with Hitler's Nazis, Biddle wants the U.S. to consider an Orwellian turn-on-a-dime. As poor old Winston Smith put it:

"At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."

One big problem with Biddle's proposal is that it overlooks the difficulties of selling such a strategy at home, where support for the war has waned practically beyond the point of no return. While the oppressed and blissfully ignorant "proles" of Orwell's future dystopia were kept in a state of permanent indifference to the daily depredations of their rulers – partly through terror, partly on account of a limitless supply of "Victory gin" – the American public is still a few notches above that level of mental and moral degradation. They are bound to be confused and even disturbed when told that yesterday's ruthless killers are today's noble allies – and some may even find in it reason to doubt the president's contention that we are fighting for "democracy" in Iraq and "freedom" the world over.

On the ground in Iraq, too, this pro-Sunni turn would have a devastating effect, for, in spite of Biddle's contention that this war isn't about "winning hearts and minds," as in Vietnam, what little support for the U.S. presence as still exists would quickly evaporate. And without that support – especially from leading Shi'ite clerics, such as the Ayatollah Sistani – the U.S. military presence would be completely unsustainable. Alignment with the Sunnis would further isolate the U.S. and empower anti-American Shi'ites led by Moqtada Sadr, whose nationalist opposition to the occupation (in spite of his sectarian allegiance) is supposedly "the exception that proves the rule" when it comes to Biddle's thesis. In this case, however, the exception may very well become the rule if we try to "coerce" the majority Shi'ites into conforming to our plan for the Iraqi polity.

However, Biddle's strategy, as irrational and counterintuitive as it appears, does make a certain amount of sense. Seen in light of the looming confrontation with Iran, an alliance with the Sunnis against the pro-Iranian Shi'ite parties that dominate the central government in Baghdad is not only sensible: it is inevitable. Biddle's proposal paves the way for the U.S. to pivot from the present intervention to the next.

The second phase of the Great Middle Eastern War pits us against a new set of enemies: not only the Iranian-dominated party militias in Iraq, but also Lebanon's pro-Iranian Hezbollah, or "Party of God," and the Alawite regime in Syria (where the Shi'ites are a small minority). As a strategy for winning a military victory over the Iraqi insurgency, Biddle's gambit makes little sense: as the strategic framework for a regional war, however, its apparent irrationality is at least somewhat ameliorated.

If we are moving toward war with Iran and its Syrian ally, then it is perfectly logical to change course and try to rehabilitate Iyad Allawi, the "ex"-Ba'athist official whose party, the Iraqi National Accord, was soundly defeated in the recent elections for National Assembly (despite large amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars funneled into his campaign coffers). As a strategy to advance the grand design of the War Party – "democratizing," i.e., subjugating, the entire Middle East – Biddle's scenario is persuasive.

It is also indicative of a point I made here: that the debate over the war is becoming increasingly polarized between two diametrically opposed alternatives, withdrawal and escalation. The Bush administration's Iraq-ization program essentially tries to straddle the fence between the two: withdraw, but not now, and no deadlines or timetables, please. Biddle, however, poses a fresh alternative: expand the war, and start taking on the Shi'ites. That this is premised on the likelihood of a future conflict with Tehran seems obvious, even though the word "Iran" appears nowhere in Biddle's essay – a strange omission, to say the least, albeit a telling one.

We must either get out, or escalate the war. There are no other alternatives. To keep Baghdad, we must seize Tehran. The neocons urge us "Faster, please!", but they needn't worry: we will soon get up to speed by means of a logical progression. One intervention leads us, ineluctably, to another, and – in the case of war with Iran – to far greater and more destructive conflict.

This is why the cautious proposals of a gradual drawdown proposed by some ostensibly pragmatic critics of the war are, in the end, eminently impractical. The accelerated tempo of the developing conflict will soon outpace such half-measures. As I have said before, we are on the Middle East escalator, and it's going to be a bumpy ride. Only a massive rebellion by the American people – an outpouring of militant antiwar sentiment – can stop the War Party.

Good morning, Snuffysmith .....

Hope all is well with you this bright sunny morning .....

I have just finished reading Mr. Raimondo's piece above ....

And as always, it is interesting ....

And the one thought that comes into my head upon my initial reading is this thing of "nationalism" ......

How does one get "nationalism" out of IRAQINAM .....

Which never was a "historical NATION" to begin with .....

Unlike Viet Nam ...

Which had its own history going back a thousand years or more when we were there ...

INTERFERRING WITH THEIR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY .....

BECAUSE OF OIL .....

I have never thought that George W. Bush and his crowd had any idea at all of what they were unleashing when George ordered Saddam Hussein and his sons to get out of Iraq in what was it now, 24 hours, or 32 and 5/8 hours, or, well, something anyway, some increment of time that George apparently thought would make him look MACHO out there on the world stage ...

Where he whirls and pirouets .....

Without his pants on .....

To me, Snuf, right then and there was the REAL TEST of the people of America ...

When George W. Bush was bleating like a goat and barking like a dog at the same time, ordering Saddam Hussein to "get out of Dodge City" .....

And they failed, BIG TIME .....

Because what world leader can tell some other world leader to get out of his country by a certain hour, or else ....

And that answer is - ALL OF THEM CAN ....

OR NONE .....

But there is no space in the middle for ONLY George W. Bush to be telling other world leaders what they can do, but no one can tell him .....

SO ...

At that single moment in time, the American people ALLOWED and ENCOURAGED the DESTABILIZATION of this world of OURS .....

And now it has happened .....

And the fickle American public who once wanted it real badly, now does not want what they asked for ...

Which is the pain and uncertainty of a long-term war ...

WHICH WE NOW HAVE ...

Thanks to the American people .....

And so .....

And speaking of the "American people" .....

"Panel says state needs more scientists, engineers - College officials cite need for partnerships, innovative curriculum"

By KENNETH AARON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, March 7, 2006

ALBANY -- It's not only the United States that needs to worry about attracting more scientists and engineers to compete in a global economy.

New York does, too.

During the annual meeting Monday of the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities, a six-person panel discussed ways to bolster both state and national competitiveness.

"Partnerships are the key to what we have to do," said Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute President Shirley Ann Jackson, who has sounded a steady alarm over what she and others consider too few American students entering the sciences.

"In the end, innovations and discoveries are made by people."

"So we should value those who do it, and support those who study it," she said.

Businesses, schools, universities and governments need to develop ways to draw students to those careers, panelists said.

"We're not in there creating hands-on curriculum that really makes them feel that they'll be making a difference," said Nancy Cantor, chancellor and president of Syracuse University.

R. Mark Sullivan, president of the College of Saint Rose, said his school is changing the way it prepares future teachers, giving them more science and math training.

But he cautioned that bolstering American competitiveness is not something that can be accomplished overnight -- it's a long-term process that needs constant attention.

Abraham Lackman, CICU's president, said the state should consider giving scholarships to, and forgiving the loans of, students who consent to work as science or math teachers in New York state, or work in specific fields at New York companies.

New York does a great job at producing skilled graduates, Lackman said -- but not at keeping them in the state.

John Kelly III, a senior vice president at IBM, said Big Blue could use a few good engineers.

"We are feeling the pinch," said Kelly.

He said the company is trying to do its part -- as part of a pilot program in New York and North Carolina, the company wants to turn 100 volunteers into science and math teachers over the next 12 to 18 months.

Ah, yes ....

LEFTIST PLOTS ....

And conspiracies, of course ......

That is what they are, really ...

Any attempts by citizens in OUR America to hold POLITICIANS accountable for MISUSE of their offices ARE LEFTIST PLOTS .....

ATTEMPTS AT SUBVERSION ....

For it is embodied in the United States Constitution that POLITICIANS in OUR America can be "FOR SALE" .....

Just as it is similarly embodied in OUR United States Constitution that what we think of as OUR TREASURY is really just a SLUSH FUND for OUR politicians to dip into whenever the JONES TO SPEND is upon them .....

And if you think that having a bunch of crooked, lying, stealing, thieving politicians here in OUR America is a bad thing ...

YOU MUST BE SOME KIND OF COMMIE ....

And so ...

You very likely deserve whatever kind of punishment these lying, corrupt politicians can mete out on you ...

So as to be able to PROTECT us all from LEFTIST ABUSES OF POWER .....

Here in OUR OWN AMERICA ....

"Bruno won't say how 'pork' funds to be spent - GOP Senate majority leader says anyone who wants to know can file Freedom of Information request"

By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Wednesday, March 8, 2006

ALBANY -- Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno refused Tuesday to discuss how his chamber plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in discretionary funds.

As Senate and Assembly leaders prepare to vote on budget bills next week, Bruno, R-Brunswick, bristled when asked how lawmakers will use pots of money that Senate Democrats call "slush" and "pork" funds.

Senate Minority Leader David Paterson and his members brought the issue to the fore Tuesday, saying the system needs to be changed before budget deals are put together.

The changes would include divulging the details of "memorandums of understanding," or MOUs, among the governor, Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader on how discretionary money is to be used.

Bruno declared the topic off-limits.

He said that Paterson, who is looking to run for lieutenant governor this year, was in "campaign mode" by trying to make member item details part of the budget discussion.

"I don't have any interest in getting engaged."

"I'm not running for lieutenant governor," Bruno said.

If people want information about discretionary spending, he said, they can "go FOIL" -- file a Freedom of Information Law request for the details.

While saying "I'm not above campaigning," Paterson said the changes were on his agenda even before he decided to run for lieutenant governor six weeks ago.

"But I am a responsible public servant who is interested in legitimate issues."

"I'm raising it on behalf of taxpayers."

Comptroller Alan Hevesi has called for better accountability on the discretionary spending, with quarterly reporting on how lawmakers and the governor plan to spend money under the MOUs.

Currently, it is impossible to know in advance how the money would be spent, and difficult to figure out in detail how it ends up getting used, a spokesman for Hevesi said.

Sen. Liz Krueger, D-Manhattan, said she is introducing a bill that would require the MOUs to be public documents available on state Web sites so taxpayers know how the money will be spent.

Registries of "pork" fund spending are unavailable, she said.

Much of the money in the various discretionary accounts goes unspent and is reappropriated each year, she said.

The unspent discretionary funds could be used for other programs, she said.

If that were to happen -- which is unlikely, according to majority members in both chambers -- the money would support another pitch by Senate Democrats: that half of each year's surplus or excess revenues be used to pay down debt.

Sen. Neil Breslin, D-Bethlehem, said the state's $48 billion in debt will crush future generations.

Every $1 billion wiped out would save the state $100 million each year in debt payments.

Bruno, who has promised an open budget process, would only focus on the Republican initiatives.

They include building on Gov. George Pataki's plan for a comprehensive Medicaid fraud unit.

Senate Republicans call for an independent Medicaid inspector general who would lead a new office for fraud investigators now at eight agencies.

At least 10 percent of the $46 billion Medicaid budget involves fraudulent bills, Bruno said, and a good fraud unit might be able to recover at least $2.3 billion.

He also revealed that the Senate budget to be printed in the next few days will cut about $500,000 in taxes and fees that Pataki has proposed in his $110.6 billion budget plan.

"We just think that's excessive, given the fact that we have a surplus," Bruno said.

He has pegged the surplus at about $4 billion.

The Senate also won't go along with Pataki's proposal to increase cigarette taxes by $1 per pack.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seeking a 50-cent increase on the excise tax on cigarettes in the city's five boroughs.

Democrats who dominate the Assembly are expected to back Pataki's cigarette tax hike, which would raise about $400 million more in revenues, according to legislative sources.

The Assembly will reject the governor's $600 million plan to continue assessing sales tax on clothing and shoes less than $110 in value.

James M. Odato can be reached at 454-5083 or by e-mail at jodato@timesunion.com.

http://teamliberty.net/id229.html
U.S. endorsed Iranian plans to build massive nuclear energy industry

March 5, 2006 – In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive that granted Iran the opportunity to purchase U.S. built reprocessing equipment and facilities designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.[1]

In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975)[2] and was the Ford Administration’s Secretary of Defense from 1975–1977.

The current President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Gerald Ford.[3] Wolfowitz is considered as a prominent architect of the Bush Doctrine, which has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States.

According to Washington Post Staff Writer Dafna Linzer, “Ford’s team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium – the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weopons builders.”[4]

What the current Bush Administration is asserting, particularly through its news agency Fox News, or as I like to call it, the Fascist Opinion X-change, is that it needs to prevent Iran from achieving the exact same nuclear capabilities that President Ford and his key appointees, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were encouraging Iran to accomplish 30 years ago. Iran, a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, is guaranteed the right to develop peaceful nuclear power programs – regardless of whether the United States approves or disapproves the politics or political leadership of that country; a point that Iran has repeated over and over again. For 30 years, Iran has proclaimed that it needs nuclear power since its oil and gas supplies are limited, just like the United States, and therefore has the legal right to produce and operate nuclear power plants. Thirty years ago, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld agreed. Today, Cheney and Rumsfeld appear to be crawling out of their skins with uncontrollable militarized lust for control of Iranian oil fields via a U.S. occupied, Iran. The NEO-CON war drumbeaters have already devised their plans for the liberation of the people again, this time Iranian people, and making things all better, just like they have done in Iraq. Scary stuff, but it is true. In preparation, the Bush Administration has primed the mainstream media so effectively that 8 out of 10 Americans believe Iran poises an immediate nuclear threat to the United States. The President’s recent and risky travel to regional nuclear powers, Pakistan and India, no doubt also served as a strategic warning to those countries to prepare for the certain public backlash to be expected once the U.S. or Israel begins to drop bombs on Iran.

It is also worth noting that in 2000, the World Bank resumed making loans to Iran. As of June 30, 2004, the World Bank as made 51 loans valued at $2.6 billion to Iran. The World Bank gets its funds from the International Monetary Fund, which in turn, gets its money from member nation dues / contributions. The United States is required to contribute $37.2 billion per year into the IMF. The atrocious Federal Reserve Banking Cartel orchestrated this money scheme so that it can continue to print and loan astronomical numbers of debt notes. If the American people understood that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Congress have been funding many activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, most would be skeptical of the federal government’s current claim that Iran’s 30 year old, U.S. sanctioned, nuclear program is somehow now an immediate threat to the security of the United States. The IMF and the World Bank create just enough degrees of separation to shield the government from the people recognizing that the federal government has fed the dog well that it now claims will bite if we do not ‘put it down’ with a pre-emptive strike.



With Wolfowitz at the helm of the World Bank, one has to wonder if once again the Federal Reserve has positioned itself to fund both sides of a warring conflict. One thing is certain; loaning money to fund both sides of a war is a perfected craft of the member banks of the Federal Reserve, which is interested only in loan collateral and interest payments. Patriotism is not part of the equation. What is most disturbing about the relationship between the Fed, IMF, and World Bank is that the $37.2 billion the U.S. is obligated to pay to the IMF annually, is actually secured by the American taxpayer. We the People, and the ability of the U.S. Congress to confiscate our wealth through that unconstitutional apparatus referred to as a federal income tax, makes loaning money to the Islamic Republic of Iran easy because if Iran defaults on its World Bank loans, the U.S. portions of the loans work their way back to the lender of last resort, which is the U.S. Congress. When the U.S. Congress responds to failed loans and failed banking institutions, they assume responsibility for the loan amount, and pass the burden of repayment onto the American people.



Finally, but very much part of the U.S. government’s charade aimed at deceiving the American people into believing that the U.S. has played no part in the development of Iran or its nuclear power programs, is the absolute economic threat that Iran poses to the global value of the U.S. dollar. Unless the U.S. intervenes, on March 20, 2006 the world will have the option of purchasing oil with euros instead of dollars through the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse. The Iran Oil Bourse will be the third exchange in which global oil transactions will be executed. While financial analysts debate whether such an exchange operating solely in euros will have the potential to collapse the U.S. economy, the complete silence of the mainstream media regarding this most important untold story can be interpreted as a sign that this suggested economic threat is real. As the Bush Administration has proven itself to be the most dishonest, secretive presidency in the history of the United States, it has repeatedly demonstrated that the truth about its motives and agendas can only be found in what is not being reported to the American people. And if the Iran nuclear threat rhetoric is the firewall that the U.S. government is hiding the U.S. dollar global supremacy behind, than any military action in Iran will be solely on behalf of the member banks of the Federal Reserve – at the expense of American sons and daughters serving in the U.S. military and at the burden of the U.S. taxpayer who is already indebted to the federal government to the tune of $28 thousand, which is each and every American’s current share of the Federal Reserve / U.S. Congress banking cartel produced national debt - $28,000 and growing faster than ever!



Here’s a patriotic challenge and very American gut check for your consideration: Next time you hold your children and / or grandchildren, look them in the eye and explain to them how they are, right at this very moment, indebted to the federal government of the United States of America, to the tune of $28,000, and then ask yourself how you allowed it to happen. Sobering fact that feels better to ignore, does it not? But hell, we’re spreading democracy, right? I don’t think so, and hopefully soon, neither will you.



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


[1] The White House, Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/, [Accessed March 4, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, Biography – Donald H. Rumsfeld, http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html, [Accessed March 4, 2006]

[3] Washington Post, Realism, Rewarded, George F. Will, May 12, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5051101815.html, [Accessed March 4, 2006]

[4] Washington Post, Past Arguments Don’t Square with Current Iran Policy, Dafna Linzer, March 27, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar26.html, [Accessed March 4, 2006]



Freelance writer / author, Ed Haas, is the editor and columnist for the Muckraker Report. Get smart. Read the Muckraker Report. [http://teamliberty.net] To learn more about Ed’s current and previous work, visit Crafting Prose. [http://craftingprose.com]


Copyright © 2002-2006 by MUCKRAKER REPORT.
All rights reserved. For re-print permission, contact Ed Haas: (843) 327-7598.

http://www.counterpunch.org/selfa03082006.html

The Politics of Distraction and Exploitation
The Democrats and Dubai
By LANCE SELFA

It didn't take long after the flap over the Dubai ports deal broke for media pundits to claim that this issue might just be the push the Democrats need to win back Congress later this year.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen wrote that the Dubai ports controversy gave Democrats the opening to make their case. "It's important to note that the Dubai Ports story is far more significant politically than the issue itself," said pollster Scott Rasmussen. "That's because it gives people an opportunity to re-evaluate the president on a whole range of issues relating to national security.

"Our latest survey finds the number who think the U.S. and its allies are winning the 'war on terror' has dipped below 40 percent and is near the lowest levels ever recorded. By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans think things in Iraq are likely to get worse in the next six months. That's the bleakest assessment since the first votes were cast in Iraq over a year ago."

As the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato put it, "Since 9/11, Bush's consistent political advantage has been the public's confidence in him to handle the terrorist threat. The Iraq war has weakened Bush's edge, and now the Dubai ports misstep may destroy it. This has become a troubled and tone-deaf presidency."

While there is still a long way to go before the November mid-term elections, there is no denying that the Democrats are feeling more confident these days. In the Dubai deal, they feel that they have painted the president into a corner--hanging a tangible "flip flop" on "national security" around his neck.

After putting up with years of Bush and the Republicans bashing them for being soft on "national security," Democrats feel they can return the favor. And many of their partisans, including most liberal bloggers and commentators, went along with them.

Yet the fact that Democrats could win support by adopting an openly racist and jingoist position on the ports deal is hardly a cause for celebration. It was yet another example of how confusing support for the Democrats with advancing a progressive agenda leads in the wrong direction.

The key factors driving opposition to Bush are the war in Iraq, declining wages and living standards, and the perception of the administration's corruption and incompetence, as demonstrated by its inaction around Hurricane Katrina.

But Democrats are loath to promise an end to the war, better jobs and health care. And any promises to reform the "culture of corruption" in Washington are likely to evaporate if they become the congressional majority.

So the Dubai controversy gives them a way to talk about something else: how they're tougher than Bush when it comes to the "war on terror." If they listen to the pundits and convince themselves that the Dubai flap helped them, then expect more jingoism and racism from leading Democratic candidates.

In 2004, John Kerry's pro-war message didn't work as well when Bush could still draw on just enough voters who were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. In 2006, with Bush widely seen as a failure, the Democrats may indeed gain some support for their hard-line positions on the "war on terror."

But if this is the case, then the millions who most hate what Bush and his administration represent will end up voting for politicians who don't really want to put an end to Bush's disastrous policies as much as they would like to make them work better.

As in the recent tussle over the USA PATRIOT Act--where Democrats waged a brief filibuster, only to drop their opposition after the administration gave them a few meaningless changes to the law--they don't seek to stop the administration so much as give its policies a bipartisan seal of approval.

Democrats aren't aligning themselves with the huge majorities who oppose the war and question the "war on terror" so much as they are rehabilitating these discredited Bush initiatives.

Lance Selfa writes for the Socialist Worker.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff03072006.html

Bush's Last, Best Hope: the Democrats
A Popular Groundswell for Impeachment
By DAVE LINDORFF

The prevailing "wisdom" of our corporate media is that impeachment of President Bush is a left-wing fantasy. As a result, there is virtually no coverage in the media of either the majority sentiment for removing Bush from office or even of the key issues that make this president a poster child for impeachment.

Take the several polls by Zogby International on the impeachment issue. Last June, Zogby polled Americans across the country and found that some 42 percent favored impeaching the president if it were found that he had lied about the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify an invasion. That is a higher percentage of people in favor of impeachment than there ever was for the impeachment of former president Bill Clinton during his entire impeachment ordeal. Yet the poll was not mentioned by any major media news organization.

In November, Zogby repeated the poll. This time, 53 percent of respondents from all over the nation said they thought the president should be impeached and removed from office if he lied about the war. That poll to was totally blacked out.

A third poll early this year found 52 percent of Americans saying Bush should be removed from office if he broke the law and had the National Security Agency spy on American citizens without court warrants. Well, of course he did do that-the president has admitted he did so and says he will continue to do it--so the latest poll was really saying that 52 percent of Americans think he should be sent packing.

That poll too was largely ignored by the major corporate media.

Left-wing fantasy? Are we saying that the majority of Americans are left-wingers?

I don't think so.

But the media are not the only ones who are trying to dismiss popular sentiment for impeachment.

The leadership of the Democratic Party is doing the same thing.

While researching our book on impeachment (The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush from Office, St. Martin's Press, due out in late April), my co-author Barbara Olshanshky and I have found that members of Congress-even firebrands like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)-have been strong-armed behind the scenes by the Democratic National Committee not to introduce an impeachment bill in the House. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, where such a bill would be considered, has submitted three bills that relate to impeachment-a proposal for a special committee to investigate possible impeachable crimes by the administration and bills to censure both the president and the vice president for refusing to answer questions from Congress on impeachment-related issues--but that's as far as the Democratic congressional leadership is willing to go.

As the Wall Streeet Journal reported in a March 6 article on the impeachment issue, Democratic Party leaders fear that party support for impeachment could lead to a backlash as happened to Republicans who supported Clinton's impeachment.

This is of course nonsense. The effort to impeach Clinton over his sexual escapades was always viewed by the majority of Americans, Democratic and Republican alike, as a farce and an embarrassment. As the Wall Street Journal notes, support for Clinton's impeachment never rose much above a quarter of the electorate--the hard right element of the Republican Party.

The issues that are driving popular sentiment for Bush's impeachment are much more serious:

* The conspiracy of lies that got the country into a war in Iraq that has already cost some $400 billion and that ultimately may end up costing over $2 trillion, and that has cost the lives of 2300 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis.

* Obstruction of investigations into what the administration knew about the 9-11 attacks before they happened, and why nothing was done to prevent them.

* Undermining of basic Constitutional freedoms, from First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly, press and religion to Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial, to the even more basic rights of citizenship.

* Abuses of power, including the blatant violation of the law in the case of the president's violation of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, the use of over 500 "signing statements" to simply ignore laws passed by Congress, and the ignoring of court orders, as well as the use of government power to attack individuals, as in the case of the outing of underecover CIA agent Valerie Plame in order to punish her whistle-blowing husband, ambassador Joe Wilson.

* Trampling of international law through the authorization of policies of torture of captives and the rounding up and deporting of law-abiding residents based solely upon their ethnicity and religion, all of which have made America a pariah in the international community and needlessly inflamed hatred of America across the Muslim world.

* A criminally negligent attitude towards governing that has brought us the disaster and needless death of hundreds of people in New Orleans, the fiasco of the Medicare drug "program" for seniors, and the chaos of post-war Iraq.

* A criminal know-nothing obstructionism with regard to the urgent crisis of global warming, which even the Pentagon has concluded threatens the national security of the United States far more than any rag-tag band of terrorists.

* A culture of corruption in Washington that makes earlier epic scandals like Teapot Dome look penny-ante, with over 60 Republican members of Congress (that's better than one in four!) linked to just one bribing lobbyist and with war-profiteering by Republican-linked corporations running rampant.

These are all issues that cry out for action, and for saturation coverage in the nation's media.

The polls showing majority support for impeachment make it clear that the public knows all this intuitively, even though people have to get their information from personal observation, from the Internet, or by reading between the lines, because the media are more focused on the Oscars and the latest dramatic murder or kidnapping, and even though the supposed opposition party, for the most part, is afraid of its own shadow.

The prevailing wisdom is that all such talk about impeachment is fantasy, and yet out in the country, some candidates are finding that calling for impeachment brings down the house.

If those candidacies catch fire, and pro-impeachment candidates backed by groups like ImpeachPAC start winning Democratic primaries in late spring, and if those candidates go on to win seats in Congress in November, I am predicting that their spineless colleagues will realize that the public wants action on all these issues, not just business as usual.

With the American public so on edge about so many issues, it might, in the end, not take that many radical upsets in November to create a whole new mood in Congress.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's new book, "The Case for Impeachment",
co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is due out May 1.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com

Now, Snuffysmith .....

That is some "beef" to chew on ...

And that is a fact ...

And that is what I like to see coming in here ...

Which is some history ...

In a "spoon-fed" type of format such as above ...

And that is not because people are simple-minded ....

To the contrary, it is because this AMERICAN HISTORY between say 1960, and the present time is largely unknown to many people ...

Including myself in some instances ......

So that too big a dose at once just totally overwhelms ...

And so ....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmed into such high office in OUR land .....

By the United States Senate .....

Which surely knows this history better than you or I ...

Since they are privy to all of the rest of what Donald gave to Saddam back then so that Saddam could do on OUR behalf all that alleged nasty, dirty stuff that got him condemned to death as a perpetrator of crimes against humanity .....

Something stinks, of course .....

And it goes back and back in time ....

Before Ronald Raygun, certainly .....

And you have helped "unravel" this conundrum, Snuffysmith, and thereby make it more digestible and understandable for the common citizen who reads these words, and needs time to let the thoughts sink in, by providing us with this comprehensive history above here ....

Well done ...

Not at all, Snuffsmith ....

Not at all ...

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

Nothing to do with those at all ...

The simple question is .....

SINCE OUR AMERICA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION ...

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

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

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

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

British or Arab .....

What exactly is wrong with that picture?

Besides everything?

The REPUBLICANS want to put OUR America on the block ....

They want to SELL IT OUT ...

To weaken it ...

TO BREAK IT ....

TO ERASE ITS BOUNDARY LINES .....

Because the REPUBLICANS are no longer operating in a world with boundaries .....

They are "MULTI-NATIONAL" ....

And have been for some long time now ...

And so .....

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

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

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

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

THERE IS THE ISSUE ....

And so ...

You know, Snuf ......

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR HIM ...

And his CONSTITUENTS .....

And so ....

LAW AND ORDER HERE IN OUR AMERICA IS A LEFTIST PLOT TO TAKE OVER OUR AMERICA ...

From the CORRUPT REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS ON THE RIGHT WHO ARE SELLING IT OUT AND RUINING IT WITH THEIR UNBRIDLED GREED .....

And so ....

Yes, Snuf ...

This nation-wide call by the people of OUR America for the impeachment of George W. Bush is indeed LEFTIST when seen through the eyes of the likes of REPUBLICAN STRONGMAN "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY" DeLay .....

And so ...

IN OUR AMERICA, BEING LEFTISH IS A GOOD THING ...

IT MEANS THAT YOU ARE FOR LAW AND ORDER .....

AND THAT YOU ARE AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION ...

And so ...

GO LEFTISH ....

FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT ....

HERE IN OUR AMERICA .....

OR IF YOU WANT CORRUPTION ....

GO RIGHT ...

VOTE REPUBLICAN ....

AND YOUR WISHES WILL BE FULFILLED ....

And so ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

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

WE DO NOT HAVE LEADERS .....

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

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

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

Let alone into times of adversity ...

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

Likely for FINACIAL GAIN ...

For themselves ...

And for their "clientela" .....

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

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

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

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

THAT IS A REPUBLICAN GOAL .....

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

And they have succeeded ...

Right out in front of everyone ...

And so ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I have seen it in my district."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"DeLay wins primary in Texas"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where bottom-feeders predominate .....

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

We have ....

Well, what on earth would anyone expect ...

More talk of war, of course ....

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

His solution is to get into another ...

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

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

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

TAX FREE ....

"U.S. hardens stance on Iran"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"An American oligarchy?"

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

America must get its priorities straight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic equality ought to be a bipartisan issue.

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

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

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

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

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

And thousands of military families are living in poverty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So did the other Republican members of the committee.

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

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

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

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

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

The Republicans' motives are transparent.

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

And that's an impeachable offense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot answer that question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My answer would be ...

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

And more importantly ...

Defines HOW things are to be done here ...

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

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

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

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

And so ....

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

That decision, like all others affecting us ...

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

* Establishing Justice ....

* Insuring domestic Tranquillity ....

* Providing for the common defense ....

* Promoting the general Welfare; and ....

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

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

As with this Dubai "deal" ....

It should simply be scrapped ...

And so ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

The White House expressed satisfaction with the outcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An insightful article, Snuf .....

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

And that has always been true .....

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

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

Which is reminiscent of economic conditions in Rome ...

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

And so ....

General Eric Shinseki had some credibility ...

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

Who has none ...

And so ...

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

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

NO ...

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

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

And no military acumen, either .....

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

"Rumsfeld: Iraqis would deal with civil war"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"They have everything to lose," he said.

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

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

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

------

On the Net:

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

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

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

And speaking of massive trade deficits ....

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

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

21 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Net:

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

Well, America ...

And the world, too ...

There we have it ...

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

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

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

What we need IS BETTER EDUCATION ...

Says America's George ....

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

Such as janitorial work ...

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

Or fast food, of course ...

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

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

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

And so .....

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

"Bush's approval rating falls to new low"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the lowest of his presidency.

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

The biggest losses were among white males.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

------

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

------

On the Net:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A year ago, the expectations measure stood at 52.6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I see no indication of that."

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

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

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

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

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

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

A year ago, this measure stood at 88.5.

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

Rates are expected to go up again on March 28.

Borrowers do not like rising rates.

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

But for savers higher interest rates means better returns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where we have .....

Nov 6 2004, 06:47 PM Post #11

Presidential Elections - AP

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

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

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

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

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

Sure, they are concerned about terrorism.

But they are more concerned about "moral values".

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

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

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

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

They go to church, but less frequently.

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

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

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

Almost half feel angry at the administration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The thought is echoed by GOP pollster Whit Ayres.

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

The idea clearly resonated for Bush in the South.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"And lives," Sue Edwards added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Republicans Looking Beyond Bush to 2008:

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

1 hour, 43 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The restlessness is also fueled by polls.

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

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

More than half of Republicans disapprove of Congress' performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps half of the attendees are from Tennessee.

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

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

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

Giuliani is not attending this conference.

McCain and Romney were speaking Friday.

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

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

"John McCain emerged a long time ago."

Hey, kids ...

SCOOTER'S back ....

SO ....

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

OH ....

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

SCOOTER might get a spanking ....

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

And so ....

"Judge says Libby can see Bush briefings"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poor old dopey George .....

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

That's all ......

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

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

"Bush: Port deal collapse sends bad message"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both bills have Democratic co-sponsors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which his BASE loves him for ...

And so .....

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

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

It is a secret ....

"Exact Death Toll of Iraqis Remains Murky"

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

Fri Mar 10, 12:53 PM ET

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

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

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

But no one knows the exact toll.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But reports on casualties from major attacks often vary widely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Net:

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

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

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

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

"The public is foiled again" - Sen. Joseph Bruno is much too guarded with information about the state budget"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Friday, March 10, 2006

So this is how government, supposedly representative government, really works in New York.

Say you wanted to know how the state Senate actually spends the millions of dollars in discretionary funds formally known as memorandums of understanding, among the governor, Senate majority leader and Assembly speaker, but more commonly known as pork barrel and even slush funds.

As far as Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno is concerned, no one -- except of course, the true political insiders -- should readily know.

If they do, it will be despite Mr. Bruno's more obstinate efforts.

Want answers?

Then go fill out a Freedom of Information Law request, or so Mr. Bruno said the other day.

But there's no good reason why obtaining such information about where the state's money -- which just happens to come, remember, from taxpayers -- has to involve undertaking the rather complex and arduous process of filing a Freedom of Information Law request.

At best, that's a needless stalling and interference tactic on Mr. Bruno's part.

At worst, it's something closer to intimidation.

Activists and journalists might know their way through the FOIL process.

But ordinary citizens probably more likely don't.

They ought to be able to find out who gets what share of this pork barrel money with a few clicks of a computer mouse.

What someone might get as a result of a Freedom of Information Law request isn't always very helpful or very easy to understand, notes E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute.

It's indicative of a secrecy in the state budget process.

Yet the money dispersed by memorandums of understanding is at least subject to the Freedom of Information Law, unlike some other legislative business.

Senate Minority Leader David Paterson is right to make an issue of this as state budget negotiations proceed.

So what if he is at once running for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor and demanding disclosure about a key component of the budget?

"I don't have any interest in getting engaged."

"I'm not running for lieutenant governor," Mr. Bruno says.

Of course not.

He already has the more powerful job.

Telling the public that they can "go FOIL" their questions isn't quite as bad as President Ford telling New York City, in the memorable words of a New York Daily News headline writer, to drop dead, or Marie Antoinette telling the starving French masses to eat cake.

But it's not very becoming for the Senate majority leader, either.

Mr. Bruno should remember these words.

"It is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability whenever and wherever feasible."

That's straight from the very Freedom of Information Law he was hiding behind the other day.

There is something going on here in OUR America right now that to me is historic .....

And that is this USURPATION OF POWER by George W. Bush acting as president of the United States of America .....

With him and his various toadies and flunkies, like Dick Cheney, trying to tell us that George has all this alleged power as president ...

Well ....

Read this following BIOGRAPHY of Andrew Johnson that comes from http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj17.html ......

To see whether ot not OUR United States Congress can set limits on a sitting United States President .....

Andrew Johnson

With the Assassination of Lincoln, the Presidency fell upon an old-fashioned southern Jacksonian Democrat of pronounced states' rights views.

Although an honest and honorable man, Andrew Johnson was one of the most unfortunate of Presidents.

Arrayed against him were the Radical Republicans in Congress, brilliantly led and ruthless in their tactics.

Johnson was no match for them.

Born in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1808, Johnson grew up in poverty.

He was apprenticed to a tailor as a boy, but ran away.

He opened a tailor shop in Greeneville, Tennessee, married Eliza McCardle, and participated in debates at the local academy.

Entering politics, he became an adept stump speaker, championing the common man and vilifying the plantation aristocracy.

As a Member of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 1840's and '50's, he advocated a homestead bill to provide a free farm for the poor man.

During the secession crisis, Johnson remained in the Senate even when Tennessee seceded, which made him a hero in the North and a traitor in the eyes of most Southerners.

In 1862 President Lincoln appointed him Military Governor of Tennessee, and Johnson used the state as a laboratory for reconstruction.

In 1864 the Republicans, contending that their National Union Party was for all loyal men, nominated Johnson, a Southerner and a Democrat, for Vice President.

After Lincoln's death, President Johnson proceeded to reconstruct the former Confederate States while Congress was not in session in 1865.

He pardoned all who would take an oath of allegiance, but required leaders and men of wealth to obtain special Presidential pardons.

By the time Congress met in December 1865, most southern states were reconstructed, slavery was being abolished, but "black codes" to regulate the freedmen were beginning to appear.

Radical Republicans in Congress moved vigorously to change Johnson's program.

They gained the support of northerners who were dismayed to see Southerners keeping many prewar leaders and imposing many prewar restrictions upon Negroes.

The Radicals' first step was to refuse to seat any Senator or Representative from the old Confederacy.

Next they passed measures dealing with the former slaves.

Johnson vetoed the legislation.

The Radicals mustered enough votes in Congress to pass legislation over his veto--the first time that Congress had overridden a President on an important bill.

They passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which established Negroes as American citizens and forbade discrimination against them.

A few months later Congress submitted to the states the Fourteenth Amendment, which specified that no state should "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

All the former Confederate States except Tennessee refused to ratify the amendment; further, there were two bloody race riots in the South.

Speaking in the Middle West, Johnson faced hostile audiences.

The Radical Republicans won an overwhelming victory in Congressional elections that fall.

In March 1867, the Radicals effected their own plan of Reconstruction, again placing southern states under military rule.

They passed laws placing restrictions upon the President.

When Johnson allegedly violated one of these, the Tenure of Office Act, by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the House voted eleven articles of impeachment against him.

He was tried by the Senate in the spring of 1868 and acquitted by one vote.

In 1875, Tennessee returned Johnson to the Senate.

He died a few months later.

"The Dubai fallout - The outcry over the ports deal has cost Mr. Bush support among congressional Republicans"

Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Saturday, March 11, 2006

So now President Bush knows how much political capital he has left over from his re-election victory in 2004: almost nothing.

His fellow Republicans in the House and the Senate deserted him in droves Thursday to prevent an Arab company from taking over operations at six U.S. ports.

The $6.8 billion deal had won approval from a secret U.S. committee, but word of the takeover led to a public outcry, and many members of Congress demanded a 45-day review before granting approval.

Mr. Bush fought hard to win that approval, even to the point of accusing opponents of racial profiling.

But in the end, none of the tactics worked, and the company, Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates, pulled out of the deal after the White House got the "no" message from Congress.

In a way, Mr. Bush was a victim of his previous success in persuading the American public that terrorism remains a real, even imminent, threat at home.

That message resonated during the 2004 campaign, and more voters decided that Mr. Bush was better at protecting homeland security than his challenger, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts would be.

So it's hardly surprising that the polls showed a majority of Americans viewed the port deal as a security issue, even as Mr. Bush argued that it was instead an issue of showing solidarity with a strong ally in the Middle East, and that rejecting it would send the wrong signal to friendly Arab governments.

But Republican lawmakers also were hearing from their constituents, who were expressing alarm not only about the Dubai deal but also about the larger issue of why any foreign country should be running American ports.

That concern was addressed when Dubai Ports World announced its would transfer its U.S. operations to an American company.

Mr. Bush's poor record on strengthening port security also surely played a role in his defeat Thursday.

As many critics pointed out, who operates American ports is only half the issue.

The other half is the porous security at those ports, regardless of ownership.

And Mr. Bush's admission that he was unaware of the Dubai deal until it became national news also harmed him.

It made him appear out of touch.

So did his effort to change the rules on foreign companies controlling U.S. airlines.

U.S. law now prohibits foreign companies from taking over U.S. airlines, on the grounds that a hostile government could bring the nation's air transportation to a halt in the event of a crisis.

Incredibly, Mr. Bush pushed for expanding foreign influence -- a move that made critics wonder if he is tone deaf to the whole issue of domestic security.

Republicans in the House and Senate who are facing re-election in November must surely wonder that as well.

And here I sit this morning ...

Just kind of musing, I suppose ...

Since that is in fact what I am doing "out there" right now ....

Sitting at the computer keyboard ....

And wondering .....

About this thing called "America", actually .....

This year marks my sixtieth year on the face of this earth of OURS .....

And in that time, well ....

I have been lucky to have been around this country of OURS a time or two .....

Out there, kind of like an obscure version of Charles Kurault ....

"On the road" .....

Meeting people ...

Seeing things ....

Storing up memories, maybe ....

And now, here I am ...

All those years later ...

And still I persist in wondering ...

Who are these people?

What is this place?

And so ....

Happy birthday, Livyjr, whenever it comes up.

We are all, indeed, lucky to be alive in OUR America.

Before it becomes THEIR America.

Good morning, jeffmoskin....

And thanks for the "birthday wishes" ...

And thanks for the segue as well ......

THEIR America .......

Versus "OURS" ......

The one that started out with a DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE from the tyranny and oppression of a tyrant King in Great Britain .....

Followed by the "creation" of thirteen separate "states" .....

Each with their own CONSTITUTION ......

Spelling out in detail the relationship between WE, THE PEOPLE in each of those separate states with the "state" itself .....

Followed by Articles of Confederation which established the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .....

Which subsequently became a REPUBLIC in 1787 when the United States Constitution came into being ......

THAT IS "OUR" American history .....

WHILE THEIRS, THE BUSHCO CROWD, IS AN ABSOLUTE FANTASY .....

Created in the fertile imaginations of people like Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush, himself ....

OUT OF PURE FANTASY ......

And no historical antecedents at all ......

From http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/12.asp

The Inaugural Address of American President Zachary Taylor, (Monday, March 4, 1849: Washington, DC)

Elected by the American people to the highest office known to our laws, I appear here to take the oath prescribed by the Constitution, and, in compliance with a time-honored custom, to address those who are now assembled.

The confidence and respect shown by my countrymen in calling me to be the Chief Magistrate of a Republic holding a high rank among the nations of the earth have inspired me with feelings of the most profound gratitude; but when I reflect that the acceptance of the office which their partiality has bestowed imposes the discharge of the most arduous duties and involves the weightiest obligations, I am conscious that the position which I have been called to fill, though sufficient to satisfy the loftiest ambition, is surrounded by fearful responsibilities.

Happily, however, in the performance of my new duties I shall not be without able cooperation.

The legislative and judicial branches of the Government present prominent examples of distinguished civil attainments and matured experience, and it shall be my endeavor to call to my assistance in the Executive Departments individuals whose talents, integrity, and purity of character will furnish ample guaranties for the faithful and honorable performance of the trusts to be committed to their charge.

With such aids and an honest purpose to do whatever is right, I hope to execute diligently, impartially, and for the best interests of the country the manifold duties devolved upon me.

In the discharge of these duties my guide will be the Constitution, which I this day swear to "preserve, protect, and defend."

For the interpretation of that instrument I shall look to the decisions of the judicial tribunals established by its authority and to the practice of the Government under the earlier Presidents, who had so large a share in its formation.

To the example of those illustrious patriots I shall always defer with reverence, and especially to his example who was by so many titles "the Father of his Country."

To command the Army and Navy of the United States; with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties and to appoint ambassadors and other officers; to give to Congress information of the state of the Union and recommend such measures as he shall judge to be necessary; and to take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed -- these are the most important functions intrusted to the President by the Constitution, and it may be expected that I shall briefly indicate the principles which will control me in their execution.

Chosen by the body of the people under the assurance that my Administration would be devoted to the welfare of the whole country, and not to the support of any particular section or merely local interest, I this day renew the declarations I have heretofore made and proclaim my fixed determination to maintain to the extent of my ability the Government in its original purity and to adopt as the basis of my public policy those great republican doctrines which constitute the strength of our national existence.

In reference to the Army and Navy, lately employed with so much distinction on active service, care shall be taken to insure the highest condition of efficiency, and in furtherance of that object the military and naval schools, sustained by the liberality of Congress, shall receive the special attention of the Executive.

As American freemen we can not but sympathize in all efforts to extend the blessings of civil and political liberty, but at the same time we are warned by the admonitions of history and the voice of our own beloved Washington to abstain from entangling alliances with foreign nations.

In all disputes between conflicting governments it is our interest not less than our duty to remain strictly neutral, while our geographical position, the genius of our institutions and our people, the advancing spirit of civilization, and, above all, the dictates of religion direct us to the cultivation of peaceful and friendly relations with all other powers.

It is to be hoped that no international question can now arise which a government confident in its own strength and resolved to protect its own just rights may not settle by wise negotiation; and it eminently becomes a government like our own, founded on the morality and intelligence of its citizens and upheld by their affections, to exhaust every resort of honorable diplomacy before appealing to arms.

In the conduct of our foreign relations I shall conform to these views, as I believe them essential to the best interests and the true honor of the country.

The appointing power vested in the President imposes delicate and onerous duties.

So far as it is possible to be informed, I shall make honesty, capacity, and fidelity indispensable prerequisites to the bestowal of office, and the absence of either of these qualities shall be deemed sufficient cause for removal.

It shall be my study to recommend such constitutional measures to Congress as may be necessary and proper to secure encouragement and protection to the great interests of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, to improve our rivers and harbors, to provide for the speedy extinguishment of the public debt, to enforce a strict accountability on the part of all officers of the Government and the utmost economy in all public expenditures; but it is for the wisdom of Congress itself, in which all legislative powers are vested by the Constitution, to regulate these and other matters of domestic policy.

I shall look with confidence to the enlightened patriotism of that body to adopt such measures of conciliation as may harmonize conflicting interests and tend to perpetuate that Union which should be the paramount object of our hopes and affections.

In any action calculated to promote an object so near the heart of everyone who truly loves his country I will zealously unite with the coordinate branches of the Government.

In conclusion I congratulate you, my fellow-citizens, upon the high state of prosperity to which the goodness of Divine Providence has conducted our common country.

Let us invoke a continuance of the same protecting care which has led us from small beginnings to the eminence we this day occupy, and let us seek to deserve that continuance by prudence and moderation in our councils, by well-directed attempts to assuage the bitterness which too often marks unavoidable differences of opinion, by the promulgation and practice of just and liberal principles, and by an enlarged patriotism, which shall acknowledge no limits but those of our own widespread Republic.

"After Four Years, Iraq Withdrawal Elusive"

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

Sat Mar 11, 12:21 PM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Words like "victory" and "mission accomplished" aren't heard much anymore as the United States enters its fourth year of war in Iraq.

The slogans now are "political process" and handing over "battle space" to Iraq's new army so that the Iraqis themselves can carry the fight to the insurgents and build their promised democracy.

All those plans are now under review in light of another ominous phrase — "civil war" — that has crept into the debate since the wave of sectarian violence set off by a Feb. 22 bombing at a Shiite Muslim mosque in Samarra.

The shift from the upbeat slogans of 2003 represents an acknowledgment by the U.S. command that the war against an insurgency dominated by Iraq's Sunni Arab minority cannot be won by U.S. arms alone.

Instead, the best chance for peace is to encourage the insurgents to lay down their arms and join the political process, while building up an Iraqi force capable of dealing with those who refuse.

But slogans obscure the complexities at play.

The rising tensions between Sunnis and Shiites raise the new question of whether building up Iraq's army forces — the supposed solution — might instead set the stage for civil war.

How events play out in the coming months will determine how long U.S. troops remain in Iraq — and in what numbers.

All signs point to a lengthy American commitment in Iraq, even if Washington draws down significant numbers of troops this year as expected.

At no time since the fall of Saddam Hussein have the words "Iraq stands at a crossroad" been truer.

The next few months will determine whether Iraq stands at the threshold of recovery — or at the brink of disaster.

In the wind-swept plains of western Iraq, where the insurgents are strongest, American officers speak of 2006 as "a year of risk" that will determine whether the U.S. campaign for a stable, democratic Iraq succeeds or whether the war drags on for years — with or without Americans in the fight.

Despite major losses and defeats, Sunni insurgents are estimated to number about 15,000 to 20,000 — roughly the same as two years ago, according to the Brookings Institution.

Roadside bombs, assassinations and scattered clashes occur with such regularity that they draw little attention.

As the fourth year of war approaches, the American strategy is moving along two tracks: encouraging a broad-based government of national unity that can win trust from all communities and transferring security responsibility to the new Iraqi army and police.

Both tracks are well under way, but fraught with risks.

The violence that swept Baghdad and other areas after the Samarra shrine attack suggests the Sunni-dominated insurgency could change into a full-scale civil war between the rival Muslim sects.

"The question is not whether there will be sectarian strife, but rather whether the central state can hold together and contain the violence," said Jeffrey A. VanDenBerg, director of Middle East studies at Drury University in Springfield, Mo.

In the March issue of Foreign Affairs, Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that Washington should slow the expansion of Iraq's security forces — most of whom are Shiites and Kurds — until there is a "broad communal compromise."

For the time being, however, the process of placing an Iraqi face on the war is accelerating.

About 60 of Iraq's 102 battalions "control their own battle space," said Lt. Col. Michael J. Negard, a U.S. military spokesman.

That means they plan and carry out military operations within their area of responsibility.

If all goes according to plan, by the end of the year all Iraqi battalions — expected by then to number 112 — will have that status.

Assuming the Iraqis prove up to the task, the U.S. military can begin sending thousands of soldiers home.

The top commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., is expected to recommend reductions in the 136,000-strong force beginning later this spring.

Casey refuses to talk publicly about numbers.

But it is widely assumed U.S. troop strength in Iraq will fall below 100,000 by the end of the year or early 2007.

Privately, American officers say that figure is reasonable.

Pentagon estimates have proven wrong before, however.

In late 2003, the Pentagon predicted troop strength would drop to 105,000 by the next May.

Instead, insurgent attacks forced an increase to nearly 140,000 in mid-2004.

U.S. officers also caution against inferring that a greater security role for Iraq's army will mean a total American withdrawal.

U.S. troops will leave the cities, but be nearby in case of trouble.

U.S. convoys will have to resupply Iraqi units, and American jets will provide air cover.

And the withdrawal timetable could get snagged if some Iraqi battalions cannot be trained and equipped in time.

"If a unit is not up to task or if equipment or personnel become an issue ... then we take the time needed," Negard said.

"So we're very hesitant to put a mark on a calendar and say 10 months down the road the Iraqi army will control all its battle space."

U.S. officials have praised the performance of Iraqi soldiers.

But the Americans were equally optimistic in 2004 until many Iraqi units fell apart in battle.

The entire 5,000-member police force in Mosul deserted after an insurgent uprising in November 2004.

This time, the U.S. command insists training is better.

Measures have been taken to build up a strong cadre of noncommissioned officers — a major weakness in 2004.

Privately, however, U.S. officers say desertions and absences still dog Iraqi units, especially in the volatile west where hundreds of soldiers have left their commands since a November offensive.

This is where the political track comes in.

The December election raised the amount of Sunni Arab representation in the new parliament more than threefold.

Talks are under way to put together a unity government with participation by Sunni Arabs, Shiite Muslims and Kurds.

At the same time, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has been reaching out to Sunni leaders in insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi.

The process is continuing, despite the assassinations of local Sunnis willing to talk.

But success won't come quickly.

"Even if a broad inclusive national government emerges, there almost certainly will be a lag time before we see a dampening effect on the insurgency," the U.S. national intelligence chief, John Negroponte, a former ambassador in Iraq, told a Senate committee Feb. 2.

All that points to much work and sacrifice ahead.

"Because of the nature of counterinsurgency, it's often hard for people to define what victory is," Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, said recently.

"It's not D-Day."

"There's not a big battle and it's all over."

"It's about people making choices, so it evolves over time."

"And that's exactly what you see here."

"Analysis: States Steadily Restricting Info"

By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer

2 hours, 35 minutes ago

States have steadily limited the public's access to government information since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a new Associated Press analysis of laws in all 50 states has found.

Legislatures have passed more than 1,000 laws changing access to information, approving more than twice as many measures that restrict information as laws that open government books.

The horror of the attacks spurred a wholesale re-examination of information that could put the country in danger, and the state actions roughly mirror those on the federal level.

Federal agencies responded by shutting down Web sites, pulling telephone directories and rethinking everything from dam blueprints to historical records.

In statehouse battles, the issue has pitted advocates of government openness — including journalists and civil liberties groups — against lawmakers and others who worry that public information could be misused, whether it's by terrorists or by computer hackers hoping to use your credit cards.

Security concerns typically won out.

The AP discovered a clear trend from the Sept. 11 attacks through legislative work that ended last year: States passed 616 laws that restricted access — to government records, databases, meetings and more — and 284 laws that loosened access.

Another 123 laws had either a neutral or mixed effect, the AP found.

"What these open government laws do is break down that wall of government secrecy so that everybody knows what's going on," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

"A democracy can only function if we have information."

"You can only have oversight of government if you have information."

Associated Press reporters in every state, often with help from their local press associations, tracked the government access bills introduced since the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon were hit by hijacked planes.

In every state, reporters tallied bills that were proposed each year, and then examined the laws that passed.

They assessed the impact of each new measure and rated it as loosening existing limits on public access to government information, restricting the limits, or neutral.

While fear of another terrorist attack drove many new proposals, it wasn't the only motivator.

Concerns about identity theft, medical privacy and the vulnerability of computerized records have sparked many pieces of legislation, too.

Lawmakers say they are recalibrating the balance between information that could be used against society and what society at large needs to know.

"Since Sept. 11, we're looking at information like plans for our nuclear plants, the records of our bridges and transportation systems."

"All of the critical information that is out there that we don't necessarily want to put in the hands of a terrorist," said New York state Sen. Nick Spano, a Republican who had proposed tightening legislation soon after the attacks.

"It's a very difficult balance between the public's right to know and the public's right to security," Spano said.

A different security measure ultimately became law, limiting access to information about infrastructure from airports to cellular phone systems.

Last year, Spano authored a law that strengthened public access by setting a strict deadline for state agencies to respond to requests for information.

The give and take of a legislature usually forces changes to such bills — like a measure proposed last year in Oklahoma, where freshman state Sen. Charles Wyrick, a Democrat, sought to completely exempt the state's new Department of Homeland Security from the Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act.

"I don't know why all of a sudden the holy grail of security and safety is now closing records," Mark Thomas, head of the Oklahoma Press Association, said after the bill was introduced.

"It seems to me we would be more secure if we knew what was going on around us."

"... Apparently there are those in government who want to close all these records and say, 'We'll keep you safe, trust us.'"

Negotiations brought a compromise.

The law that passed allowed the department to keep communications between the agency and the federal government confidential, along with security plans for private businesses.

"We had to fight that out, and basically it ended up being an equal distribution of unhappiness," Thomas said.

Still, the numerical data shows which side got more out of negotiations overall: The AP analysis of 1,023 new laws dealing with public access to government information found that more than 60 percent closed access.

Just over a quarter created new avenues of access.

The rest had a neutral effect, often through technical changes to existing laws.

Those laws emerged from just over 3,500 bills.

Often, several legislators interested in a topic will each introduce a bill knowing that only one is likely to pass.

In some states, the same legislation is introduced in both House and Senate chambers to speed action and build support.

Across more than four years, 36 states passed more restrictive laws than laws that loosened access; seven states passed more laws that eased barriers to access; seven states passed equal numbers.

The analysis did not attempt to quantify the impact of larger, sweeping laws versus smaller modifications.

The AP analysis also did not study legislation prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, though observers say the changes have been obvious.

"What we see nationwide is states really backing away from their open access laws," said Fred H. Cate, an Indiana University law professor who studies privacy and technology.

Security threats are real — but some lawmakers are just "taking advantage of the public security tide," he said.

The law in Iowa requires that schools draft emergency response plans, but bars them from the public.

In Indiana, legislators agreed to keep disciplinary actions against state employees secret — except when they are suspended, demoted or discharged.

In North Carolina, new advisory committees set up to examine medication errors in nursing homes keep their meetings and records confidential, though the medication error rates found in separate home inspections that exceed a higher, federal standard can be accessed through the federal government.

North Carolina, like other places, also took steps to open access, requiring local and state governments to more quickly provide details about government incentive packages to lure business.

Elsewhere, Oregon opened records on child abuse in cases involving a child who is killed or seriously hurt; South Carolina lawmakers required the governor to open his cabinet meetings; California voters approved an amendment to the state constitution requiring that the state's laws on open meetings and open records be broadly interpreted.

After the amendment passed, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made public his appointment calendar and those of two of his top aides.

Lately, privacy worries are starting to trump security fears.

"The great trend out there — that sweeps across any record — is privacy," said Charles Davis at the Freedom of Information Center in Missouri.

"There's a push by government that every time Joe Citizen's name is mentioned in a government document, it's an inherent threat to Joe Citizen's privacy if that document is released."

Just this month, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced a new government-wide effort to target identity theft, barring access to driver's licenses, phone records and Social Security numbers.

No longer, the governor said, should there be a presumption that government information is public.

"That's backwards," he said.

Open government advocates disagree.

The way they see it, if Pawlenty is successful, information that used to be public in Minnesota will soon be unnecessarily locked away.

___

AP researcher John Parsons contributed to this story.

___

On the Net:

http:http://www.sunshineweek.org

And then ...

There is GLOBAL WARMING ...

Which is a secret .....

So don't tell anybody ...

And then ...

They won't know ....

"Bering Sea Altered by Warm Conditions"

Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience Staff Writer, LiveScience.com

Fri Mar 10, 10:00 PM ET

Rising air and water temperatures are altering the environment of the Bering Sea, a new study finds.

The Bering Sea covers more than 700,000 square miles and is demarcated from the North Pacific Ocean by the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands.

The sea is considered one of the world’s most productive fisheries; its northern portions house sea ducks, gray whales, bearded seals and walruses, all of which feed on cold-water critters.

But warming temperatures of recent years have caused the environment to change from Arctic to sub-Arctic conditions in the region and have created an inviting haven for animals that were previously confined to the warmer waters of the south.

These warmer waters are bad news for animals adapted to cold-water environments, however.

These creatures have to move north in search of cooler waters, which in turn is causing problems for people who live off of them.

"We're seeing that a change in the physical conditions is driving a change in the ecosystems," said study team member Jackie Grebmeier of the University of Tennessee.

Observations and satellite images reveal that the sea ice is thinning and shrinking.

This affects two important regions of the Bering Sea.

"In the southeast, fish population and bottom-dweller changes are happening in the context of a complete loss of sea ice," said James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory involved in the study.

"But in the northern Bering Sea, ecological changes are occurring in the context of shifts in the quality of the sea ice."

"The ice there is broken and thin compared with ice floes that were more the norm."

Such ecosystem changes could have far-reaching effects, scientists say.

The waters of the Bering Sea are helping to curb global warming by acting as a "carbon sink," absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Any changes to the Bering Sea environment could affect this ability.

The researchers plan to watch the sea and the organisms that live in it closely over the next few years to understand the extent of environmental change.

The study was detailed in the March 10 issue of the journal Science.

"Republicans meet amid Bush's rough straits"

By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press
Last updated: 6:45 p.m., Saturday, March 11, 2006

MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- After a full-throated defense of President Bush's policies on Iraq, Iran and even port security, Sen. John McCain shrugged his shoulders and explained why:

"It's easy to be loyal when the guy is at 65 percent."

"I'm not going to kick him while he's down."

His message echoed throughout a weekend convention of GOP activists and potential 2008 presidential candidates who rallied behind the embattled Bush, mostly for his wartime leadership.

But a second theme was less forgiving, and it was aimed at the White House and the entire Republican leadership:

Get your acts together.

Several speakers accused their own party of drifting from conservative values, especially the promise to control government spending, and warned of defeats in November if dispirited GOP voters stay home.

Outside the convention hall, several delegates to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference said they were shaken by a string of White House mistakes and suggested Bush may need a new team.

"I am sorry for letting you down when it comes to spending your money," Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told several hundred delegates Saturday.

"We're going to turn it around and if we don't, we're going to be in trouble" in November.

He apologized for the lobbyist scandal that has tarnished the Republican majorities in Congress.

He apologized for Republican-run Washington failing to stand up to China and India on trade matters.

And, finally, Graham urged activists to make sure the party returns to its roots before Election Day.

"We're not going to win by being Democrats," he said.

"Conservatism sells."

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, forced by state law to balance his budgets, chastised Congress for runaway spending at the federal level.

"It's hard to tell which party is which," the potential 2008 candidate said.

Even an architect of Congress' fiscal record denounced it.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said there was "no justification for a one-way ticket down a wayward path of wasteful Washington spending," which seemed to be an indictment of the institution he leads.

McCain, the early front-runner for 2008, epitomizes how Republican candidates are judiciously handling their approach to Bush.

While praising the president for the fight against terrorism, the Arizona senator criticized the free-spending habits of Congress and noted that President Reagan vetoed a bill with 152 special spending projects.

Without mentioning Bush or the president's unused veto pen, McCain told delegates in his Friday night address that a spending bill recently was signed into law with more than 6,000 such project.

"My friends, that's your money."

"We cannot do that with American tax dollars," McCain said, slashing the air with his finger as he raised his voice to a shout.

"We cannot do that!"

Delegates praised McCain on Saturday for being both fiscally conservative and loyal to Bush who, despite sagging poll numbers, is still supported by three-fourths of Republicans.

McCain has been trying to curry favor with conservatives since his failed 2000 campaign against Bush.

"You don't hear McCain defend the president very often and I found that very encouraging," said Adair Schippers, a delegate from Cheatam County, Tenn.

Graham, who backed McCain in 2000 and would again in 2008, suggested that McCain wants Republican voters to view him as Bush's heir in fighting terrorism, but his own man on fiscal responsibility.

"If you believe the party has drifted from fiscal conservatism, you'll have no greater advocate than John McCain," Graham told reporters.

Though supportive of Bush, delegates here said they were shaken by a spate of White House miscues, culminating with the collapse of a vastly unpopular deal to allow a Dubai company to run six U.S. port terminals.

Several delegates urged Bush to clean house at the White House.

"The president is a good man," said Jim Frazier of Memphis.

"But you've got to wonder how well served he is."

Some ambitious party leaders wrapped themselves in the memory of another president.

"I am Sam Brownback and I am a Ronald Reagan Republican," said the Kansas senator, perhaps the most conservative potential 2008 candidate.

Conference delegates were taking part in an informal poll of the 2008 presidential field.

Sen. George Allen of Virginia, one of those on the "straw poll" ballot, repeatedly mentioned Reagan and echoed Bush's position on the war in Iraq.

"The strategy is we win, they lose," Allen said.

"There's no substitute for victory."

The same could be said about November, when Republicans must defend their majorities in Congress and state capitals.

Huckabee urged the delegates to knock off the "hand-wringing" and dismiss talk of "the ultimate and imminent decline" of the GOP.

"If we think we are in trouble," Huckabee said, "then we are in trouble."