Democrats Abroad New Zealand
3.30.2006
Abramoff Gets Minimum Sentence (WashingtonPost.com)
Former Lobbyist to Spend 5 Years, 10 Months in Prison
By Peter Whoriskey and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; 2:39 PM
MIAMI, March 29 -- Jack A. Abramoff, the once-powerful Republican lobbyist at the center of a major corruption scandal, was sentenced Wednesday to five years and 10 months in prison for his role in the fraudulent purchase of a fleet of casino cruise ships. An associate received the same sentence.
U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck sentenced Abramoff, 47, and his former partner, Adam R. Kidan, 41, to the shortest possible prison terms under sentencing guidelines in the case. In pleading for the minimum sentence, lawyers for each defendant laid most of the blame on the other for the scam, in which they faked a $23 million wire transfer to obtain financing for the 2000 purchase of SunCruz Casinos from an owner who was later shot to death in a gangland-style hit.
"As you can imagine, this day is incredibly painful for my family, my friends and me," Abramoff told the judge. "In the past two years, I've started the process of becoming a new man."
Wearing a gray double-breasted suit and appearing somber, Abramoff said he was "very much chastened and profoundly remorseful" for what he called his "reckless acts." He added, "I can only hope the Almighty and all those I've wronged will forgive my trespasses."
Kidan said in court, "I've accepted full responsibility for my role in this. I stand before you completely remorseful."
(More ... Abramoff Gets Minimum Sentence) ¶ 08:00 0 comments
By Peter Whoriskey and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; 2:39 PM
MIAMI, March 29 -- Jack A. Abramoff, the once-powerful Republican lobbyist at the center of a major corruption scandal, was sentenced Wednesday to five years and 10 months in prison for his role in the fraudulent purchase of a fleet of casino cruise ships. An associate received the same sentence.
U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck sentenced Abramoff, 47, and his former partner, Adam R. Kidan, 41, to the shortest possible prison terms under sentencing guidelines in the case. In pleading for the minimum sentence, lawyers for each defendant laid most of the blame on the other for the scam, in which they faked a $23 million wire transfer to obtain financing for the 2000 purchase of SunCruz Casinos from an owner who was later shot to death in a gangland-style hit.
"As you can imagine, this day is incredibly painful for my family, my friends and me," Abramoff told the judge. "In the past two years, I've started the process of becoming a new man."
Wearing a gray double-breasted suit and appearing somber, Abramoff said he was "very much chastened and profoundly remorseful" for what he called his "reckless acts." He added, "I can only hope the Almighty and all those I've wronged will forgive my trespasses."
Kidan said in court, "I've accepted full responsibility for my role in this. I stand before you completely remorseful."
(More ... Abramoff Gets Minimum Sentence) ¶ 08:00 0 comments
3.29.2006
Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program (NYTimes.com)
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: March 29, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.
Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
Judge Baker and three other judges who served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program. Committee members also heard parts of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December, days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.
The intelligence court, created by Congress in 1978, meets in a tightly guarded, windowless office at the Justice Department. The court produces no public findings except for a single tally to Congress each year on the number of warrants it has issued — more than 1,600 in 2004. Even its roster of judges serving seven-year terms was, for a time, considered secret.
(More ... Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program - New York Times) ¶ 21:55 0 comments
Published: March 29, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.
Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
Judge Baker and three other judges who served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program. Committee members also heard parts of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December, days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.
The intelligence court, created by Congress in 1978, meets in a tightly guarded, windowless office at the Justice Department. The court produces no public findings except for a single tally to Congress each year on the number of warrants it has issued — more than 1,600 in 2004. Even its roster of judges serving seven-year terms was, for a time, considered secret.
(More ... Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program - New York Times) ¶ 21:55 0 comments
Justices Hint That They'll Rule on Challenge Filed by Detainee (NYTimes.com)
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: March 29, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 28 — As the justices of the Supreme Court took their seats Tuesday morning to hear Osama bin Laden's former driver challenge the Bush administration's plan to try him before a military commission, one question — perhaps the most important one — was how protective the justices would be of their jurisdiction to decide the case.
At least five justices — Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens — appeared ready to reject the administration's argument that the Detainee Treatment Act, passed and signed into law after the court accepted the case in November, had stripped the court of jurisdiction.
It was less certain by the end of the argument how the court would then go on to resolve the merits of the case, a multipronged attack on the validity of the military commissions themselves and on their procedures. Lawyers for the former driver, a Yemeni named Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is charged with conspiracy, also argue that he cannot properly be tried before any military commission for that crime because conspiracy is not recognized as a war crime.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement was on the defensive throughout his argument. His stolid refusal to concede that any of the government's positions, on the jurisdictional as well as ultimate questions of the case, might present even theoretical problems provoked the normally soft-spoken Justice Souter into an outburst of anger.
What appeared to trouble Justice Souter most was Mr. Clement's discussion with Justice Stevens about whether Congress's removal of the federal courts' jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from detainees at the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, amounted to "suspending" the writ of habeas corpus.
Suspending habeas corpus is an action, limited by the Constitution to "cases of rebellion or invasion," that Congress has taken only four times in the country's history. Habeas corpus is the means by which prisoners can go to court to challenge the lawfulness of their confinement, and its suspension is historically regarded as a serious, if not drastic, step.
(More ... Justices Hint That They'll Rule on Challenge Filed by Detainee - New York Times) ¶ 21:26 0 comments
Published: March 29, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 28 — As the justices of the Supreme Court took their seats Tuesday morning to hear Osama bin Laden's former driver challenge the Bush administration's plan to try him before a military commission, one question — perhaps the most important one — was how protective the justices would be of their jurisdiction to decide the case.
At least five justices — Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens — appeared ready to reject the administration's argument that the Detainee Treatment Act, passed and signed into law after the court accepted the case in November, had stripped the court of jurisdiction.
It was less certain by the end of the argument how the court would then go on to resolve the merits of the case, a multipronged attack on the validity of the military commissions themselves and on their procedures. Lawyers for the former driver, a Yemeni named Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is charged with conspiracy, also argue that he cannot properly be tried before any military commission for that crime because conspiracy is not recognized as a war crime.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement was on the defensive throughout his argument. His stolid refusal to concede that any of the government's positions, on the jurisdictional as well as ultimate questions of the case, might present even theoretical problems provoked the normally soft-spoken Justice Souter into an outburst of anger.
What appeared to trouble Justice Souter most was Mr. Clement's discussion with Justice Stevens about whether Congress's removal of the federal courts' jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from detainees at the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, amounted to "suspending" the writ of habeas corpus.
Suspending habeas corpus is an action, limited by the Constitution to "cases of rebellion or invasion," that Congress has taken only four times in the country's history. Habeas corpus is the means by which prisoners can go to court to challenge the lawfulness of their confinement, and its suspension is historically regarded as a serious, if not drastic, step.
(More ... Justices Hint That They'll Rule on Challenge Filed by Detainee - New York Times) ¶ 21:26 0 comments
Supreme Court Questions Military Trials (NYTimes.com)
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 28, 2006
Filed at 2:22 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A lawyer for Osama bin Laden's former driver urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to curb President Bush's use of wartime powers to prosecute terror suspects held at a U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Attorney Neal Katyal, who represents Salim Ahmed Hamdan, told justices the military commissions established by the Pentagon on Bush's orders are flawed because they violate basic military justice protections.
''This is a military commission that is literally unburdened by the laws, Constitution and treaties of the United States,'' Katyal said.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, the newest member of the court, pressed Katyal to explain why a defendant before a military commission should be given something that defendants in civilian criminal trials normally don't get -- the chance to challenge the case before a verdict is reached.
''If this were like a (civilian) criminal proceeding, we wouldn't be here,'' Katyal said.
Scalia's presence on the bench signaled his rejection of a request to recuse himself that was filed Monday by five retired generals who support Hamdan's arguments. In a letter to the court, the generals asked Scalia to withdraw from participating in the case because of remarks he made in a recent speech in Switzerland about ''enemy combatants.'' Speaking at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland on March 8, Scalia said foreigners waging war against the United States have no rights under the Constitution.
(More ... Supreme Court Questions Military Trials - New York Times) ¶ 08:03 0 comments
Published: March 28, 2006
Filed at 2:22 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A lawyer for Osama bin Laden's former driver urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to curb President Bush's use of wartime powers to prosecute terror suspects held at a U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Attorney Neal Katyal, who represents Salim Ahmed Hamdan, told justices the military commissions established by the Pentagon on Bush's orders are flawed because they violate basic military justice protections.
''This is a military commission that is literally unburdened by the laws, Constitution and treaties of the United States,'' Katyal said.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, the newest member of the court, pressed Katyal to explain why a defendant before a military commission should be given something that defendants in civilian criminal trials normally don't get -- the chance to challenge the case before a verdict is reached.
''If this were like a (civilian) criminal proceeding, we wouldn't be here,'' Katyal said.
Scalia's presence on the bench signaled his rejection of a request to recuse himself that was filed Monday by five retired generals who support Hamdan's arguments. In a letter to the court, the generals asked Scalia to withdraw from participating in the case because of remarks he made in a recent speech in Switzerland about ''enemy combatants.'' Speaking at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland on March 8, Scalia said foreigners waging war against the United States have no rights under the Constitution.
(More ... Supreme Court Questions Military Trials - New York Times) ¶ 08:03 0 comments
3.28.2006
FBI Keeps Watch on Activists (LATimes.com)
Antiwar, other groups are monitored to curb violence, not because of ideology, agency says.
By Nicholas Riccardi, Times Staff Writer
March 27, 2006
DENVER — The FBI, while waging a highly publicized war against terrorism, has spent resources gathering information on antiwar and environmental protesters and on activists who feed vegetarian meals to the homeless, the agency's internal memos show.
For years, the FBI's definition of terrorism has included violence against property, such as the window-smashing during the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization. That definition has led FBI investigations to online discussion boards, organizing meetings and demonstrations of a wide range of activist groups. Officials say that international terrorists pose the greatest threat to the nation but that they cannot ignore crimes committed by some activists.
"It's one thing to express an idea or such, but when you commit acts of violence in support of that activity, that's where our interest comes in," said FBI spokesman Bill Carter in Washington.
He stressed that the agency targeted individuals who committed crimes and did not single out groups for ideological reasons. He cited the recent arrest of environmental activists accused of firebombing an unfinished ski resort in Vail. "People can get hurt," Carter said. "Businesses can be ruined."
The FBI's encounters with activists are described in hundreds of pages of documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act after agents visited several activists before the 2004 political conventions. Details have steadily trickled out over the last year, but newly released documents provide a fuller view of some FBI probes.
(More ... FBI Keeps Watch on Activists - Los Angeles Times) ¶ 18:42 0 comments
By Nicholas Riccardi, Times Staff Writer
March 27, 2006
DENVER — The FBI, while waging a highly publicized war against terrorism, has spent resources gathering information on antiwar and environmental protesters and on activists who feed vegetarian meals to the homeless, the agency's internal memos show.
For years, the FBI's definition of terrorism has included violence against property, such as the window-smashing during the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization. That definition has led FBI investigations to online discussion boards, organizing meetings and demonstrations of a wide range of activist groups. Officials say that international terrorists pose the greatest threat to the nation but that they cannot ignore crimes committed by some activists.
"It's one thing to express an idea or such, but when you commit acts of violence in support of that activity, that's where our interest comes in," said FBI spokesman Bill Carter in Washington.
He stressed that the agency targeted individuals who committed crimes and did not single out groups for ideological reasons. He cited the recent arrest of environmental activists accused of firebombing an unfinished ski resort in Vail. "People can get hurt," Carter said. "Businesses can be ruined."
The FBI's encounters with activists are described in hundreds of pages of documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act after agents visited several activists before the 2004 political conventions. Details have steadily trickled out over the last year, but newly released documents provide a fuller view of some FBI probes.
(More ... FBI Keeps Watch on Activists - Los Angeles Times) ¶ 18:42 0 comments
3.27.2006
In an Election Year, a Shift in Public Opinion on the War (NYTimes.com)
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: March 27, 2006
ALBUQUERQUE, March 25 — Neil Mondragon watched with approval at an auto repair shop recently as Representative Heather A. Wilson, a New Mexico Republican visiting her district, dropped into the pit and drained the oil from a car.
Afterward, Mr. Mondragon recalled how he had backed Ms. Wilson, a supporter of the Iraq war, in her race for Congress two years ago. He, too, supported the war.
But now, Mr. Mondragon said, it is time to bring the troops home. And he is leaning toward voting for Ms. Wilson's opponent, Patricia Madrid, who has called for pulling the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
"The way I see the situation is, we have done what we had to," said Mr. Mondragon, 27, whose brother fought in the war and returned with post-traumatic stress disorder. "I don't see the point of having so many guys over there right now. We can't just stay there and baby-sit forever."
Mr. Mondragon is far from alone in reassessing his view of the war that has come to define George W. Bush's presidency.
(More ... In an Election Year, a Shift in Public Opinion on the War - New York Times) ¶ 19:45 0 comments
Published: March 27, 2006
ALBUQUERQUE, March 25 — Neil Mondragon watched with approval at an auto repair shop recently as Representative Heather A. Wilson, a New Mexico Republican visiting her district, dropped into the pit and drained the oil from a car.
Afterward, Mr. Mondragon recalled how he had backed Ms. Wilson, a supporter of the Iraq war, in her race for Congress two years ago. He, too, supported the war.
But now, Mr. Mondragon said, it is time to bring the troops home. And he is leaning toward voting for Ms. Wilson's opponent, Patricia Madrid, who has called for pulling the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
"The way I see the situation is, we have done what we had to," said Mr. Mondragon, 27, whose brother fought in the war and returned with post-traumatic stress disorder. "I don't see the point of having so many guys over there right now. We can't just stay there and baby-sit forever."
Mr. Mondragon is far from alone in reassessing his view of the war that has come to define George W. Bush's presidency.
(More ... In an Election Year, a Shift in Public Opinion on the War - New York Times) ¶ 19:45 0 comments
Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says (NYTimes.com)
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."
The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.
Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.
(More ... Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says - New York Times) ¶ 19:39 0 comments
Published: March 27, 2006
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."
The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.
Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.
(More ... Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says - New York Times) ¶ 19:39 0 comments
North of the Border (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 27, 2006
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," wrote Emma Lazarus, in a poem that still puts a lump in my throat. I'm proud of America's immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.
In other words, I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.
First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.
(More ... North of the Border - New York Times) ¶ 19:36 0 comments
Published: March 27, 2006
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," wrote Emma Lazarus, in a poem that still puts a lump in my throat. I'm proud of America's immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.
In other words, I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.
First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.
That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.
(More ... North of the Border - New York Times) ¶ 19:36 0 comments
U.S. Soldiers Kill 22 in Attack on Baghdad Mosque (Independent.co.uk)
By Kim Sengputa
Published: 27 March 2006
US forces killed 22 people and wounded eight at a mosque in east Baghdad in an incident likely to lead to increased tensions with the Shia community. Police said the US troops had retaliated after coming under fire.
Videotape showed a heap of male bodies with gunshot wounds on the floor of the Imam's living quarters in what was said to be the Al Mustafa mosque. There were 5.56mm shell casings on the floor, which is the type of ammunition used by US soldiers. A weeping man in white Arab robes is shown stepping among the bodies.
Police Lt Hassan said some of the casualties were at the office Dawa, the party of the Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Haidar al-Obaidi, a senior Dawa official, said: "The lives of Iraqis are not cheap. If the American blood is valuable to them, the Iraqi blood is valuable to us."
The US military would neither confirm not deny the incident but the US army in Iraq has been strongly criticised over the past week for killing Iraqi civilians and falsely claiming that they were insurgents or caught in cross fire.
(More ... Independent Online Edition > Middle East) ¶ 19:27 0 comments
Published: 27 March 2006
US forces killed 22 people and wounded eight at a mosque in east Baghdad in an incident likely to lead to increased tensions with the Shia community. Police said the US troops had retaliated after coming under fire.
Videotape showed a heap of male bodies with gunshot wounds on the floor of the Imam's living quarters in what was said to be the Al Mustafa mosque. There were 5.56mm shell casings on the floor, which is the type of ammunition used by US soldiers. A weeping man in white Arab robes is shown stepping among the bodies.
Police Lt Hassan said some of the casualties were at the office Dawa, the party of the Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Haidar al-Obaidi, a senior Dawa official, said: "The lives of Iraqis are not cheap. If the American blood is valuable to them, the Iraqi blood is valuable to us."
The US military would neither confirm not deny the incident but the US army in Iraq has been strongly criticised over the past week for killing Iraqi civilians and falsely claiming that they were insurgents or caught in cross fire.
(More ... Independent Online Edition > Middle East) ¶ 19:27 0 comments
Afghans to Free Christian Convert (ChicagoTribune.com)
By Kim Barker
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published March 26, 2006, 6:19 PM CST
KABUL, Afghanistan —The Afghan man who had faced the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity will be released for mental evaluation soon, possibly Monday, Afghan officials said, potentially defusing a case that sparked international outrage and caused many to question which way the country was heading.
A Kabul court tossed out the case Sunday, sending it back to the prosecutor's office for more investigation, Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizada said.
Doctors will evaluate whether Abdul Rahman is mentally ill. The court also wants to know whether Rahman, 42, holds a passport for another country.
While Rahman could be granted asylum in a Western country, officials fear that would open the door to other Afghans converting because it would be a guaranteed way out of the country. If Rahman has another passport, that would skirt the asylum issue.
Rahman has spent more than a month in jail since he showed up at a police station and announced that he had converted to Christianity.
(More ... Chicago Tribune | Afghans to free Christian convert) ¶ 19:16 0 comments
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published March 26, 2006, 6:19 PM CST
KABUL, Afghanistan —The Afghan man who had faced the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity will be released for mental evaluation soon, possibly Monday, Afghan officials said, potentially defusing a case that sparked international outrage and caused many to question which way the country was heading.
A Kabul court tossed out the case Sunday, sending it back to the prosecutor's office for more investigation, Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizada said.
Doctors will evaluate whether Abdul Rahman is mentally ill. The court also wants to know whether Rahman, 42, holds a passport for another country.
While Rahman could be granted asylum in a Western country, officials fear that would open the door to other Afghans converting because it would be a guaranteed way out of the country. If Rahman has another passport, that would skirt the asylum issue.
Rahman has spent more than a month in jail since he showed up at a police station and announced that he had converted to Christianity.
(More ... Chicago Tribune | Afghans to free Christian convert) ¶ 19:16 0 comments
3.26.2006
Bush's Powers Again Under Review by Court (Forbes.com)
By GINA HOLLAND , 03.25.2006, 12:57 PM
His wartime powers undercut once before by the Supreme Court, President Bush could take a second hit in a case in which Osama bin Laden's former driver is seeking to head off a trial before military officers.
At stake is more than whether Salim Ahmed Hamdan, after nearly four years at the Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, goes on trial for war crimes before a special military commission.
Analysts say if the high court rejects Bush's plan to hold such trials for the first time since the aftermath of World War II, it could rein in the president's expanded powers in pursuing and punishing suspected terrorists.
In addition to special military trials for Hamdan and others, the Bush administration since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has claimed it has the authority to eavesdrop on telephone conversations without court oversight, aggressively interrogate foreigners and imprison people without giving them traditional legal rights.
(More ... Bush's Powers Again Under Review by Court - Forbes.com) ¶ 18:58 0 comments
His wartime powers undercut once before by the Supreme Court, President Bush could take a second hit in a case in which Osama bin Laden's former driver is seeking to head off a trial before military officers.
At stake is more than whether Salim Ahmed Hamdan, after nearly four years at the Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, goes on trial for war crimes before a special military commission.
Analysts say if the high court rejects Bush's plan to hold such trials for the first time since the aftermath of World War II, it could rein in the president's expanded powers in pursuing and punishing suspected terrorists.
In addition to special military trials for Hamdan and others, the Bush administration since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has claimed it has the authority to eavesdrop on telephone conversations without court oversight, aggressively interrogate foreigners and imprison people without giving them traditional legal rights.
(More ... Bush's Powers Again Under Review by Court - Forbes.com) ¶ 18:58 0 comments
Iraqis Killed by US Troops ‘On Rampage’ (TimesOnline.co.uk)
Claims of atrocities by soldiers mount
Hala Jaber and Tony Allen-Mills, New York
March 26, 2006
THE villagers of Abu Sifa near the Iraqi town of Balad had become used to the sound of explosions at night as American forces searched the area for suspected insurgents. But one night two weeks ago Issa Harat Khalaf heard a different sound that chilled him to the bone.
Khalaf, a 33-year-old security officer guarding oil pipelines, saw a US helicopter land near his home. American soldiers stormed out of the Chinook and advanced on a house owned by Khalaf’s brother Fayez, firing as they went.
Khalaf ran from his own house and hid in a nearby grove of trees. He saw the soldiers enter his brother’s home and then heard the sound of women and children screaming.
“Then there was a lot of machinegun fire,” he said last week. After that there was the most frightening sound of all — silence, followed by explosions as the soldiers left the house.
Once the troops were gone, Khalaf and his fellow villagers began a frantic search through the ruins of his brother’s home. Abu Sifa was about to join a lengthening list of Iraqi communities claiming to have suffered from American atrocities.
(More ... Iraqis killed by US troops ‘on rampage’ - Sunday Times - Times Online) ¶ 17:29 0 comments
Hala Jaber and Tony Allen-Mills, New York
March 26, 2006
THE villagers of Abu Sifa near the Iraqi town of Balad had become used to the sound of explosions at night as American forces searched the area for suspected insurgents. But one night two weeks ago Issa Harat Khalaf heard a different sound that chilled him to the bone.
Khalaf, a 33-year-old security officer guarding oil pipelines, saw a US helicopter land near his home. American soldiers stormed out of the Chinook and advanced on a house owned by Khalaf’s brother Fayez, firing as they went.
Khalaf ran from his own house and hid in a nearby grove of trees. He saw the soldiers enter his brother’s home and then heard the sound of women and children screaming.
“Then there was a lot of machinegun fire,” he said last week. After that there was the most frightening sound of all — silence, followed by explosions as the soldiers left the house.
Once the troops were gone, Khalaf and his fellow villagers began a frantic search through the ruins of his brother’s home. Abu Sifa was about to join a lengthening list of Iraqi communities claiming to have suffered from American atrocities.
(More ... Iraqis killed by US troops ‘on rampage’ - Sunday Times - Times Online) ¶ 17:29 0 comments
Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder (WashingtonPost.com)
By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 25, 2006; Page A01
HOLYOKE, Mass. -- To drive through the mill towns and curling country roads here is to journey into New England's impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush.
Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture.
Window cleaner Ira Clemons put down his squeegee in the lobby of a city mall and stroked his goatee as he considered the question: Would you support your congressman's call to impeach Bush? His smile grew until it looked like a three-quarters moon.
"Why not? The man's been lying from Jump Street on the war in Iraq," Clemons said. "Bush says there were weapons of mass destruction, but there wasn't. Says we had enough soldiers, but we didn't. Says it's not a civil war -- but it is." He added: "I was really upset about 9/11 -- so don't lie to me."
It would be a considerable overstatement to say the fledgling impeachment movement threatens to topple a presidency -- there are just 33 House co-sponsors of a motion by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) to investigate and perhaps impeach Bush, and a large majority of elected Democrats think it is a bad idea. But talk bubbles up in many corners of the nation, and on the Internet, where several Web sites have led the charge, giving liberals an outlet for anger that has been years in the making.
(More ... Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder) ¶ 11:50 0 comments
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 25, 2006; Page A01
HOLYOKE, Mass. -- To drive through the mill towns and curling country roads here is to journey into New England's impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush.
Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture.
Window cleaner Ira Clemons put down his squeegee in the lobby of a city mall and stroked his goatee as he considered the question: Would you support your congressman's call to impeach Bush? His smile grew until it looked like a three-quarters moon.
"Why not? The man's been lying from Jump Street on the war in Iraq," Clemons said. "Bush says there were weapons of mass destruction, but there wasn't. Says we had enough soldiers, but we didn't. Says it's not a civil war -- but it is." He added: "I was really upset about 9/11 -- so don't lie to me."
It would be a considerable overstatement to say the fledgling impeachment movement threatens to topple a presidency -- there are just 33 House co-sponsors of a motion by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) to investigate and perhaps impeach Bush, and a large majority of elected Democrats think it is a bad idea. But talk bubbles up in many corners of the nation, and on the Internet, where several Web sites have led the charge, giving liberals an outlet for anger that has been years in the making.
(More ... Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder) ¶ 11:50 0 comments
3.25.2006
Barbara Bush's Katrina Donation Ignites Debate (Chron.com)
By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
As Barbara Bush spent two hours championing her son's software company at a Houston middle school Thursday morning, a watchdog group questioned whether the former first lady should be allowed to channel a donation to Neil Bush's Ignite Learning company through Houston's Hurricane Katrina relief fund.
"It's strange that the former first lady would want to do this. If her son's having a rough time of it, couldn't she write him a check?" said Daniel Borochoff, founder of the American Institute of Philanthropy, a Chicago-based charity watchdog group. "Maybe she isn't aware that people could frown upon this."
Some critics said donations to a tax-deductible charitable fund shouldn't benefit the Bush family. Others questioned whether the Houston Independent School District violated district policy by allowing the company to host a promotional event on campus.
(More ... Chron.com | Barbara Bush's Katrina donation ignites debate) ¶ 19:27 0 comments
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
As Barbara Bush spent two hours championing her son's software company at a Houston middle school Thursday morning, a watchdog group questioned whether the former first lady should be allowed to channel a donation to Neil Bush's Ignite Learning company through Houston's Hurricane Katrina relief fund.
"It's strange that the former first lady would want to do this. If her son's having a rough time of it, couldn't she write him a check?" said Daniel Borochoff, founder of the American Institute of Philanthropy, a Chicago-based charity watchdog group. "Maybe she isn't aware that people could frown upon this."
Some critics said donations to a tax-deductible charitable fund shouldn't benefit the Bush family. Others questioned whether the Houston Independent School District violated district policy by allowing the company to host a promotional event on campus.
(More ... Chron.com | Barbara Bush's Katrina donation ignites debate) ¶ 19:27 0 comments
Russia 'Gave Iraq Intelligence' (news.BBC.co.uk)
Friday, 24 March 2006, 23:45 GMT
Russia provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence on US military moves in the opening days of the US-led invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report has said.
Russia passed the details through its Baghdad ambassador, the report said. Russia has not commented on the claim.
One piece of intelligence passed on was false, and in fact helped a key US deception effort, the report concluded.
The report also quoted an Iraqi memo which mentioned Russian "sources" at the US military headquarters in Qatar.
"The information that the Russians have collected from their sources inside the American Central Command in Doha is that the United States is convinced that occupying Iraqi cities are [sic] impossible," said the Iraqi document, quoted by the Pentagon report.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Middle East | Russia 'gave Iraq intelligence') ¶ 13:25 0 comments
Russia provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence on US military moves in the opening days of the US-led invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report has said.
Russia passed the details through its Baghdad ambassador, the report said. Russia has not commented on the claim.
One piece of intelligence passed on was false, and in fact helped a key US deception effort, the report concluded.
The report also quoted an Iraqi memo which mentioned Russian "sources" at the US military headquarters in Qatar.
"The information that the Russians have collected from their sources inside the American Central Command in Doha is that the United States is convinced that occupying Iraqi cities are [sic] impossible," said the Iraqi document, quoted by the Pentagon report.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Middle East | Russia 'gave Iraq intelligence') ¶ 13:25 0 comments
Knives Out for Rumsfeld (SMH.com.au)
By Mark Coultan Herald Correspondent in New York
March 25, 2006
WITH more than a tinge of bitterness, the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has brushed off calls for his resignation.
The third anniversary of the start of the Iraq war led to a bout of self-analysis in America about the course and direction of the war, with much of the criticism focused on Mr Rumsfeld, who appears to be losing support even among people who otherwise support the Bush Administration.
The criticism started with the publication of a new book on the conduct of the war by the military correspondent of The New York Times, Michael Gordon, and Bernard Trainor, which says Mr Rumsfeld ignored generals in the field who wanted to deal with the insurgency during the early parts of the war instead of pressing on to Baghdad.
David Brooks, the paper's prominent conservative columnist, also called for Mr Rumsfeld's resignation last week, in what appears to be a growing conservative movement of supporting the war but condemning its execution.
Mr Rumsfeld provoked some of the criticism himself in an article in which he compared leaving Iraq to handing Germany back to the Nazis after World War II.
(More ... Knives out for Rumsfeld - World - smh.com.au) ¶ 12:11 0 comments
March 25, 2006
WITH more than a tinge of bitterness, the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has brushed off calls for his resignation.
The third anniversary of the start of the Iraq war led to a bout of self-analysis in America about the course and direction of the war, with much of the criticism focused on Mr Rumsfeld, who appears to be losing support even among people who otherwise support the Bush Administration.
The criticism started with the publication of a new book on the conduct of the war by the military correspondent of The New York Times, Michael Gordon, and Bernard Trainor, which says Mr Rumsfeld ignored generals in the field who wanted to deal with the insurgency during the early parts of the war instead of pressing on to Baghdad.
David Brooks, the paper's prominent conservative columnist, also called for Mr Rumsfeld's resignation last week, in what appears to be a growing conservative movement of supporting the war but condemning its execution.
Mr Rumsfeld provoked some of the criticism himself in an article in which he compared leaving Iraq to handing Germany back to the Nazis after World War II.
(More ... Knives out for Rumsfeld - World - smh.com.au) ¶ 12:11 0 comments
Rumsfeld Job Watch Keeps Washington Guessing (NPR.org)
NPR : Rumsfeld Job Watch Keeps Washington Guessing ¶ 10:54 0 comments
Rumsfeld Job Watch Keeps Washington Guessing
by
NPR : Rumsfeld Job Watch Keeps Washington Guessing ¶ 10:54 0 comments
Cheney's Needs on the Road: What, No NPR? (NYTimes.com)
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: March 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 23 — Vice President Dick Cheney may be a rock star only to his most ardent Republican supporters, but he has on-the-road demands just like the Rolling Stones. Still, Mr. Cheney appears easier to please than Mick Jagger or Keith Richards.
At least that was the evidence from "Vice Presidential Downtime Requirements," the heading of a document posted Thursday on the Smoking Gun Web site and confirmed as authentic by Mr. Cheney's office.
The document listed 13 requirements. Among them were these: All televisions sets in Mr. Cheney's hotel suite should be tuned to Fox News, all lights should be on, and the thermostat set at 68 degrees. Mr. Cheney should have a queen- or king-size bed, a desk with a chair, a private bathroom, a container for ice, a microwave oven and a coffee pot, with decaf brewed before arrival.
The vice president should also have four cans of caffeine-free Diet Sprite and four to six bottles of water. He must have the hotel restaurant menu, with a copy faxed ahead to his advance office. If his wife is with him, she should have two bottles of sparkling water, either Calistoga or Perrier.
For his reading material, Mr. Cheney should have The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and the local newspaper.
(More ... Cheney's Needs on the Road: What, No NPR? - New York Times) ¶ 10:51 0 comments
Published: March 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 23 — Vice President Dick Cheney may be a rock star only to his most ardent Republican supporters, but he has on-the-road demands just like the Rolling Stones. Still, Mr. Cheney appears easier to please than Mick Jagger or Keith Richards.
At least that was the evidence from "Vice Presidential Downtime Requirements," the heading of a document posted Thursday on the Smoking Gun Web site and confirmed as authentic by Mr. Cheney's office.
The document listed 13 requirements. Among them were these: All televisions sets in Mr. Cheney's hotel suite should be tuned to Fox News, all lights should be on, and the thermostat set at 68 degrees. Mr. Cheney should have a queen- or king-size bed, a desk with a chair, a private bathroom, a container for ice, a microwave oven and a coffee pot, with decaf brewed before arrival.
The vice president should also have four cans of caffeine-free Diet Sprite and four to six bottles of water. He must have the hotel restaurant menu, with a copy faxed ahead to his advance office. If his wife is with him, she should have two bottles of sparkling water, either Calistoga or Perrier.
For his reading material, Mr. Cheney should have The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and the local newspaper.
(More ... Cheney's Needs on the Road: What, No NPR? - New York Times) ¶ 10:51 0 comments
Women Wage Key Campaigns for Democrats (NYTimes.com)
By ROBIN TONER
Published: March 24, 2006
NARBERTH, Pa. — If the Democrats have their way, the 2006 Congressional elections will be the revenge of the mommy party.
Democratic women are running major campaigns in nearly half of the two dozen most competitive House races where their party hopes to pick up enough Republican seats to regain control of the House. Democratic strategists are betting that the voters' unrest and hunger for change — reflected consistently in public opinion polls — create the perfect conditions for their party's female candidates this year.
"In an environment where people are disgusted with politics in general, who represents clean and change?" asks Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Women."
Republicans, who have prospered in recent elections by running as the guardians of national security and clearly hope to do so again, dismiss this theory. But it will ultimately be tested in places like this Philadelphia suburb, where Lois Murphy, a 43-year-old lawyer and Democratic activist, lost a Congressional campaign in 2004 by just two percentage points.
This time, as she challenges the same Republican incumbent, Representative Jim Gerlach, Ms. Murphy said in an interview in her campaign headquarters in Narberth, she senses an electorate that is "really, really" ready for change, tired of the ethics scandals, and convinced "that their government has been letting them down."
On whether her sex is a particular asset this year, Ms. Murphy replied, "I leave that to the political experts, which I am not."
(More ... Women Wage Key Campaigns for Democrats - New York Times) ¶ 10:42 0 comments
Published: March 24, 2006
NARBERTH, Pa. — If the Democrats have their way, the 2006 Congressional elections will be the revenge of the mommy party.
Democratic women are running major campaigns in nearly half of the two dozen most competitive House races where their party hopes to pick up enough Republican seats to regain control of the House. Democratic strategists are betting that the voters' unrest and hunger for change — reflected consistently in public opinion polls — create the perfect conditions for their party's female candidates this year.
"In an environment where people are disgusted with politics in general, who represents clean and change?" asks Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Women."
Republicans, who have prospered in recent elections by running as the guardians of national security and clearly hope to do so again, dismiss this theory. But it will ultimately be tested in places like this Philadelphia suburb, where Lois Murphy, a 43-year-old lawyer and Democratic activist, lost a Congressional campaign in 2004 by just two percentage points.
This time, as she challenges the same Republican incumbent, Representative Jim Gerlach, Ms. Murphy said in an interview in her campaign headquarters in Narberth, she senses an electorate that is "really, really" ready for change, tired of the ethics scandals, and convinced "that their government has been letting them down."
On whether her sex is a particular asset this year, Ms. Murphy replied, "I leave that to the political experts, which I am not."
(More ... Women Wage Key Campaigns for Democrats - New York Times) ¶ 10:42 0 comments
IRS Audited Greenpeace at Request of ExxonMobil-Funded Group (DemocracyNow.org)
Friday, March 24th, 2006
The Wall Street Journal revealed this week a little-known watchdog group was responsible for getting the IRS to audit the environmental organization Greenpeace. Two years ago, Public Interest Watch challenged Greenpeace's tax-exempt status and accused the group of money laundering and other crimes. According to the Journal, tax records show more than 95 percent of the funding of Public Interest Watch was provided by the oil giant ExxonMobil.
On its website, Public Interest Watch says it was founded "in response to the growing misuse of charitable funds by nonprofit organizations and the lack of effort by government agencies to deal with the problem." The group describes its mission as: "Keeping an Eye on the Self-Appointed Guardians of the Public Interest."
Greenpeace, meanwhile, has been one of ExxonMobil's fiercest critics. The group has protested ExxonMobil's meetings and company gatherings as well as its oil tankers and filling stations. Greenpeace has labeled ExxonMobil the "No. 1 Climate Criminal" over its environmental practices.
(More ... Democracy Now! | IRS Audited Greenpeace At Request of ExxonMobil-Funded Group) ¶ 10:39 0 comments
The Wall Street Journal revealed this week a little-known watchdog group was responsible for getting the IRS to audit the environmental organization Greenpeace. Two years ago, Public Interest Watch challenged Greenpeace's tax-exempt status and accused the group of money laundering and other crimes. According to the Journal, tax records show more than 95 percent of the funding of Public Interest Watch was provided by the oil giant ExxonMobil.
On its website, Public Interest Watch says it was founded "in response to the growing misuse of charitable funds by nonprofit organizations and the lack of effort by government agencies to deal with the problem." The group describes its mission as: "Keeping an Eye on the Self-Appointed Guardians of the Public Interest."
Greenpeace, meanwhile, has been one of ExxonMobil's fiercest critics. The group has protested ExxonMobil's meetings and company gatherings as well as its oil tankers and filling stations. Greenpeace has labeled ExxonMobil the "No. 1 Climate Criminal" over its environmental practices.
(More ... Democracy Now! | IRS Audited Greenpeace At Request of ExxonMobil-Funded Group) ¶ 10:39 0 comments
3.24.2006
Happy Doomsday to You! (WashingtonPost.com)
By Dana Milbank
Friday, March 24, 2006; Page A02
Washington was about one horseman short of an apocalypse yesterday.
It began with a breakfast meeting in a Senate office building where, over fruit salad and bagels, government and academic experts discussed the coming avian flu pandemic. "Currently it has a fatality rate of 56 percent," reported Nancy Cox, flu expert with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "An increasing number of countries have reported human cases. The severe cases are really quite severe."
Pointing to slides of some nasty chest X-rays, she added: "Death from this particular pathogen is not a pleasant death."
Next: the mid-morning news conference on mad cow disease at the National Press Club. There, a beef producer explained why he is suing the government for not letting him test his cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, an "invariably fatal, progressive, incurable, neurodegenerative disease" that can be transmitted to people. The feds say the testing is unnecessary, but the rancher, John Stewart, warned that "BSE is not understood enough today to really come to scientific conclusions."
For those who still had an appetite, there was a luncheon meeting of the National Economists Club at the Chinatown Garden restaurant on H Street, where Congressional Budget Office economist Bob Shackleton was explaining the "high-end" global-warming projections, which have Earth's temperature growing by five degrees Celsius -- nine degrees Fahrenheit -- this century.
"That five degrees centigrade is the equivalent of the change that happened since the end of the last glaciation 18,000 years ago to now," he told the economists as they munched on fortune cookies and orange wedges. "Eighteen thousand years ago, there was a mile of ice over New York City and you could walk 100 miles out into the ocean and still be on land."
Have a nice doomsday? Possibly. When President Bush went to Cleveland on Monday, a questioner asked him about a claim "that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse?"
"I haven't really thought of it that way," the president said. "The first I've heard of that, by the way."
But maybe not the last, if yesterday's collection of end-of-days warnings was any indication.
(More ... Happy Doomsday to You!) ¶ 20:03 0 comments
Friday, March 24, 2006; Page A02
Washington was about one horseman short of an apocalypse yesterday.
It began with a breakfast meeting in a Senate office building where, over fruit salad and bagels, government and academic experts discussed the coming avian flu pandemic. "Currently it has a fatality rate of 56 percent," reported Nancy Cox, flu expert with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "An increasing number of countries have reported human cases. The severe cases are really quite severe."
Pointing to slides of some nasty chest X-rays, she added: "Death from this particular pathogen is not a pleasant death."
Next: the mid-morning news conference on mad cow disease at the National Press Club. There, a beef producer explained why he is suing the government for not letting him test his cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, an "invariably fatal, progressive, incurable, neurodegenerative disease" that can be transmitted to people. The feds say the testing is unnecessary, but the rancher, John Stewart, warned that "BSE is not understood enough today to really come to scientific conclusions."
For those who still had an appetite, there was a luncheon meeting of the National Economists Club at the Chinatown Garden restaurant on H Street, where Congressional Budget Office economist Bob Shackleton was explaining the "high-end" global-warming projections, which have Earth's temperature growing by five degrees Celsius -- nine degrees Fahrenheit -- this century.
"That five degrees centigrade is the equivalent of the change that happened since the end of the last glaciation 18,000 years ago to now," he told the economists as they munched on fortune cookies and orange wedges. "Eighteen thousand years ago, there was a mile of ice over New York City and you could walk 100 miles out into the ocean and still be on land."
Have a nice doomsday? Possibly. When President Bush went to Cleveland on Monday, a questioner asked him about a claim "that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse?"
"I haven't really thought of it that way," the president said. "The first I've heard of that, by the way."
But maybe not the last, if yesterday's collection of end-of-days warnings was any indication.
(More ... Happy Doomsday to You!) ¶ 20:03 0 comments
Scientists Forecast Metre Rise in Sea Levels This Century (Guardian.co.uk)
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday March 24, 2006
The Guardian
Half of Greenland and vast areas of Antarctica are destined to melt if global warming continues at the same pace until the end of the century, scientists warned yesterday. Their research shows that the loss of so much ice will trigger dramatic rises in sea levels, ultimately swamping low-lying regions of Essex, Lincolnshire and Norfolk and threatening the flood defences of cities such as London, Liverpool and Bristol. The last time so much ice was lost from the poles - in a period between ice ages 129,000 years ago - global sea levels rose by four to six metres.
Experts believe many coastal regions would suffer long before sea levels rose significantly, because even a minor rise will make storm surges more devastating and increase the risk of flooding. A rise of one metre would in effect close the port of London as the Thames barrier would need to be raised for 300 days a year to protect the city, according to one scientist.
The warning comes from climate scientists who combined historical records of Arctic and Antarctic ice melting with advanced computer models capable of predicting future environmental conditions. They found that if nothing is done to put the brakes on climate change, Greenland, the west Antarctic ice sheet and other expanses of polar ice will be warmed beyond a "tipping point" after which their melting is inevitable.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | Science | Scientists forecast metre rise in sea levels this century) ¶ 18:21 0 comments
Friday March 24, 2006
The Guardian
Half of Greenland and vast areas of Antarctica are destined to melt if global warming continues at the same pace until the end of the century, scientists warned yesterday. Their research shows that the loss of so much ice will trigger dramatic rises in sea levels, ultimately swamping low-lying regions of Essex, Lincolnshire and Norfolk and threatening the flood defences of cities such as London, Liverpool and Bristol. The last time so much ice was lost from the poles - in a period between ice ages 129,000 years ago - global sea levels rose by four to six metres.
Experts believe many coastal regions would suffer long before sea levels rose significantly, because even a minor rise will make storm surges more devastating and increase the risk of flooding. A rise of one metre would in effect close the port of London as the Thames barrier would need to be raised for 300 days a year to protect the city, according to one scientist.
The warning comes from climate scientists who combined historical records of Arctic and Antarctic ice melting with advanced computer models capable of predicting future environmental conditions. They found that if nothing is done to put the brakes on climate change, Greenland, the west Antarctic ice sheet and other expanses of polar ice will be warmed beyond a "tipping point" after which their melting is inevitable.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | Science | Scientists forecast metre rise in sea levels this century) ¶ 18:21 0 comments
Letter to the Secretary (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 24, 2006
Dear John Snow, secretary of the Treasury:
I'm glad that you've started talking about income inequality, which in recent years has reached levels not seen since before World War II. But if you want to be credible on the subject, you need to make some changes in your approach.
First, you shouldn't claim, as you seemed to earlier this week, that there's anything meaningful about the decline in some measures of inequality between 2000 and 2003. Every economist realizes that, as The Washington Post put it, "much of the decline in inequality during that period reflected the popping of the stock market bubble," which led to a large but temporary fall in the incomes of the richest Americans.
We don't have detailed data for more recent years yet, but the available indicators suggest that after 2003, incomes at the top and the overall level of inequality came roaring back. That surge in inequality explains why, despite your best efforts to talk up the economic numbers, most Americans are unhappy with the Bush economy.
I find it helpful to illustrate what's going on with a hypothetical example: say 10 middle-class guys are sitting in a bar. Then the richest guy leaves, and Bill Gates walks in.
Because the richest guy in the bar is now much richer than before, the average income in the bar soars. But the income of the nine men who aren't Bill Gates hasn't increased, and no amount of repeating "But average income is up!" will convince them that they're better off.
(More ... Letter to the Secretary - New York Times) ¶ 18:18 0 comments
Published: March 24, 2006
Dear John Snow, secretary of the Treasury:
I'm glad that you've started talking about income inequality, which in recent years has reached levels not seen since before World War II. But if you want to be credible on the subject, you need to make some changes in your approach.
First, you shouldn't claim, as you seemed to earlier this week, that there's anything meaningful about the decline in some measures of inequality between 2000 and 2003. Every economist realizes that, as The Washington Post put it, "much of the decline in inequality during that period reflected the popping of the stock market bubble," which led to a large but temporary fall in the incomes of the richest Americans.
We don't have detailed data for more recent years yet, but the available indicators suggest that after 2003, incomes at the top and the overall level of inequality came roaring back. That surge in inequality explains why, despite your best efforts to talk up the economic numbers, most Americans are unhappy with the Bush economy.
I find it helpful to illustrate what's going on with a hypothetical example: say 10 middle-class guys are sitting in a bar. Then the richest guy leaves, and Bill Gates walks in.
Because the richest guy in the bar is now much richer than before, the average income in the bar soars. But the income of the nine men who aren't Bill Gates hasn't increased, and no amount of repeating "But average income is up!" will convince them that they're better off.
(More ... Letter to the Secretary - New York Times) ¶ 18:18 0 comments
3.22.2006
In Race to Lead Alabama, It's Politics as Unusual (NYTimes.com)
By RICK LYMAN
Published: March 22, 2006
ARLEY, Ala., March 18 — Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, surrounded by a knot of supporters wearing "We Love Lucy" stickers, was the first to arrive at the 47th annual Arley chitlin supper on Friday, shaking hands in the blustery cold outside the Meek Elementary School gymnasium.
One indication of the wild nature of the Alabama governor's race, just now getting under way in earnest, is that Ms. Baxley — bubbly, 68, with a folksy manner and a perfect helmet of brunette hair — is, by a substantial margin, the least colorful major candidate in the contest.
"Only in Alabama, I guess, would you have a combination of folks like we have this year," Ms. Baxley said.
Former Gov. Donald Siegelman, Ms. Baxley's leading opponent in the Democratic primary, arrived next, pushing through the crowded gymnasium behind a broad smile. Mr. Siegelman is under federal indictment on racketeering and conspiracy charges, something he never fails to mention, calling it a political vendetta by a Republican prosecutor and making it sound like a lucky break to be going to trial just weeks before the June 6 primary.
"I'm not the slightest bit concerned," Mr. Siegelman said. "We'll blow the doors off the barn with a high-profile acquittal. I'll take a week off with my family and then come back, campaign for a week, and win."
The current governor, Bob Riley, a Republican, just shrugged. "What else is he going to say?" he asked.
The next candidate to arrive was Mr. Riley's chief primary opponent, Roy Moore, a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who became a hero to conservative Christians and drew national attention with his campaign to put a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse, a drive that led to his being removed from office in 2003.
Now, Mr. Moore specializes in reminding crowds about a hugely unpopular $1.2 billion tax increase proposed in 2003 by Mr. Riley. "I am telling you, this race is about credibility," Mr. Moore said. "This race is about accountability."
(More ... In Race to Lead Alabama, It's Politics as Unusual - New York Times) ¶ 22:22 0 comments
Published: March 22, 2006
ARLEY, Ala., March 18 — Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, surrounded by a knot of supporters wearing "We Love Lucy" stickers, was the first to arrive at the 47th annual Arley chitlin supper on Friday, shaking hands in the blustery cold outside the Meek Elementary School gymnasium.
One indication of the wild nature of the Alabama governor's race, just now getting under way in earnest, is that Ms. Baxley — bubbly, 68, with a folksy manner and a perfect helmet of brunette hair — is, by a substantial margin, the least colorful major candidate in the contest.
"Only in Alabama, I guess, would you have a combination of folks like we have this year," Ms. Baxley said.
Former Gov. Donald Siegelman, Ms. Baxley's leading opponent in the Democratic primary, arrived next, pushing through the crowded gymnasium behind a broad smile. Mr. Siegelman is under federal indictment on racketeering and conspiracy charges, something he never fails to mention, calling it a political vendetta by a Republican prosecutor and making it sound like a lucky break to be going to trial just weeks before the June 6 primary.
"I'm not the slightest bit concerned," Mr. Siegelman said. "We'll blow the doors off the barn with a high-profile acquittal. I'll take a week off with my family and then come back, campaign for a week, and win."
The current governor, Bob Riley, a Republican, just shrugged. "What else is he going to say?" he asked.
The next candidate to arrive was Mr. Riley's chief primary opponent, Roy Moore, a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who became a hero to conservative Christians and drew national attention with his campaign to put a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse, a drive that led to his being removed from office in 2003.
Now, Mr. Moore specializes in reminding crowds about a hugely unpopular $1.2 billion tax increase proposed in 2003 by Mr. Riley. "I am telling you, this race is about credibility," Mr. Moore said. "This race is about accountability."
(More ... In Race to Lead Alabama, It's Politics as Unusual - New York Times) ¶ 22:22 0 comments
Bush Concedes Iraq War Erodes Political Status (NYTimes.com)
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: March 22, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 21 — President Bush said Tuesday that the war in Iraq was eroding his political capital, his starkest admission yet about the costs of the conflict to his presidency, and suggested that American forces would remain in the country until at least 2009.
Reporters seeking to question President Bush yesterday at a news conference in the White House. In a quick remark at a White House news conference about the reserves of political strength he earned in his 2004 re-election victory — 'I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war' — Mr. Bush in effect acknowledged that until he could convince increasingly skeptical Americans that the United States was winning the war, Iraq would overshadow everything he did.
Later, in response to a question about whether a day would come when there would be no more American forces in Iraq, he said that 'future presidents and future governments of Iraq' would make that decision.
That statement was one of the few he has made that provides insight into his thinking about the duration of the American commitment in Iraq, and signaled that any withdrawal of troops would extend beyond his term in office.
Mr. Bush asserted that Iraq was not in a civil war, and took issue with Ayad Allawi, a former Iraqi prime minister and White House ally, who said Sunday that it was. The president"
(More ... Bush Concedes Iraq War Erodes Political Status - New York Times) ¶ 22:16 0 comments
Published: March 22, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 21 — President Bush said Tuesday that the war in Iraq was eroding his political capital, his starkest admission yet about the costs of the conflict to his presidency, and suggested that American forces would remain in the country until at least 2009.
Reporters seeking to question President Bush yesterday at a news conference in the White House. In a quick remark at a White House news conference about the reserves of political strength he earned in his 2004 re-election victory — 'I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war' — Mr. Bush in effect acknowledged that until he could convince increasingly skeptical Americans that the United States was winning the war, Iraq would overshadow everything he did.
Later, in response to a question about whether a day would come when there would be no more American forces in Iraq, he said that 'future presidents and future governments of Iraq' would make that decision.
That statement was one of the few he has made that provides insight into his thinking about the duration of the American commitment in Iraq, and signaled that any withdrawal of troops would extend beyond his term in office.
Mr. Bush asserted that Iraq was not in a civil war, and took issue with Ayad Allawi, a former Iraqi prime minister and White House ally, who said Sunday that it was. The president"
(More ... Bush Concedes Iraq War Erodes Political Status - New York Times) ¶ 22:16 0 comments
Death Raises Concern at Police Tactics (news.BBC.co.uk)
Some say police units increasingly resemble military teams
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington
Tuesday, 21 March 2006, 10:13 GMT
The recent killing of an unarmed Virginia doctor has raised concerns about what some say is an explosion in the use of military-style police Swat teams in the United States.
Armed with assault rifles, stun grenades - even armoured personnel carriers - units once used only in highly volatile situations are increasingly being deployed on more routine police missions.
Dr Salvatore Culosi Jr had come out of his townhouse to meet an undercover policeman when he was shot through the chest by a Special Weapons and Tactics force.
It was about 2135 on a chilly January evening. The 37-year-old optometrist was unarmed, he had no history of violence and displayed no threatening behaviour.
But he had been under investigation for illegal gambling and in line with a local police policy on "organised crime" raids, the heavily armed team was there to serve a search warrant.
As officers approached with their weapons drawn, tragedy struck. A handgun was accidentally discharged, fatally wounding Dr Culosi.
(More ... Death raises concern at police tactics) ¶ 21:51 0 comments
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington
Tuesday, 21 March 2006, 10:13 GMT
The recent killing of an unarmed Virginia doctor has raised concerns about what some say is an explosion in the use of military-style police Swat teams in the United States.
Armed with assault rifles, stun grenades - even armoured personnel carriers - units once used only in highly volatile situations are increasingly being deployed on more routine police missions.
Dr Salvatore Culosi Jr had come out of his townhouse to meet an undercover policeman when he was shot through the chest by a Special Weapons and Tactics force.
It was about 2135 on a chilly January evening. The 37-year-old optometrist was unarmed, he had no history of violence and displayed no threatening behaviour.
But he had been under investigation for illegal gambling and in line with a local police policy on "organised crime" raids, the heavily armed team was there to serve a search warrant.
As officers approached with their weapons drawn, tragedy struck. A handgun was accidentally discharged, fatally wounding Dr Culosi.
(More ... Death raises concern at police tactics) ¶ 21:51 0 comments
Is Bush a Big Spender? (NYTimes.com)
By Paul Krugman
March 20, 2006
The idea that George W. Bush has been “spending like a drunken sailor” on domestic programs is in danger of becoming one of those factoids that everybody knows to be true, regardless of the evidence. (Sort of like the idea that John McCain, the third most conservative member of the Senate, is a moderate.) But the data just don’t support that claim.
Most of what you need to know is in the Congressional Budget Office’s historical budget data, http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf. From Table 6 we learn that overall federal spending rose from 18.5 percent of G.D.P. in fiscal 2001 (which basically reflected Bill Clinton’s budget) to 20.1 percent of G.D.P. in fiscal 2005, a rise of 1.6 percentage points. However, that somewhat understates the true spending increase, because it includes interest payments, which fell because of lower interest rates. Non-interest spending rose from 16.5 to 18.6 percent of G.D.P. — 2.1 percentage points.
But where did the money go? Table 8 gives us data on discretionary spending — spending that isn’t mandated by law. Defense and international spending rose from 3.2 to 4.3 percent of G.D.P., 1.1 percentage points. So that’s more than half the spending rise, right there.
(More ... Krugman - NYT Web Journal) ¶ 08:02 0 comments
March 20, 2006
The idea that George W. Bush has been “spending like a drunken sailor” on domestic programs is in danger of becoming one of those factoids that everybody knows to be true, regardless of the evidence. (Sort of like the idea that John McCain, the third most conservative member of the Senate, is a moderate.) But the data just don’t support that claim.
Most of what you need to know is in the Congressional Budget Office’s historical budget data, http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf. From Table 6 we learn that overall federal spending rose from 18.5 percent of G.D.P. in fiscal 2001 (which basically reflected Bill Clinton’s budget) to 20.1 percent of G.D.P. in fiscal 2005, a rise of 1.6 percentage points. However, that somewhat understates the true spending increase, because it includes interest payments, which fell because of lower interest rates. Non-interest spending rose from 16.5 to 18.6 percent of G.D.P. — 2.1 percentage points.
But where did the money go? Table 8 gives us data on discretionary spending — spending that isn’t mandated by law. Defense and international spending rose from 3.2 to 4.3 percent of G.D.P., 1.1 percentage points. So that’s more than half the spending rise, right there.
(More ... Krugman - NYT Web Journal) ¶ 08:02 0 comments
3.20.2006
Rumsfeld Singled Out as Crisis Deepens in Iraq (Guardian.co.uk)
· Defence chief attacked on war's third anniversary
· Ex-PM Allawi says conflict is tantamount to civil war
Julian Borger in Washington and Jonathan Steele in Amman
Monday March 20, 2006
The Guardian
A former US army general yesterday called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign on grounds of incompetence in Iraq, hours after Ayad Allawi, the former US-backed Iraqi prime minister, declared the country to be in the thick of a civil war that could soon "reach the point of no return".
Three years after Iraq was invaded, statistics published yesterday show that the frequency of insurgent bombings and group killings is growing, but both Mr Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and George Bush have vowed to fight on.
"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," the defence secretary wrote in a Washington Post commentary, as the administration tried to quell growing concern that the conflict was unravelling beyond Washington's control.
President Bush made a brief appearance on the White House lawn to say he was "encouraged" by progress on forming a unity government in Iraq. But he had no other good news to mark three years of a war in which more than 2,300 Americans have died, and which has so far cost $500bn (nearly £290bn).
The US commander in Iraq, General George Casey, said that the troop withdrawals he had forecast for this spring or summer might have to wait until the end of the year or even 2007. And Paul Eaton, a former American army general in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004, marked the anniversary with a furious attack on Mr Rumsfeld, saying he was "not competent to lead our armed forces".
In London, Mr Allawi told BBC 2's Sunday AM programme: "We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Rumsfeld singled out as crisis deepens in Iraq) ¶ 20:46 0 comments
· Ex-PM Allawi says conflict is tantamount to civil war
Julian Borger in Washington and Jonathan Steele in Amman
Monday March 20, 2006
The Guardian
A former US army general yesterday called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign on grounds of incompetence in Iraq, hours after Ayad Allawi, the former US-backed Iraqi prime minister, declared the country to be in the thick of a civil war that could soon "reach the point of no return".
Three years after Iraq was invaded, statistics published yesterday show that the frequency of insurgent bombings and group killings is growing, but both Mr Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and George Bush have vowed to fight on.
"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," the defence secretary wrote in a Washington Post commentary, as the administration tried to quell growing concern that the conflict was unravelling beyond Washington's control.
President Bush made a brief appearance on the White House lawn to say he was "encouraged" by progress on forming a unity government in Iraq. But he had no other good news to mark three years of a war in which more than 2,300 Americans have died, and which has so far cost $500bn (nearly £290bn).
The US commander in Iraq, General George Casey, said that the troop withdrawals he had forecast for this spring or summer might have to wait until the end of the year or even 2007. And Paul Eaton, a former American army general in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004, marked the anniversary with a furious attack on Mr Rumsfeld, saying he was "not competent to lead our armed forces".
In London, Mr Allawi told BBC 2's Sunday AM programme: "We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Rumsfeld singled out as crisis deepens in Iraq) ¶ 20:46 0 comments
3.19.2006
U.S. Lowers Goals in Iraq (LATimes.com)
As the conflict in Iraq enters its fourth year and civil war threatens, the Bush administration is again working to lower expectations.
By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer
10:07 PM PST, March 18, 2006
WASHINGTON — Three years ago, as they ordered more than 150,000 U.S. troops to race toward Baghdad, Bush administration officials confidently predicted that Iraq would quickly evolve into a prosperous, oil-fueled democracy. When those goals proved optimistic, they lowered their sights, focusing on a military campaign to defeat Sunni-led insurgents and elections to jump-start a new political order.
Now, as the conflict enters its fourth year, the Bush administration faces a new challenge: the prospect of civil war. And, in response, officials again appear to be redefining success downward.
If Iraq can avoid all-out civil war, they say, if Baghdad's new security forces can hold together, if Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds all participate in a new unity government, that may be enough progress to allow the administration to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in the country by the second half of this year.
In increasingly sober public statements — and in slightly more candid assessments from officials who insisted that they not be identified — the administration is working to lower expectations.
"It may seem difficult at times to understand how we can say that progress is being made," President Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address, acknowledging that much of the recent news from Iraq has been bad. "But ... slowly but surely, our strategy is getting results."
"We may fail," said a senior official directly involved in Iraq policy. "But I think we're going to succeed. I think we're going to nudge this ball down the road.... It's not going to be easy, and it's going to take time."
The more sober tone is not entirely new; officials, from Bush on down, have tacitly acknowledged for more than a year that trying to stabilize Iraq is proving more difficult than they expected when they launched the war in 2003.
But independent foreign policy analysts say they see signs of a more fundamental shift in the administration's position — a creeping redefinition of U.S. goals in Iraq that increasingly allows for the possibility that the nation may remain unstable for years to come.
(More ... U.S. Lowers Goals in Iraq - Los Angeles Times) ¶ 19:20 0 comments
By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer
10:07 PM PST, March 18, 2006
WASHINGTON — Three years ago, as they ordered more than 150,000 U.S. troops to race toward Baghdad, Bush administration officials confidently predicted that Iraq would quickly evolve into a prosperous, oil-fueled democracy. When those goals proved optimistic, they lowered their sights, focusing on a military campaign to defeat Sunni-led insurgents and elections to jump-start a new political order.
Now, as the conflict enters its fourth year, the Bush administration faces a new challenge: the prospect of civil war. And, in response, officials again appear to be redefining success downward.
If Iraq can avoid all-out civil war, they say, if Baghdad's new security forces can hold together, if Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds all participate in a new unity government, that may be enough progress to allow the administration to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in the country by the second half of this year.
In increasingly sober public statements — and in slightly more candid assessments from officials who insisted that they not be identified — the administration is working to lower expectations.
"It may seem difficult at times to understand how we can say that progress is being made," President Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address, acknowledging that much of the recent news from Iraq has been bad. "But ... slowly but surely, our strategy is getting results."
"We may fail," said a senior official directly involved in Iraq policy. "But I think we're going to succeed. I think we're going to nudge this ball down the road.... It's not going to be easy, and it's going to take time."
The more sober tone is not entirely new; officials, from Bush on down, have tacitly acknowledged for more than a year that trying to stabilize Iraq is proving more difficult than they expected when they launched the war in 2003.
But independent foreign policy analysts say they see signs of a more fundamental shift in the administration's position — a creeping redefinition of U.S. goals in Iraq that increasingly allows for the possibility that the nation may remain unstable for years to come.
(More ... U.S. Lowers Goals in Iraq - Los Angeles Times) ¶ 19:20 0 comments
'American Theocracy,' by Kevin Phillips (NYTimes.com)
Review by ALAN BRINKLEY
Published: March 19, 2006
Four decades ago, Kevin Phillips, a young political strategist for the Republican Party, began work on what became a remarkable book. In writing "The Emerging Republican Majority" (published in 1969), he asked a very big question about American politics: How would the demographic and economic changes of postwar America shape the long-term future of the two major parties? His answer, startling at the time but now largely unquestioned, is that the movement of people and resources from the old Northern industrial states into the South and the West (an area he enduringly labeled the "Sun Belt") would produce a new and more conservative Republican majority that would dominate American politics for decades. Phillips viewed the changes he predicted with optimism. A stronger Republican Party, he believed, would restore stability and order to a society experiencing disorienting and at times violent change. Shortly before publishing his book, he joined the Nixon administration to help advance the changes he had foreseen.
Phillips has remained a prolific and important political commentator in the decades since, but he long ago abandoned his enthusiasm for the Republican coalition he helped to build. His latest book (his 13th) looks broadly and historically at the political world the conservative coalition has painstakingly constructed over the last several decades. No longer does he see Republican government as a source of stability and order. Instead, he presents a nightmarish vision of ideological extremism, catastrophic fiscal irresponsibility, rampant greed and dangerous shortsightedness. (His final chapter is entitled "The Erring Republican Majority.") In an era of best-selling jeremiads on both sides of the political divide, "American Theocracy" may be the most alarming analysis of where we are and where we may be going to have appeared in many years. It is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and for the most part frighteningly persuasive.
(More ... 'American Theocracy,' by Kevin Phillips - The New York Times Book Review - New York Times) ¶ 18:40 0 comments
Published: March 19, 2006
Four decades ago, Kevin Phillips, a young political strategist for the Republican Party, began work on what became a remarkable book. In writing "The Emerging Republican Majority" (published in 1969), he asked a very big question about American politics: How would the demographic and economic changes of postwar America shape the long-term future of the two major parties? His answer, startling at the time but now largely unquestioned, is that the movement of people and resources from the old Northern industrial states into the South and the West (an area he enduringly labeled the "Sun Belt") would produce a new and more conservative Republican majority that would dominate American politics for decades. Phillips viewed the changes he predicted with optimism. A stronger Republican Party, he believed, would restore stability and order to a society experiencing disorienting and at times violent change. Shortly before publishing his book, he joined the Nixon administration to help advance the changes he had foreseen.
Phillips has remained a prolific and important political commentator in the decades since, but he long ago abandoned his enthusiasm for the Republican coalition he helped to build. His latest book (his 13th) looks broadly and historically at the political world the conservative coalition has painstakingly constructed over the last several decades. No longer does he see Republican government as a source of stability and order. Instead, he presents a nightmarish vision of ideological extremism, catastrophic fiscal irresponsibility, rampant greed and dangerous shortsightedness. (His final chapter is entitled "The Erring Republican Majority.") In an era of best-selling jeremiads on both sides of the political divide, "American Theocracy" may be the most alarming analysis of where we are and where we may be going to have appeared in many years. It is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and for the most part frighteningly persuasive.
(More ... 'American Theocracy,' by Kevin Phillips - The New York Times Book Review - New York Times) ¶ 18:40 0 comments
Suppose We Just Let Iran Have the Bomb (NYTimes.com)
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: March 19, 2006
Can the world learn to live with a nuclear Iran?
PRESIDENT BUSH'S message to Iran these days sounds unambiguous: The United States will do what it takes to keep the mullahs from getting the bomb. Diplomacy is vastly preferred, President Bush and his aides insist. Yet it was no accident that the just-revised National Security Strategy declares: "This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."
To nervous allies, those words echo the run-up to the Iraq invasion, which began three years ago today. But Iran is not Iraq. And some experts in the United States — mostly outside the administration — have been thinking the unthinkable, or at least the undiscussable: If all other options are worse, could the world learn to live with a nuclear Iran?
"The reality is that most of us think the Iranians are probably going to get a weapon, or the technology to make one, sooner or later," an administration official acknowledged a few weeks ago, refusing to talk on the record because such an admission amounts to a concession that dragging Iran in front of the United Nations Security Council may prove an exercise in futility. "The optimists around here just hope we can delay the day by 10 or 20 years, and that by that time we'll have a different relationship with a different Iranian government."
A roll of the dice, for sure. Yet is the risk greater than it was when other countries — from the Soviet Union and China to India and Pakistan — defied the United States to join the nuclear club?
(More ... Suppose We Just Let Iran Have the Bomb - New York Times) ¶ 18:38 0 comments
Published: March 19, 2006
Can the world learn to live with a nuclear Iran?
PRESIDENT BUSH'S message to Iran these days sounds unambiguous: The United States will do what it takes to keep the mullahs from getting the bomb. Diplomacy is vastly preferred, President Bush and his aides insist. Yet it was no accident that the just-revised National Security Strategy declares: "This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."
To nervous allies, those words echo the run-up to the Iraq invasion, which began three years ago today. But Iran is not Iraq. And some experts in the United States — mostly outside the administration — have been thinking the unthinkable, or at least the undiscussable: If all other options are worse, could the world learn to live with a nuclear Iran?
"The reality is that most of us think the Iranians are probably going to get a weapon, or the technology to make one, sooner or later," an administration official acknowledged a few weeks ago, refusing to talk on the record because such an admission amounts to a concession that dragging Iran in front of the United Nations Security Council may prove an exercise in futility. "The optimists around here just hope we can delay the day by 10 or 20 years, and that by that time we'll have a different relationship with a different Iranian government."
A roll of the dice, for sure. Yet is the risk greater than it was when other countries — from the Soviet Union and China to India and Pakistan — defied the United States to join the nuclear club?
(More ... Suppose We Just Let Iran Have the Bomb - New York Times) ¶ 18:38 0 comments
3.17.2006
Can Democrats Play This Game? (WashingtonPost.com)
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, March 17, 2006; Page A19
Russ Feingold tossed a political grenade at President Bush this week, but it fell into the middle of the Senate Democratic Caucus. Many Democratic senators ran away.
The grenade was the Wisconsin senator's proposal to censure the president for violating the law by ordering electronic surveillance on Americans without explicit congressional or court authorization. While the episode says more about Bush's political frailty than the first-blush accounts have suggested, it also underscored the frictions and tensions between passionate Democratic activists and their cautious leaders.
The president has lost so much support and credibility that Republicans were simply grateful Feingold briefly changed the political subject from the Dubai ports controversy, the mess in Iraq and Bush's anemic poll ratings.
As one of Feingold's colleagues pointed out, a censure proposal related to any aspect of the president's policies on terrorism would once have unleashed an unrelenting Republican attack on the sponsor's patriotism. Now, Republicans have to content themselves with using calls for censuring or impeaching Bush to rally their own dispirited troops.
But at a moment when Democrats have Bush on the run, Feingold's proposal was a tad inconvenient, a conversation-changer coming along when Feingold's colleagues liked the way the conversation was going just fine.
Consider the disparity between the response to Feingold's initiative among Democratic senators and the reaction among Democratic activists.
(More ... Can Democrats Play This Game?) ¶ 19:44 0 comments
Friday, March 17, 2006; Page A19
Russ Feingold tossed a political grenade at President Bush this week, but it fell into the middle of the Senate Democratic Caucus. Many Democratic senators ran away.
The grenade was the Wisconsin senator's proposal to censure the president for violating the law by ordering electronic surveillance on Americans without explicit congressional or court authorization. While the episode says more about Bush's political frailty than the first-blush accounts have suggested, it also underscored the frictions and tensions between passionate Democratic activists and their cautious leaders.
The president has lost so much support and credibility that Republicans were simply grateful Feingold briefly changed the political subject from the Dubai ports controversy, the mess in Iraq and Bush's anemic poll ratings.
As one of Feingold's colleagues pointed out, a censure proposal related to any aspect of the president's policies on terrorism would once have unleashed an unrelenting Republican attack on the sponsor's patriotism. Now, Republicans have to content themselves with using calls for censuring or impeaching Bush to rally their own dispirited troops.
But at a moment when Democrats have Bush on the run, Feingold's proposal was a tad inconvenient, a conversation-changer coming along when Feingold's colleagues liked the way the conversation was going just fine.
Consider the disparity between the response to Feingold's initiative among Democratic senators and the reaction among Democratic activists.
(More ... Can Democrats Play This Game?) ¶ 19:44 0 comments
Ginsburg Faults GOP Critics, Cites a Threat From 'Fringe' (WashingtonPost.com)
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 17, 2006; Page A03
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg assailed the court's congressional critics in a recent speech overseas, saying their efforts "fuel" an "irrational fringe" that threatened her life and that of a colleague, former justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Addressing an audience at the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Feb. 7, the 73-year-old justice, known as one of the court's more liberal members, criticized various Republican-proposed House and Senate measures that either decry or would bar the citation of foreign law in the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings. Conservatives often see the citing of foreign laws in court rulings as an affront to American sovereignty, adding to a list of grievances they have against judges that include rulings supporting abortion rights or gay rights.
Though the proposals do not seem headed for passage, Ginsburg said, "it is disquieting that they have attracted sizeable support. And one not-so-small concern -- they fuel the irrational fringe."
She then quoted from what she said was a "personal example" of this: a Feb. 28, 2005, posting in an Internet chat room that called on unnamed "commandoes" to ensure that she and O'Connor "will not live another week."
Ginsburg's counterattack on GOP critics, posted on the court's Web site in early March but little noticed until now, comes at a time when tensions are already high between the federal judiciary and the Republican-led Congress. The rift stems in part from conservatives' unhappiness over the Supreme Court's use of foreign laws in decisions striking down the juvenile death penalty and laws against sodomy.
(More ... Ginsburg Faults GOP Critics, Cites a Threat From 'Fringe') ¶ 19:41 0 comments
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 17, 2006; Page A03
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg assailed the court's congressional critics in a recent speech overseas, saying their efforts "fuel" an "irrational fringe" that threatened her life and that of a colleague, former justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Addressing an audience at the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Feb. 7, the 73-year-old justice, known as one of the court's more liberal members, criticized various Republican-proposed House and Senate measures that either decry or would bar the citation of foreign law in the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings. Conservatives often see the citing of foreign laws in court rulings as an affront to American sovereignty, adding to a list of grievances they have against judges that include rulings supporting abortion rights or gay rights.
Though the proposals do not seem headed for passage, Ginsburg said, "it is disquieting that they have attracted sizeable support. And one not-so-small concern -- they fuel the irrational fringe."
She then quoted from what she said was a "personal example" of this: a Feb. 28, 2005, posting in an Internet chat room that called on unnamed "commandoes" to ensure that she and O'Connor "will not live another week."
Ginsburg's counterattack on GOP critics, posted on the court's Web site in early March but little noticed until now, comes at a time when tensions are already high between the federal judiciary and the Republican-led Congress. The rift stems in part from conservatives' unhappiness over the Supreme Court's use of foreign laws in decisions striking down the juvenile death penalty and laws against sodomy.
(More ... Ginsburg Faults GOP Critics, Cites a Threat From 'Fringe') ¶ 19:41 0 comments
America's Iran Policy: Iraq (NYTimes.com)
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: March 17, 2006
The Bush White House issued its latest national security strategy doctrine yesterday, and it identifies Iran as the "single country" that poses the greatest danger to the U.S. today. The report, however, doesn't say what exactly we should do about Iran. But here's what I think: The most frightening, scary, terrifying thing we could do to Iran today — short of an outright attack — is to get out of Iraq.
The second most frightening, scary, terrifying thing we could do to Iran is to succeed in Iraq. The worst thing we could do, though, the thing that would make Iranians the happiest, is to continue bleeding in Iraq and baby-sitting a stalemate there. In sum, since we are not going to invade Iran, the best way we can influence it is by what we do in Iraq.
Let me explain: I am not in favor of withdrawing from Iraq now — not while there is still a chance for a decent outcome. But if we did pull out of Iraq, it would make life incredibly complicated for Tehran. There's a lot of cheap talk that Iran was the big winner from the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Don't be so sure. Hundreds of years of Mesopotamian history teach us that Arabs and Persians do not play well together.
Right now, the natural antipathy and competition between Iraqi Arabs and Iranian Persians — even though large numbers of both are Shiite Muslims — have been muted because of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Both sides can focus their anger on us.
But as soon as we leave — and you can bet the house and kids on this — the natural rivalry between Iraqi Arabs and Iranian Persians will surface. Culture, history and nationalism matter. Iran and Iraq did not fight a war for eight years by mistake, or just because Saddam was in power. Once America is out of Iraq, it will not be a winning political strategy for any Iraqi politician to be known as "pro-Iranian" or, even worse, as an instrument of Tehran's.
(More ... America's Iran Policy: Iraq - New York Times) ¶ 19:36 0 comments
Published: March 17, 2006
The Bush White House issued its latest national security strategy doctrine yesterday, and it identifies Iran as the "single country" that poses the greatest danger to the U.S. today. The report, however, doesn't say what exactly we should do about Iran. But here's what I think: The most frightening, scary, terrifying thing we could do to Iran today — short of an outright attack — is to get out of Iraq.
The second most frightening, scary, terrifying thing we could do to Iran is to succeed in Iraq. The worst thing we could do, though, the thing that would make Iranians the happiest, is to continue bleeding in Iraq and baby-sitting a stalemate there. In sum, since we are not going to invade Iran, the best way we can influence it is by what we do in Iraq.
Let me explain: I am not in favor of withdrawing from Iraq now — not while there is still a chance for a decent outcome. But if we did pull out of Iraq, it would make life incredibly complicated for Tehran. There's a lot of cheap talk that Iran was the big winner from the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Don't be so sure. Hundreds of years of Mesopotamian history teach us that Arabs and Persians do not play well together.
Right now, the natural antipathy and competition between Iraqi Arabs and Iranian Persians — even though large numbers of both are Shiite Muslims — have been muted because of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Both sides can focus their anger on us.
But as soon as we leave — and you can bet the house and kids on this — the natural rivalry between Iraqi Arabs and Iranian Persians will surface. Culture, history and nationalism matter. Iran and Iraq did not fight a war for eight years by mistake, or just because Saddam was in power. Once America is out of Iraq, it will not be a winning political strategy for any Iraqi politician to be known as "pro-Iranian" or, even worse, as an instrument of Tehran's.
(More ... America's Iran Policy: Iraq - New York Times) ¶ 19:36 0 comments
Democracy Push by Bush Attracts Doubters in Party (NYTimes.com)
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: March 17, 2006
Even as it presents an updated national security strategy, the Bush administration is facing fresh doubts from some Republicans who say its emphasis on promoting democracy around the world has come at the expense of protecting other American interests.
The second thoughts signify a striking change in mood over one of President Bush's cherished tenets, pitting Republicans who call themselves realists against the neoconservatives who saw the invasion of Iraq as a catalyst for change and who remain the most vigorous advocates of a muscular American campaign to foster democratic movements.
"You are hearing more and more questions about the administration's approach on this issue," said Lorne W. Craner, president of the International Republican Institute, a foundation linked to the Republican Party that supports democratic activities abroad. "The 'realists' in the party are rearing their heads and asking, 'Is this stuff working?' "
The critics, who include Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Representative Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, as well as Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, are alarmed at the costs of military operations and of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They have also been shaken by the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections in January and by the gains Islamists scored in elections in Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon.
(More ... Democracy Push by Bush Attracts Doubters in Party - New York Times) ¶ 19:32 0 comments
Published: March 17, 2006
Even as it presents an updated national security strategy, the Bush administration is facing fresh doubts from some Republicans who say its emphasis on promoting democracy around the world has come at the expense of protecting other American interests.
The second thoughts signify a striking change in mood over one of President Bush's cherished tenets, pitting Republicans who call themselves realists against the neoconservatives who saw the invasion of Iraq as a catalyst for change and who remain the most vigorous advocates of a muscular American campaign to foster democratic movements.
"You are hearing more and more questions about the administration's approach on this issue," said Lorne W. Craner, president of the International Republican Institute, a foundation linked to the Republican Party that supports democratic activities abroad. "The 'realists' in the party are rearing their heads and asking, 'Is this stuff working?' "
The critics, who include Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Representative Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, as well as Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, are alarmed at the costs of military operations and of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They have also been shaken by the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections in January and by the gains Islamists scored in elections in Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon.
(More ... Democracy Push by Bush Attracts Doubters in Party - New York Times) ¶ 19:32 0 comments
US Backs First-strike Attack Plan (news.BBC.co.uk)
Thursday, 16 March 2006, 13:33 GMT
The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House has confirmed.
In the first restatement of national security strategy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US singles out Iran as the greatest single current danger.
The new policy backs the policy of pre-emptive war first issued in 2002, and criticised since the Iraq war.
But it stresses that the US aims to spread democracy through diplomacy.
The new strategy also highlights a string of other global issues of concern to the US, such as the spread of Aids, the threat of pandemic flu and the prospect of natural and environmental disasters.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is due to make a speech launching the new strategy on Thursday.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Americas | US backs first-strike attack plan) ¶ 19:17 0 comments
The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House has confirmed.
In the first restatement of national security strategy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US singles out Iran as the greatest single current danger.
The new policy backs the policy of pre-emptive war first issued in 2002, and criticised since the Iraq war.
But it stresses that the US aims to spread democracy through diplomacy.
The new strategy also highlights a string of other global issues of concern to the US, such as the spread of Aids, the threat of pandemic flu and the prospect of natural and environmental disasters.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is due to make a speech launching the new strategy on Thursday.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Americas | US backs first-strike attack plan) ¶ 19:17 0 comments
3.14.2006
Iraq Drives Bush's Rating to New Low (CNN.com)
Americans pessimistic on war as president launches new push
Monday, March 13, 2006; Posted: 11:51 p.m. EST (04:51 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.
Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war -- even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation. (Interactive: poll results)
Pollsters quizzed 1,001 adults Friday through Sunday for the poll; most questions had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Fifty-seven percent said they believe the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, near September's record high of 59 percent. That question had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 points.
Bush's approval rating of 36 percent is the lowest mark of his presidency in a Gallup poll, falling a percentage point below the 37 percent approval he scored in November. The previous CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted February 28-March 1, put his job approval at 38 percent.
Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest poll said they disapproved of his performance in office, the same figure as in the last poll.
(Read full results document -- PDF)"
(More ... CNN.com - Iraq drives Bush's rating to new low - Mar 13, 2006) ¶ 19:57 0 comments
Monday, March 13, 2006; Posted: 11:51 p.m. EST (04:51 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.
Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war -- even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation. (Interactive: poll results)
Pollsters quizzed 1,001 adults Friday through Sunday for the poll; most questions had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Fifty-seven percent said they believe the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, near September's record high of 59 percent. That question had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 points.
Bush's approval rating of 36 percent is the lowest mark of his presidency in a Gallup poll, falling a percentage point below the 37 percent approval he scored in November. The previous CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted February 28-March 1, put his job approval at 38 percent.
Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest poll said they disapproved of his performance in office, the same figure as in the last poll.
(Read full results document -- PDF)"
(More ... CNN.com - Iraq drives Bush's rating to new low - Mar 13, 2006) ¶ 19:57 0 comments
Iraq Drives Bush's Rating to New Low (CNN.com)
Americans pessimistic on war as president launches new push
Monday, March 13, 2006; Posted: 11:51 p.m. EST (04:51 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.
Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war -- even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation. (Interactive: poll results)
Pollsters quizzed 1,001 adults Friday through Sunday for the poll; most questions had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Fifty-seven percent said they believe the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, near September's record high of 59 percent. That question had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 points.
Bush's approval rating of 36 percent is the lowest mark of his presidency in a Gallup poll, falling a percentage point below the 37 percent approval he scored in November. The previous CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted February 28-March 1, put his job approval at 38 percent.
Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest poll said they disapproved of his performance in office, the same figure as in the last poll.
(Read full results document -- PDF)"
(More ... CNN.com - Iraq drives Bush's rating to new low - Mar 13, 2006) ¶ 19:56 0 comments
Monday, March 13, 2006; Posted: 11:51 p.m. EST (04:51 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq has driven President Bush's approval rating to a new low of 36 percent, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
Only 38 percent said they believe the nearly 3-year-old war was going well for the United States, down from 46 percent in January, while 60 percent said they believed the war was going poorly.
Nearly half of those polled said they believe Democrats would do a better job of managing the war -- even though only a quarter of them said the opposition party has a clear plan for resolving the situation. (Interactive: poll results)
Pollsters quizzed 1,001 adults Friday through Sunday for the poll; most questions had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Fifty-seven percent said they believe the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, near September's record high of 59 percent. That question had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 points.
Bush's approval rating of 36 percent is the lowest mark of his presidency in a Gallup poll, falling a percentage point below the 37 percent approval he scored in November. The previous CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted February 28-March 1, put his job approval at 38 percent.
Sixty percent of those surveyed in the latest poll said they disapproved of his performance in office, the same figure as in the last poll.
(Read full results document -- PDF)"
(More ... CNN.com - Iraq drives Bush's rating to new low - Mar 13, 2006) ¶ 19:56 0 comments
US Postwar Iraq Strategy a Mess, Blair Was Told (Guardian.co.uk)
By Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Tuesday March 14, 2006
The Guardian
Senior British diplomatic and military staff gave Tony Blair explicit warnings three years ago that the US was disastrously mishandling the occupation of Iraq, according to leaked memos.
John Sawers, Mr Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth".
That assessment is reinforced by Major General Albert Whitley, the most senior British officer with the US land forces. Gen Whitley, in another memo later that summer, expressed alarm that the US-British coalition was in danger of losing the peace. "We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret. Is strategic failure a possibility? The answer has to be 'yes'," he concluded.
The memos were obtained by Michael Gordon, author, along with General Bernard Trainor, of Cobra II: the Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, published to coincide with the third anniversary of the invasion.
The British memos identified a series of US failures that contained the seeds of the present insurgency and anarchy.
The mistakes include:
· A lack of interest by the US commander, General Tommy Franks, in the post-invasion phase.
· The presence in the capital of the US Third Infantry Division, which took a heavyhanded approach to security.
· Squandering the initial sympathy of Iraqis.
· Bechtel, the main US civilian contractor, moving too slowly to reconnect basic services, such as electricity and water.
· Failure to deal with health hazards, such as 40% of Baghdad's sewage pouring into the Tigris and rubbish piling up in the streets.
· Sacking of many of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, even though many of them held relatively junior posts.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US postwar Iraq strategy a mess, Blair was told) ¶ 19:16 0 comments
Tuesday March 14, 2006
The Guardian
Senior British diplomatic and military staff gave Tony Blair explicit warnings three years ago that the US was disastrously mishandling the occupation of Iraq, according to leaked memos.
John Sawers, Mr Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth".
That assessment is reinforced by Major General Albert Whitley, the most senior British officer with the US land forces. Gen Whitley, in another memo later that summer, expressed alarm that the US-British coalition was in danger of losing the peace. "We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret. Is strategic failure a possibility? The answer has to be 'yes'," he concluded.
The memos were obtained by Michael Gordon, author, along with General Bernard Trainor, of Cobra II: the Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, published to coincide with the third anniversary of the invasion.
The British memos identified a series of US failures that contained the seeds of the present insurgency and anarchy.
The mistakes include:
· A lack of interest by the US commander, General Tommy Franks, in the post-invasion phase.
· The presence in the capital of the US Third Infantry Division, which took a heavyhanded approach to security.
· Squandering the initial sympathy of Iraqis.
· Bechtel, the main US civilian contractor, moving too slowly to reconnect basic services, such as electricity and water.
· Failure to deal with health hazards, such as 40% of Baghdad's sewage pouring into the Tigris and rubbish piling up in the streets.
· Sacking of many of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, even though many of them held relatively junior posts.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | US postwar Iraq strategy a mess, Blair was told) ¶ 19:16 0 comments
Dictatorship is the Danger (Guardian.co.uk)
A Reagan-appointed supreme court justice voices her fears over attacks on US democracy
By Jonathan Raban
Monday March 13, 2006
The Guardian
Linking the words "America" and "dictatorship" is a daily staple of leftwing blogs, which thrive on the idea that Bush administration policies since 9/11 are taking the country ever closer to totalitarian rule. Liberal fears that democracy is endangered by Republicans in Congress are so widespread, so endemic to the jittery political climate in the US, that they hardly bear repeating. It'll surprise no one to learn that another voice was added to the chorus last Thursday, warning that recent attacks on the American judiciary were putting the democratic fabric in jeopardy and were the first steps down the treacherous path to dictatorship.
What is surprising - more than that, electrifying - is that the voice belonged to Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired a few weeks ago from the supreme court. O'Connor is a Republican and a Reagan nominee. Regarded as the "swing vote" on the court, she swung the presidential election to George Bush in 2000.
Equally surprising is that O'Connor's speech to an audience of lawyers at Georgetown University was attended by just one reporter, the diligent legal correspondent for National Public Radio, Nina Totenberg. No transcript or recording of the speech has been made available, so we have only Totenberg's notes to go on. But - assuming they are accurate - the notes are political dynamite.
O'Connor's voice was "dripping with sarcasm", according to Totenberg, as she "took aim at former House GOP [Republican] leader Tom DeLay. She didn't name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case.
"It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn't help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with."
Then she spoke the D-word. "I, said O'Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O'Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment | Dictatorship is the danger) ¶ 19:13 0 comments
By Jonathan Raban
Monday March 13, 2006
The Guardian
Linking the words "America" and "dictatorship" is a daily staple of leftwing blogs, which thrive on the idea that Bush administration policies since 9/11 are taking the country ever closer to totalitarian rule. Liberal fears that democracy is endangered by Republicans in Congress are so widespread, so endemic to the jittery political climate in the US, that they hardly bear repeating. It'll surprise no one to learn that another voice was added to the chorus last Thursday, warning that recent attacks on the American judiciary were putting the democratic fabric in jeopardy and were the first steps down the treacherous path to dictatorship.
What is surprising - more than that, electrifying - is that the voice belonged to Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired a few weeks ago from the supreme court. O'Connor is a Republican and a Reagan nominee. Regarded as the "swing vote" on the court, she swung the presidential election to George Bush in 2000.
Equally surprising is that O'Connor's speech to an audience of lawyers at Georgetown University was attended by just one reporter, the diligent legal correspondent for National Public Radio, Nina Totenberg. No transcript or recording of the speech has been made available, so we have only Totenberg's notes to go on. But - assuming they are accurate - the notes are political dynamite.
O'Connor's voice was "dripping with sarcasm", according to Totenberg, as she "took aim at former House GOP [Republican] leader Tom DeLay. She didn't name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case.
"It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn't help, she said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with."
Then she spoke the D-word. "I, said O'Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O'Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment | Dictatorship is the danger) ¶ 19:13 0 comments
Sharp Rise in CO2 Levels Recorded (news.BBC.co.uk)
By David Shukman
BBC science correspondent
US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level.
BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.
The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.
The figures are seen as a benchmark for climate scientists around the globe.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has been analysing samples of air taken from all over the world, including America's Rocky Mountains.
The chief carbon dioxide analyst for Noaa says the latest data confirms a worrying trend that recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago.
"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC.
The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded) ¶ 19:03 0 comments
BBC science correspondent
US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level.
BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.
The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.
The figures are seen as a benchmark for climate scientists around the globe.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has been analysing samples of air taken from all over the world, including America's Rocky Mountains.
The chief carbon dioxide analyst for Noaa says the latest data confirms a worrying trend that recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago.
"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC.
The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded) ¶ 19:03 0 comments
Judge Halts Moussaoui Trial (WashingtonPost.com)
Government Violation of Court May Rule Out Death Penalty
By Jerry Markon and Timothy Dwyer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 13, 2006; 1:27 PM
A federal judge today halted the death penalty trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and indicated she might throw out the death penalty entirely after prosecutors disclosed that a government attorney had violated the court's rules about discussing witness testimony.
U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema called it "the most egregious violation of the court's rules on witnesses'' she had seen "in all the years I've been on the bench."
Her comments came after prosecutors said a Transportation Security Administration attorney had discussed the testimony of about seven witnesses with them before they took the stand and also arranged for them to read a transcript of the government's opening statement in the case. Both actions were banned by the judge in a pre-trial order. Brinkema initially said the attorney worked for the Federal Aviation Administration but officials later clarified she works for TSA.
Defense attorneys immediately urged Brinkema to throw out the death penalty as a possible punishment for Moussaoui and sentence him to life in prison. Moussaoui pleaded guilty last April to conspiring with al Qaeda in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He is the only person convicted in the United States on charges stemming from Sept. 11. Since last week, a jury has been hearing testimony about whether he should be sentenced to death.
"This is not going to be a fair trial anymore, your honor, because of what a lawyer did in an absolute abrogation of your rules,'' said defense lawyer Edward B. MacMahon Jr. "Showing transcripts to one of the key government witnesses was an obvious attempt to shape their testimony.''
(More ... Judge Halts Moussaoui Trial) ¶ 07:51 0 comments
By Jerry Markon and Timothy Dwyer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 13, 2006; 1:27 PM
A federal judge today halted the death penalty trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and indicated she might throw out the death penalty entirely after prosecutors disclosed that a government attorney had violated the court's rules about discussing witness testimony.
U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema called it "the most egregious violation of the court's rules on witnesses'' she had seen "in all the years I've been on the bench."
Her comments came after prosecutors said a Transportation Security Administration attorney had discussed the testimony of about seven witnesses with them before they took the stand and also arranged for them to read a transcript of the government's opening statement in the case. Both actions were banned by the judge in a pre-trial order. Brinkema initially said the attorney worked for the Federal Aviation Administration but officials later clarified she works for TSA.
Defense attorneys immediately urged Brinkema to throw out the death penalty as a possible punishment for Moussaoui and sentence him to life in prison. Moussaoui pleaded guilty last April to conspiring with al Qaeda in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He is the only person convicted in the United States on charges stemming from Sept. 11. Since last week, a jury has been hearing testimony about whether he should be sentenced to death.
"This is not going to be a fair trial anymore, your honor, because of what a lawyer did in an absolute abrogation of your rules,'' said defense lawyer Edward B. MacMahon Jr. "Showing transcripts to one of the key government witnesses was an obvious attempt to shape their testimony.''
(More ... Judge Halts Moussaoui Trial) ¶ 07:51 0 comments
The Right's Man (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 13, 2006
It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be.
Mr. McCain's reputation as a moderate may be based on his former opposition to the Bush tax cuts. In 2001 he declared, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us."
But now — at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger — Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes.
When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. During the 2000 campaign he called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," anticipating the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later. Mr. McCain called for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Mr. McCain's aggressive views on foreign policy, and his expressed willingness, almost eagerness, to commit U.S. ground forces overseas, explain why he, not George W. Bush, was the favored candidate of neoconservative pundits such as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.
Would Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, have found some pretext for invading Iraq? We'll never know. But Mr. McCain still thinks the war was a good idea, and he rejects any attempt to extricate ourselves from the quagmire. "If success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006," he wrote last year, "then we must increase our numbers there." He didn't explain where the overstretched U.S. military is supposed to find these troops.
When it comes to social issues, Mr. McCain, who once called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance," met with Mr. Falwell late last year. Perhaps as a result, he is now taking positions friendly to the religious right. Most notably, Mr. McCain's spokesperson says that he would have signed South Dakota's extremist new anti-abortion law.
(More ... The Right's Man - New York Times) ¶ 07:49 0 comments
Published: March 13, 2006
It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be.
Mr. McCain's reputation as a moderate may be based on his former opposition to the Bush tax cuts. In 2001 he declared, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us."
But now — at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger — Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes.
When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. During the 2000 campaign he called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," anticipating the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later. Mr. McCain called for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Mr. McCain's aggressive views on foreign policy, and his expressed willingness, almost eagerness, to commit U.S. ground forces overseas, explain why he, not George W. Bush, was the favored candidate of neoconservative pundits such as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.
Would Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, have found some pretext for invading Iraq? We'll never know. But Mr. McCain still thinks the war was a good idea, and he rejects any attempt to extricate ourselves from the quagmire. "If success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006," he wrote last year, "then we must increase our numbers there." He didn't explain where the overstretched U.S. military is supposed to find these troops.
When it comes to social issues, Mr. McCain, who once called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance," met with Mr. Falwell late last year. Perhaps as a result, he is now taking positions friendly to the religious right. Most notably, Mr. McCain's spokesperson says that he would have signed South Dakota's extremist new anti-abortion law.
(More ... The Right's Man - New York Times) ¶ 07:49 0 comments
3.13.2006
A Bush Alarm: Urging U.S. to Shun Isolationism (NYTimes.com)
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: March 13, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 12 — The president who made pre-emption and going it alone the watchwords of his first term is quietly turning in a new direction, warning at every opportunity of the dangers of turning the nation inward and isolationist, and making the case for international engagement on issues from national security to global economics.
President Bush's cautions on the dangers of pulling back behind American borders — in trade and investment, in immigration and in his effort to make the spread of democracy the signature of his second term — first cropped up in his State of the Union address six weeks ago.
But it accelerated even before the Dubai ports deal was derailed by members of his own party, and before an unexpected uprising began among some neo-conservatives, who are now arguing that Iraq, while a noble effort, has turned into a failed mission that must be abandoned.
In interviews over the past week, Mr. Bush's aides, insisting on anonymity, they say, because they do not want to worsen the fissures, say they fear that the new mood threatens to undermine the international agenda for the rest of Mr. Bush's presidency.
"We're seeing it in everything," said one of Mr. Bush's closest aides last week. "Iraq. The ferocity of an irrational argument over the ports. Guest workers. China and India."
So starting on Monday, just a few days shy of the third anniversary of Mr. Bush's order to topple Saddam Hussein, the president will begin an effort to explain his Iraq strategy anew in the changed environment of increased sectarian killings.
He acknowledged on Saturday that "many of our fellow citizens" are "now wondering if the entire mission is worth it."
(More ... A Bush Alarm: Urging U.S. to Shun Isolationism - New York Times) ¶ 19:27 0 comments
Published: March 13, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 12 — The president who made pre-emption and going it alone the watchwords of his first term is quietly turning in a new direction, warning at every opportunity of the dangers of turning the nation inward and isolationist, and making the case for international engagement on issues from national security to global economics.
President Bush's cautions on the dangers of pulling back behind American borders — in trade and investment, in immigration and in his effort to make the spread of democracy the signature of his second term — first cropped up in his State of the Union address six weeks ago.
But it accelerated even before the Dubai ports deal was derailed by members of his own party, and before an unexpected uprising began among some neo-conservatives, who are now arguing that Iraq, while a noble effort, has turned into a failed mission that must be abandoned.
In interviews over the past week, Mr. Bush's aides, insisting on anonymity, they say, because they do not want to worsen the fissures, say they fear that the new mood threatens to undermine the international agenda for the rest of Mr. Bush's presidency.
"We're seeing it in everything," said one of Mr. Bush's closest aides last week. "Iraq. The ferocity of an irrational argument over the ports. Guest workers. China and India."
So starting on Monday, just a few days shy of the third anniversary of Mr. Bush's order to topple Saddam Hussein, the president will begin an effort to explain his Iraq strategy anew in the changed environment of increased sectarian killings.
He acknowledged on Saturday that "many of our fellow citizens" are "now wondering if the entire mission is worth it."
(More ... A Bush Alarm: Urging U.S. to Shun Isolationism - New York Times) ¶ 19:27 0 comments
SAS Man Quits in Protest at 'Illegal' Iraq War (Guardian.co.uk)
By Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday March 13, 2006
The Guardian
An SAS soldier has resigned from the army, describing the military intervention in Iraq as a "war of aggression" and "morally wrong". The soldier said he witnessed "dozens of illegal acts" by US forces there.
Ben Griffin, 28, who left after three months in Baghdad, is believed to be the first SAS soldier to refuse to go into combat and to leave the army on moral grounds. His decision comes at a time of growing disenchantment among British soldiers about their presence in Iraq.
This week, pre-trial hearings are due to start into the court martial of Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, an RAF doctor who is refusing to return to Iraq on the grounds that the war is illegal. Mr Kendall-Smith's lawyer, Justin Hugheston-Roberts, said yesterday: "We will be arguing that he has no case to answer because, without a UN mandate, the invasion of Iraq was manifestly unlawful and any subsequent order was therefore unlawful."
Mr Griffin told the Sunday Telegraph yesterday that he had expected to face a court martial for leaving the SAS. Instead, he was discharged with a glowing testimonial.
When he was on leave in March last year he told his commanding officer he had no intention of returning to Iraq. He said he was very angry "at the way the politicians have lied to the British public about the war. But most importantly, I didn't join the British army to conduct American foreign policy."
He said he had witnessed dozens of illegal acts by US fighters who viewed Iraqis as "sub-human". Mr Griffin said: "I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong. The Americans were doing things like chucking farmers into Abu Ghraib, or handing them over to the Iraqi authorities, knowing full well they were going to be tortured."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | SAS man quits in protest at 'illegal' Iraq war) ¶ 19:17 0 comments
Monday March 13, 2006
The Guardian
An SAS soldier has resigned from the army, describing the military intervention in Iraq as a "war of aggression" and "morally wrong". The soldier said he witnessed "dozens of illegal acts" by US forces there.
Ben Griffin, 28, who left after three months in Baghdad, is believed to be the first SAS soldier to refuse to go into combat and to leave the army on moral grounds. His decision comes at a time of growing disenchantment among British soldiers about their presence in Iraq.
This week, pre-trial hearings are due to start into the court martial of Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, an RAF doctor who is refusing to return to Iraq on the grounds that the war is illegal. Mr Kendall-Smith's lawyer, Justin Hugheston-Roberts, said yesterday: "We will be arguing that he has no case to answer because, without a UN mandate, the invasion of Iraq was manifestly unlawful and any subsequent order was therefore unlawful."
Mr Griffin told the Sunday Telegraph yesterday that he had expected to face a court martial for leaving the SAS. Instead, he was discharged with a glowing testimonial.
When he was on leave in March last year he told his commanding officer he had no intention of returning to Iraq. He said he was very angry "at the way the politicians have lied to the British public about the war. But most importantly, I didn't join the British army to conduct American foreign policy."
He said he had witnessed dozens of illegal acts by US fighters who viewed Iraqis as "sub-human". Mr Griffin said: "I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong. The Americans were doing things like chucking farmers into Abu Ghraib, or handing them over to the Iraqi authorities, knowing full well they were going to be tortured."
(More ... Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | SAS man quits in protest at 'illegal' Iraq war) ¶ 19:17 0 comments
GOP Is in 'Deep Funk' over Bush Spending (SFGate.com)
Carolyn Lochhead
SF Chronicle Washington Bureau
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Washington -- The Republican rebellion that President Bush smacked into with the Dubai ports deal was the tip of an iceberg of Republican discontent that is much deeper and more dangerous to the White House than a talk radio tempest over Arabs running U.S. ports.
A Republican pushback on Capitol Hill and smoldering conservative dissatisfaction have already killed not just the ports deal but key elements of Bush's domestic agenda, and threaten GOP control of Congress if unhappy conservatives sit out the November midterm elections.
The apostasy in some quarters runs to heretofore unthinkable depths.
(More ... GOP is in 'deep funk' over Bush spending) ¶ 19:12 0 comments
SF Chronicle Washington Bureau
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Washington -- The Republican rebellion that President Bush smacked into with the Dubai ports deal was the tip of an iceberg of Republican discontent that is much deeper and more dangerous to the White House than a talk radio tempest over Arabs running U.S. ports.
A Republican pushback on Capitol Hill and smoldering conservative dissatisfaction have already killed not just the ports deal but key elements of Bush's domestic agenda, and threaten GOP control of Congress if unhappy conservatives sit out the November midterm elections.
The apostasy in some quarters runs to heretofore unthinkable depths.
(More ... GOP is in 'deep funk' over Bush spending) ¶ 19:12 0 comments
3.11.2006
Former White House Aide Is Arrested on Retail Theft Charges (NYTimes.com)
By JOHN FILES and ROBERT PEAR
Published: March 11, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 10 — A former top White House aide was arrested on Thursday in the Maryland suburbs on charges that he stole merchandise from a number of retailers, the police in Montgomery County, Md., said Friday.
The former aide, Claude A. Allen, 45, was President Bush's top domestic policy adviser until resigning last month. Known as a rising conservative star, he previously served as deputy secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, and in 2003 the White House announced its intention to nominate him to a seat on the federal appeals court based in Richmond, Va. Democrats raised questions about the nomination, and it never came to a vote.
The police said Mr. Allen was seen on Jan. 2 leaving a department store in Gaithersburg, Md., with merchandise for which he had not paid. He was apprehended by a store employee and issued a misdemeanor citation for theft, said Lt. Eric Burnett, a spokesman for the Montgomery County Police Department.
A statement issued on Friday by the police said store employees saw Mr. Allen fill a shopping bag with merchandise and put additional items into a shopping cart. He then sought, and received, a refund for some of the items and left the store without paying for others.
The Police Department said that as a result of an investigation it opened after the initial incident in January, it found that Mr. Allen had received refunds of more than $5,000 last year at stores like Target and Hecht's. Mr. Allen was arrested on Thursday and charged in connection with a series of allegedly fraudulent returns. The police said he was charged with a theft scheme over $500 and theft over $500.
"He would buy items, take them out to his car and return to the store with the receipt," the police said in the statement. "He would select the same items he had just purchased and then return them for a refund."
Mr. Allen was released on his own recognizance, the police said.
(More ... Former White House Aide Is Arrested on Retail Theft Charges - New York Times) ¶ 20:03 0 comments
Published: March 11, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 10 — A former top White House aide was arrested on Thursday in the Maryland suburbs on charges that he stole merchandise from a number of retailers, the police in Montgomery County, Md., said Friday.
The former aide, Claude A. Allen, 45, was President Bush's top domestic policy adviser until resigning last month. Known as a rising conservative star, he previously served as deputy secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, and in 2003 the White House announced its intention to nominate him to a seat on the federal appeals court based in Richmond, Va. Democrats raised questions about the nomination, and it never came to a vote.
The police said Mr. Allen was seen on Jan. 2 leaving a department store in Gaithersburg, Md., with merchandise for which he had not paid. He was apprehended by a store employee and issued a misdemeanor citation for theft, said Lt. Eric Burnett, a spokesman for the Montgomery County Police Department.
A statement issued on Friday by the police said store employees saw Mr. Allen fill a shopping bag with merchandise and put additional items into a shopping cart. He then sought, and received, a refund for some of the items and left the store without paying for others.
The Police Department said that as a result of an investigation it opened after the initial incident in January, it found that Mr. Allen had received refunds of more than $5,000 last year at stores like Target and Hecht's. Mr. Allen was arrested on Thursday and charged in connection with a series of allegedly fraudulent returns. The police said he was charged with a theft scheme over $500 and theft over $500.
"He would buy items, take them out to his car and return to the store with the receipt," the police said in the statement. "He would select the same items he had just purchased and then return them for a refund."
Mr. Allen was released on his own recognizance, the police said.
(More ... Former White House Aide Is Arrested on Retail Theft Charges - New York Times) ¶ 20:03 0 comments
Interior Secretary Norton to Step Down (CNN.com)
Friday, March 10, 2006; Posted: 3:46 p.m. EST (20:46 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton resigned Friday. She will leave her post at the end of March, the Department of the Interior said.
Norton, 51, held the job for five years. She is the first woman to serve as Interior secretary.
In a publicly released letter to President Bush, Norton said she planned to return to private life.
"Now I feel it is time for me to leave this mountain you gave me to climb, catch my breath, then set my sights on new goals to achieve in the private sector," she wrote in the letter. "Hopefully, my husband and I will end up closer to the mountains we love in the West."
Norton also thanked Bush and credited the department for "great work in the face of hurricanes, record-setting wildfires and droughts, acrimonious litigation and expanded post 9/11 security responsibilities."
(More ... CNN.com - Interior Secretary Norton to step down - Mar 10, 2006) ¶ 19:54 0 comments
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton resigned Friday. She will leave her post at the end of March, the Department of the Interior said.
Norton, 51, held the job for five years. She is the first woman to serve as Interior secretary.
In a publicly released letter to President Bush, Norton said she planned to return to private life.
"Now I feel it is time for me to leave this mountain you gave me to climb, catch my breath, then set my sights on new goals to achieve in the private sector," she wrote in the letter. "Hopefully, my husband and I will end up closer to the mountains we love in the West."
Norton also thanked Bush and credited the department for "great work in the face of hurricanes, record-setting wildfires and droughts, acrimonious litigation and expanded post 9/11 security responsibilities."
(More ... CNN.com - Interior Secretary Norton to step down - Mar 10, 2006) ¶ 19:54 0 comments
3.09.2006
Democrats' Data Mining Stirs an Intraparty Battle (WashingtonPost.com)
With Private Effort on Voter Information, Ickes and Soros Challenge Dean and DNC
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Page A01
A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage.
The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.
Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence that the DNC under Chairman Howard Dean is ready to compete with Republicans on the technological front. "The Republicans have developed a cadre of people who appreciate databases and know how to use them, and we are way behind the march," said Ickes, whose political technology venture is being backed by financier George Soros.
"It's unclear what the DNC is doing. Is it going to be kept up to date?" Ickes asked, adding that out-of-date voter information is "worse than having no database at all."
Ickes's effort is drawing particular notice among Washington operatives who know about it because of speculation that he is acting to build a campaign resource for a possible 2008 presidential run by Hillary Clinton. She has long been concerned, advisers say, that Democrats and liberals lack the political infrastructure of Republicans and their conservative allies. Ickes said his new venture, Data Warehouse, will at first seek to sell its targeting information to politically active unions and liberal interest groups, rather than campaigns.
(More ... Democrats' Data Mining Stirs an Intraparty Battle) ¶ 13:18 0 comments
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Page A01
A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage.
The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.
Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence that the DNC under Chairman Howard Dean is ready to compete with Republicans on the technological front. "The Republicans have developed a cadre of people who appreciate databases and know how to use them, and we are way behind the march," said Ickes, whose political technology venture is being backed by financier George Soros.
"It's unclear what the DNC is doing. Is it going to be kept up to date?" Ickes asked, adding that out-of-date voter information is "worse than having no database at all."
Ickes's effort is drawing particular notice among Washington operatives who know about it because of speculation that he is acting to build a campaign resource for a possible 2008 presidential run by Hillary Clinton. She has long been concerned, advisers say, that Democrats and liberals lack the political infrastructure of Republicans and their conservative allies. Ickes said his new venture, Data Warehouse, will at first seek to sell its targeting information to politically active unions and liberal interest groups, rather than campaigns.
(More ... Democrats' Data Mining Stirs an Intraparty Battle) ¶ 13:18 0 comments
3.07.2006
U.S. Wins Ruling Over Recruiting at Universities (NYTimes.com)
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: March 7, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 6 — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a law that cuts federal financing for universities if they do not give military recruiters the same access to students that other potential employers receive. The court ruled that the law does not violate the free-speech rights of universities that object to the military's exclusion of gay men and lesbians who are open about their sexual orientation.
The opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was unanimous.
It was a setback, although hardly an unexpected one, to a coalition of law schools that brought the constitutional challenge, as well as to the Association of American Law Schools, which represents nearly all accredited law schools and since 1991 has required adherence to a nondiscrimination policy on sexual orientation as a condition of membership.
Many law schools initially chose to comply with the association's policy by barring military recruiters or by taking such steps as refusing to help the recruiters schedule appointments or relegating them to less favorable locations for meeting with students.
Congress responded with a series of increasingly punitive measures, all known as the Solomon Amendment, culminating in the 2004 statute at issue in the case. It requires access for military recruiters "that is at least equal in quality and scope" to access for other employers, on pain of forfeiting grants to the entire university from eight federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Education, and Health and Human Services.
With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, all but a handful of law schools yielded. Nearly three dozen banded together as the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights and turned to the courts.
(More ... U.S. Wins Ruling Over Recruiting at Universities - New York Times) ¶ 19:58 0 comments
Published: March 7, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 6 — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a law that cuts federal financing for universities if they do not give military recruiters the same access to students that other potential employers receive. The court ruled that the law does not violate the free-speech rights of universities that object to the military's exclusion of gay men and lesbians who are open about their sexual orientation.
The opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was unanimous.
It was a setback, although hardly an unexpected one, to a coalition of law schools that brought the constitutional challenge, as well as to the Association of American Law Schools, which represents nearly all accredited law schools and since 1991 has required adherence to a nondiscrimination policy on sexual orientation as a condition of membership.
Many law schools initially chose to comply with the association's policy by barring military recruiters or by taking such steps as refusing to help the recruiters schedule appointments or relegating them to less favorable locations for meeting with students.
Congress responded with a series of increasingly punitive measures, all known as the Solomon Amendment, culminating in the 2004 statute at issue in the case. It requires access for military recruiters "that is at least equal in quality and scope" to access for other employers, on pain of forfeiting grants to the entire university from eight federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Education, and Health and Human Services.
With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, all but a handful of law schools yielded. Nearly three dozen banded together as the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights and turned to the courts.
(More ... U.S. Wins Ruling Over Recruiting at Universities - New York Times) ¶ 19:58 0 comments
Feeling No Pain (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 6, 2006
President Bush's main purpose in visiting India seems to have been to promote nuclear proliferation. But he also had some kind words for outsourcing. And those words help explain something that I know deeply puzzles the administration's political gurus: Mr. Bush's dismal polling on economic issues.
Now the American economy isn't doing as well as Bush partisans think it is. In fact, since the end of the 2001 recession, the recovery in jobs, output and especially wages has been unusually weak by historical standards. Still, the economy is expanding, so it's impressive just how large a majority of Americans disapproves of Mr. Bush's economic management.
Why doesn't Mr. Bush get any economic respect? I think it's because most Americans sense, correctly, that he doesn't care about people like them. We're living in a time when many Americans are feeling economically insecure, but a tiny elite has been growing incredibly rich. And Mr. Bush's problem is that he identifies so totally with the lucky, wealthy few that in unscripted settings he can't manage even a few sentences of empathy with ordinary Americans. He doesn't feel your pain, and it shows.
Here's what Mr. Bush said in India, when someone raised the question of the political backlash against outsourcing: "Losing jobs is painful, so let's make sure people are educated so they can find — fill the jobs of the 21st century. And let's make sure that there's pro-growth economic policies in place. What does that mean? That means low taxes; it means less regulation; it means fewer lawsuits; it means wise energy policy."
O.K., so you're a 50-year-old worker whose job has just been outsourced, and Mr. Bush tells you that you should go get a 21st-century education and rejoice in the joys of a lawsuit-free economy. Uh-huh.
(More ... Feeling No Pain - New York Times) ¶ 07:53 0 comments
Published: March 6, 2006
President Bush's main purpose in visiting India seems to have been to promote nuclear proliferation. But he also had some kind words for outsourcing. And those words help explain something that I know deeply puzzles the administration's political gurus: Mr. Bush's dismal polling on economic issues.
Now the American economy isn't doing as well as Bush partisans think it is. In fact, since the end of the 2001 recession, the recovery in jobs, output and especially wages has been unusually weak by historical standards. Still, the economy is expanding, so it's impressive just how large a majority of Americans disapproves of Mr. Bush's economic management.
Why doesn't Mr. Bush get any economic respect? I think it's because most Americans sense, correctly, that he doesn't care about people like them. We're living in a time when many Americans are feeling economically insecure, but a tiny elite has been growing incredibly rich. And Mr. Bush's problem is that he identifies so totally with the lucky, wealthy few that in unscripted settings he can't manage even a few sentences of empathy with ordinary Americans. He doesn't feel your pain, and it shows.
Here's what Mr. Bush said in India, when someone raised the question of the political backlash against outsourcing: "Losing jobs is painful, so let's make sure people are educated so they can find — fill the jobs of the 21st century. And let's make sure that there's pro-growth economic policies in place. What does that mean? That means low taxes; it means less regulation; it means fewer lawsuits; it means wise energy policy."
O.K., so you're a 50-year-old worker whose job has just been outsourced, and Mr. Bush tells you that you should go get a 21st-century education and rejoice in the joys of a lawsuit-free economy. Uh-huh.
(More ... Feeling No Pain - New York Times) ¶ 07:53 0 comments
3.05.2006
The Genius of Art Buchwald (WashingtonPost.com)
By Ronald G. Shafer
Saturday, March 4, 2006; Page A17
As Art Buchwald keeps his fellow patients in stitches at a Washington hospice, it's time to remember how this national treasure of humor has kept us all laughing for more than 50 years. In his heyday, Buchwald, now 80, was in more newspapers than any other columnist. Harry Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson, called him "the greatest satirist in English since Pope and Swift."
Buchwald's genius is that he makes us laugh and he makes us think. He first gained world attention writing from Paris in the 1950s when President Eisenhower's press secretary, James Hagerty, called a special NATO press briefing to take seriously a Buchwald spoof column, denouncing it as "unadulterated rot." Buchwald retorted: "Hagerty is wrong -- I write adulterated rot."
In the 1960s Buchwald brought his humor to Washington. Some didn't appreciate it. During the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson caught press secretary Bill Moyers reading a typically antiwar Buchwald column. "Do you think he's funny?" the president barked. To which Moyers quickly replied: "No, sir."
Buchwald rose to new heights during the Watergate scandal, explaining that the sound in the 18 1/2 -minute gap in the White House tapes actually was Nixon humming. His columns on President Reagan, compiled in a book called "While Reagan Slept," earned him a Pulitzer Prize for outstanding commentary in 1982. Even after a stroke in 2000, Buchwald rebounded, jabbing at President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. His columns continued until just a few weeks ago, because, as he said, "I still have fire in the belly."
(More ... The Genius of Art Buchwald) ¶ 20:41 0 comments
Saturday, March 4, 2006; Page A17
As Art Buchwald keeps his fellow patients in stitches at a Washington hospice, it's time to remember how this national treasure of humor has kept us all laughing for more than 50 years. In his heyday, Buchwald, now 80, was in more newspapers than any other columnist. Harry Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson, called him "the greatest satirist in English since Pope and Swift."
Buchwald's genius is that he makes us laugh and he makes us think. He first gained world attention writing from Paris in the 1950s when President Eisenhower's press secretary, James Hagerty, called a special NATO press briefing to take seriously a Buchwald spoof column, denouncing it as "unadulterated rot." Buchwald retorted: "Hagerty is wrong -- I write adulterated rot."
In the 1960s Buchwald brought his humor to Washington. Some didn't appreciate it. During the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson caught press secretary Bill Moyers reading a typically antiwar Buchwald column. "Do you think he's funny?" the president barked. To which Moyers quickly replied: "No, sir."
Buchwald rose to new heights during the Watergate scandal, explaining that the sound in the 18 1/2 -minute gap in the White House tapes actually was Nixon humming. His columns on President Reagan, compiled in a book called "While Reagan Slept," earned him a Pulitzer Prize for outstanding commentary in 1982. Even after a stroke in 2000, Buchwald rebounded, jabbing at President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. His columns continued until just a few weeks ago, because, as he said, "I still have fire in the belly."
(More ... The Genius of Art Buchwald) ¶ 20:41 0 comments
George the Unready (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 3, 2006
Iraqi insurgents, hurricanes and low-income Medicare recipients have three things in common. Each has been at the center of a policy disaster. In each case experts warned about the impending disaster. And in each case — well, let's look at what happened.
Knight Ridder's Washington bureau reports that from 2003 on, intelligence agencies "repeatedly warned the White House" that "the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war." But senior administration officials insisted that the insurgents were a mix of dead-enders and foreign terrorists.
Intelligence analysts who refused to go along with that line were attacked for not being team players. According to U.S. News & World Report, President Bush's reaction to a pessimistic report from the C.I.A.'s Baghdad station chief was to remark, "What is he, some kind of defeatist?"
Many people have now seen the video of the briefing Mr. Bush received before Hurricane Katrina struck. Much has been made of the revelation that Mr. Bush was dishonest when he claimed, a few days later, that nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.
But what's really striking, given the gravity of the warnings, is the lack of urgency Mr. Bush and his administration displayed in responding to the storm. A horrified nation watched the scenes of misery at the Superdome and wondered why help hadn't arrived. But as Newsweek reports, for several days nobody was willing to tell Mr. Bush, who "equates disagreement with disloyalty," how badly things were going. "For most of those first few days," Newsweek says, "Bush was hearing what a good job the Feds were doing."
Now for one you may not have heard about. The new Medicare drug program got off to a disastrous start: "Low-income Medicare beneficiaries around the country were often overcharged, and some were turned away from pharmacies without getting their medications, in the first week of Medicare's new drug benefit," The New York Times reported.
How did this happen? The same way the other disasters happened: experts who warned of trouble ahead were told to shut up.
(More ... George the Unready - New York Times) ¶ 20:01 0 comments
Published: March 3, 2006
Iraqi insurgents, hurricanes and low-income Medicare recipients have three things in common. Each has been at the center of a policy disaster. In each case experts warned about the impending disaster. And in each case — well, let's look at what happened.
Knight Ridder's Washington bureau reports that from 2003 on, intelligence agencies "repeatedly warned the White House" that "the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war." But senior administration officials insisted that the insurgents were a mix of dead-enders and foreign terrorists.
Intelligence analysts who refused to go along with that line were attacked for not being team players. According to U.S. News & World Report, President Bush's reaction to a pessimistic report from the C.I.A.'s Baghdad station chief was to remark, "What is he, some kind of defeatist?"
Many people have now seen the video of the briefing Mr. Bush received before Hurricane Katrina struck. Much has been made of the revelation that Mr. Bush was dishonest when he claimed, a few days later, that nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.
But what's really striking, given the gravity of the warnings, is the lack of urgency Mr. Bush and his administration displayed in responding to the storm. A horrified nation watched the scenes of misery at the Superdome and wondered why help hadn't arrived. But as Newsweek reports, for several days nobody was willing to tell Mr. Bush, who "equates disagreement with disloyalty," how badly things were going. "For most of those first few days," Newsweek says, "Bush was hearing what a good job the Feds were doing."
Now for one you may not have heard about. The new Medicare drug program got off to a disastrous start: "Low-income Medicare beneficiaries around the country were often overcharged, and some were turned away from pharmacies without getting their medications, in the first week of Medicare's new drug benefit," The New York Times reported.
How did this happen? The same way the other disasters happened: experts who warned of trouble ahead were told to shut up.
(More ... George the Unready - New York Times) ¶ 20:01 0 comments
3.04.2006
Plants Turn Poisonous in Response to Ozone Threat (Stuff.co.nz)
04 March 2006
By DEBBIE JAMIESON
Food plants across the world are developing a poisonous protective layer to shield against harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays, scientists studying the effects of ozone depletion say.
The discovery has turned traditional thinking on its head, according to international experts on the environmental effects of ozone depletion gathered in Alexandra this week.
The 24 scientists are tasked with reporting changes to the ozone layer and subsequent consequences to the United Nations.
Until recently, it has been assumed that UV radiation only had a negative effect on plants – but it is now recognised that a screening pigment produced by most plants can be toxic to predators and help with disease prevention.
Now attempts are being made to harness that information to produce stronger and more natural food crops.
(More ... New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz: Plants turn poisonous in response to ozone threat) ¶ 10:41 0 comments
By DEBBIE JAMIESON
Food plants across the world are developing a poisonous protective layer to shield against harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays, scientists studying the effects of ozone depletion say.
The discovery has turned traditional thinking on its head, according to international experts on the environmental effects of ozone depletion gathered in Alexandra this week.
The 24 scientists are tasked with reporting changes to the ozone layer and subsequent consequences to the United Nations.
Until recently, it has been assumed that UV radiation only had a negative effect on plants – but it is now recognised that a screening pigment produced by most plants can be toxic to predators and help with disease prevention.
Now attempts are being made to harness that information to produce stronger and more natural food crops.
(More ... New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz: Plants turn poisonous in response to ozone threat) ¶ 10:41 0 comments
Antarctica Losing Ice to Oceans (news.BBC.co.uk)
Thursday, 2 March 2006, 20:02 GMT
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
A new space-based study of Antarctica shows its ice sheet is shrinking.
Researchers used satellites to plot changes in the Earth's gravity in the Antarctic during the period 2002-2005.
Writing in the journal Science, they conclude that the continent is losing 152 cubic km of ice each year, with most loss in the west.
In recent years scientists have found other evidence that West Antarctic ice is melting, which could contribute to sea level rise.
In his contribution to a recent report on climate change, the director of the British Antarctic Survey, Chris Rapley, described the West Antarctic ice sheet as "a giant awakened".
But gathering comprehensive data on both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has not been straightforward, and studies have produced apparently contradictory results, with some indicating a loss of ice and others that sheets are thickening.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Antarctica losing ice to oceans) ¶ 10:33 0 comments
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
A new space-based study of Antarctica shows its ice sheet is shrinking.
Researchers used satellites to plot changes in the Earth's gravity in the Antarctic during the period 2002-2005.
Writing in the journal Science, they conclude that the continent is losing 152 cubic km of ice each year, with most loss in the west.
In recent years scientists have found other evidence that West Antarctic ice is melting, which could contribute to sea level rise.
In his contribution to a recent report on climate change, the director of the British Antarctic Survey, Chris Rapley, described the West Antarctic ice sheet as "a giant awakened".
But gathering comprehensive data on both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has not been straightforward, and studies have produced apparently contradictory results, with some indicating a loss of ice and others that sheets are thickening.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Antarctica losing ice to oceans) ¶ 10:33 0 comments
3.02.2006
Annals of the Pentagon (NewYorker.com-->CommonDreams.org)
The Memo: How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted.
by Jane Mayer
February 27, 2006
One night this January, in a ceremony at the Officers’ Club at Fort Myer, in Arlington, Virginia, which sits on a hill with a commanding view across the Potomac River to the Washington Monument, Alberto J. Mora, the outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy, stood next to a podium in the club’s ballroom. A handsome gray-haired man in his mid-fifties, he listened with a mixture of embarrassment and pride as his colleagues toasted his impending departure. Amid the usual tributes were some more pointed comments.
“Never has there been a counsel with more intellectual courage or personal integrity,” David Brant, the former head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said. Brant added somewhat cryptically, “He surprised us into doing the right thing.” Conspicuous for his silence that night was Mora’s boss, William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.
Back in Haynes’s office, on the third floor of the Pentagon, there was a stack of papers chronicling a private battle that Mora had waged against Haynes and other top Administration officials, challenging their tactics in fighting terrorism. Some of the documents are classified and, despite repeated requests from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, have not been released. One document, which is marked “secret” but is not classified, is a twenty-two-page memo written by Mora. It shows that three years ago Mora tried to halt what he saw as a disastrous and unlawful policy of authorizing cruelty toward terror suspects.
(More ... Annals of the Pentagon) ¶ 19:51 0 comments
by Jane Mayer
February 27, 2006
One night this January, in a ceremony at the Officers’ Club at Fort Myer, in Arlington, Virginia, which sits on a hill with a commanding view across the Potomac River to the Washington Monument, Alberto J. Mora, the outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy, stood next to a podium in the club’s ballroom. A handsome gray-haired man in his mid-fifties, he listened with a mixture of embarrassment and pride as his colleagues toasted his impending departure. Amid the usual tributes were some more pointed comments.
“Never has there been a counsel with more intellectual courage or personal integrity,” David Brant, the former head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said. Brant added somewhat cryptically, “He surprised us into doing the right thing.” Conspicuous for his silence that night was Mora’s boss, William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.
Back in Haynes’s office, on the third floor of the Pentagon, there was a stack of papers chronicling a private battle that Mora had waged against Haynes and other top Administration officials, challenging their tactics in fighting terrorism. Some of the documents are classified and, despite repeated requests from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, have not been released. One document, which is marked “secret” but is not classified, is a twenty-two-page memo written by Mora. It shows that three years ago Mora tried to halt what he saw as a disastrous and unlawful policy of authorizing cruelty toward terror suspects.
(More ... Annals of the Pentagon) ¶ 19:51 0 comments
