Democrats Abroad New Zealand
7.30.2006
Audit Finds U.S. Hid Cost of Iraq Projects (NYTimes.com)
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: July 30, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 29 — The State Department agency in charge of $1.4 billion in reconstruction money in Iraq used an accounting shell game to hide ballooning cost overruns on its projects there and knowingly withheld information on schedule delays from Congress, a federal audit released late Friday has found.
The agency hid construction overruns by listing them as overhead or administrative costs, according to the audit, written by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent office that reports to Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department.
Called the United States Agency for International Development, or A.I.D., the agency administers foreign aid projects around the world. It has been working in Iraq on reconstruction since shortly after the 2003 invasion.
The report by the inspector general’s office does not give a full accounting of all projects financed by the agency’s $1.4 billion budget, but cites several examples.
(More ... Audit Finds U.S. Hid Cost of Iraq Projects - New York Times) ¶ 21:40 0 comments
Published: July 30, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 29 — The State Department agency in charge of $1.4 billion in reconstruction money in Iraq used an accounting shell game to hide ballooning cost overruns on its projects there and knowingly withheld information on schedule delays from Congress, a federal audit released late Friday has found.
The agency hid construction overruns by listing them as overhead or administrative costs, according to the audit, written by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent office that reports to Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department.
Called the United States Agency for International Development, or A.I.D., the agency administers foreign aid projects around the world. It has been working in Iraq on reconstruction since shortly after the 2003 invasion.
The report by the inspector general’s office does not give a full accounting of all projects financed by the agency’s $1.4 billion budget, but cites several examples.
(More ... Audit Finds U.S. Hid Cost of Iraq Projects - New York Times) ¶ 21:40 0 comments
7.29.2006
Reign of Error (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 28, 2006
Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.
At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole.
But it’s dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.
Here’s how the process works.
(More ... Reign of Error - New York Times) ¶ 14:29 0 comments
Published: July 28, 2006
Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.
At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole.
But it’s dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.
Here’s how the process works.
(More ... Reign of Error - New York Times) ¶ 14:29 0 comments
7.26.2006
Black and Blue (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 24, 2006
According to the White House transcript, here’s how it went last week, when President Bush addressed the N.A.A.C.P. for the first time:
THE PRESIDENT: “I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party.”
AUDIENCE: “Yes! (Applause.)”
But Mr. Bush didn’t talk about why African-Americans don’t trust his party, and black districts are always blue on election maps. So let me fill in the blanks.
First, G.O.P. policies consistently help those who are already doing extremely well, not those lagging behind — a group that includes the vast majority of African-Americans. And both the relative and absolute economic status of blacks, after improving substantially during the Clinton years, have worsened since 2000.
The G.O.P. obsession with helping the haves and have-mores, and lack of concern for everyone else, was evident even in Mr. Bush’s speech to the N.A.A.C.P. Mr. Bush never mentioned wages, which have been falling behind inflation for most workers. And he certainly didn’t mention the minimum wage, which disproportionately affects African-American workers, and which he has allowed to fall to its lowest real level since 1955.
Mr. Bush also never used the word “poverty,” a condition that afflicts almost one in four blacks.
But he found time to call for repeal of the estate tax, even though African-Americans are more than a thousand times as likely to live below the poverty line as they are to be rich enough to leave a taxable estate.
(More ... Black and Blue - New York Times) ¶ 08:00 0 comments
Published: July 24, 2006
According to the White House transcript, here’s how it went last week, when President Bush addressed the N.A.A.C.P. for the first time:
THE PRESIDENT: “I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party.”
AUDIENCE: “Yes! (Applause.)”
But Mr. Bush didn’t talk about why African-Americans don’t trust his party, and black districts are always blue on election maps. So let me fill in the blanks.
First, G.O.P. policies consistently help those who are already doing extremely well, not those lagging behind — a group that includes the vast majority of African-Americans. And both the relative and absolute economic status of blacks, after improving substantially during the Clinton years, have worsened since 2000.
The G.O.P. obsession with helping the haves and have-mores, and lack of concern for everyone else, was evident even in Mr. Bush’s speech to the N.A.A.C.P. Mr. Bush never mentioned wages, which have been falling behind inflation for most workers. And he certainly didn’t mention the minimum wage, which disproportionately affects African-American workers, and which he has allowed to fall to its lowest real level since 1955.
Mr. Bush also never used the word “poverty,” a condition that afflicts almost one in four blacks.
But he found time to call for repeal of the estate tax, even though African-Americans are more than a thousand times as likely to live below the poverty line as they are to be rich enough to leave a taxable estate.
(More ... Black and Blue - New York Times) ¶ 08:00 0 comments
7.25.2006
ABA: Bush violating Constitution (CNN.com)
Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy
Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 11:05 a.m. EDT (15:05 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.
The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.
The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.
"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."
Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii.
ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them.
(More ... CNN.com - ABA: Bush violating Constitution - Jul 24, 2006) ¶ 20:56 0 comments
Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 11:05 a.m. EDT (15:05 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.
The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.
The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.
"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."
Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii.
ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them.
(More ... CNN.com - ABA: Bush violating Constitution - Jul 24, 2006) ¶ 20:56 0 comments
Hillary Clinton: 'It's the American dream, stupid' (CNN.com)
Senator evokes husband's winning 1992 slogan
Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 9:21 p.m. EDT (01:21 GMT)
DENVER, Colorado (Reuters) -- New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a possible White House contender in 2008, said Monday the Bush administration had hurt working Americans, and Democrats must offer new ideas to strengthen the middle class.
"Americans are earning less while the costs of a middle-class life have soared," Clinton told the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, a group that aided her husband Bill Clinton's rise to the presidency in 1992 but has clashed in recent years with the party's more liberal wing.
"A lot of Americans can't work any harder, borrow any more or save any less," she said in unveiling the group's "American Dream Initiative." The package contains proposals to make college and home ownership more affordable, help small businesses, improve retirement savings and expand health insurance coverage.
Clinton said President Bush and Republicans had "made a mess out of the country's finances." Rewriting her husband's famous 1992 campaign slogan, "It's the economy, stupid," she declared: "It's the American dream, stupid."
The yearlong initiative headed by Clinton was designed to give the party new ideas for midterm elections in November and for the White House race in 2008.
Clinton said she hoped the agenda would "unite Democrats and help elect Democrats" in November, when the party must pick up 15 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate to regain control of Congress.
(More ... CNN.com - Hillary Clinton: 'It's the American dream, stupid' - Jul 24, 2006) ¶ 20:54 1 comments
Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 9:21 p.m. EDT (01:21 GMT)
DENVER, Colorado (Reuters) -- New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a possible White House contender in 2008, said Monday the Bush administration had hurt working Americans, and Democrats must offer new ideas to strengthen the middle class.
"Americans are earning less while the costs of a middle-class life have soared," Clinton told the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, a group that aided her husband Bill Clinton's rise to the presidency in 1992 but has clashed in recent years with the party's more liberal wing.
"A lot of Americans can't work any harder, borrow any more or save any less," she said in unveiling the group's "American Dream Initiative." The package contains proposals to make college and home ownership more affordable, help small businesses, improve retirement savings and expand health insurance coverage.
Clinton said President Bush and Republicans had "made a mess out of the country's finances." Rewriting her husband's famous 1992 campaign slogan, "It's the economy, stupid," she declared: "It's the American dream, stupid."
The yearlong initiative headed by Clinton was designed to give the party new ideas for midterm elections in November and for the White House race in 2008.
Clinton said she hoped the agenda would "unite Democrats and help elect Democrats" in November, when the party must pick up 15 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate to regain control of Congress.
(More ... CNN.com - Hillary Clinton: 'It's the American dream, stupid' - Jul 24, 2006) ¶ 20:54 1 comments
Stand Up to US, Voters Tell Blair (Guardian.co.uk)
Julian Glover and Ewen MacAskill
Tuesday July 25, 2006
The Guardian
Britain should take a much more robust and independent approach to the United States, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today, which finds strong public opposition to Tony Blair's close working relationship with President Bush.
The wide-ranging survey of British attitudes to international affairs - the first since the conflict between Lebanon and Israel started- shows that a large majority of voters think Mr Blair has made the special relationship too special.
Just 30% think the prime minister has got the relationship about right, against 63% saying he has tied Britain too closely to the US.
Carried in the wake of the accidental broadcast of the prime minister's conversation with President Bush at the G8 summit, the poll finds opposition to this central element of the prime minister's foreign policy among supporters of all the main parties.
Even a majority of Labour supporters - traditionally more supportive of Mr Blair's foreign policy position - think he has misjudged the relationship, with 54% saying Britain is too close to the US. Conservatives - 68% - and Liberal Democrats - 83% - are even more critical.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Stand up to US, voters tell Blair) ¶ 20:51 0 comments
Tuesday July 25, 2006
The Guardian
Britain should take a much more robust and independent approach to the United States, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today, which finds strong public opposition to Tony Blair's close working relationship with President Bush.
The wide-ranging survey of British attitudes to international affairs - the first since the conflict between Lebanon and Israel started- shows that a large majority of voters think Mr Blair has made the special relationship too special.
Just 30% think the prime minister has got the relationship about right, against 63% saying he has tied Britain too closely to the US.
Carried in the wake of the accidental broadcast of the prime minister's conversation with President Bush at the G8 summit, the poll finds opposition to this central element of the prime minister's foreign policy among supporters of all the main parties.
Even a majority of Labour supporters - traditionally more supportive of Mr Blair's foreign policy position - think he has misjudged the relationship, with 54% saying Britain is too close to the US. Conservatives - 68% - and Liberal Democrats - 83% - are even more critical.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Stand up to US, voters tell Blair) ¶ 20:51 0 comments
7.23.2006
The Price of Fantasy (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 21, 2006
Today we call them neoconservatives, but when the first George Bush was president, those who believed that America could remake the world to its liking with a series of splendid little wars — people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld — were known within the administration as “the crazies.” Grown-ups in both parties rejected their vision as a dangerous fantasy.
But in 2000 the Supreme Court delivered the White House to a man who, although he may be 60, doesn’t act like a grown-up. The second President Bush obviously confuses swagger with strength, and prefers tough talkers like the crazies to people who actually think things through. He got the chance to implement the crazies’ vision after 9/11, which created a climate in which few people in Congress or the news media dared to ask hard questions. And the result is the bloody mess we’re now in.
This isn’t a case of 20-20 hindsight. It was clear from the beginning that the United States didn’t have remotely enough troops to carry out the crazies’ agenda — and Mr. Bush never asked for a bigger army.
As I wrote back in January 2003, this meant that the “Bush doctrine” of preventive war was, in practice, a plan to “talk trash and carry a small stick.” It was obvious even then that the administration was preparing to invade Iraq not because it posed a real threat, but because it looked like a soft target.
(More ... The Price of Fantasy - New York Times) ¶ 13:51 0 comments
Published: July 21, 2006
Today we call them neoconservatives, but when the first George Bush was president, those who believed that America could remake the world to its liking with a series of splendid little wars — people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld — were known within the administration as “the crazies.” Grown-ups in both parties rejected their vision as a dangerous fantasy.
But in 2000 the Supreme Court delivered the White House to a man who, although he may be 60, doesn’t act like a grown-up. The second President Bush obviously confuses swagger with strength, and prefers tough talkers like the crazies to people who actually think things through. He got the chance to implement the crazies’ vision after 9/11, which created a climate in which few people in Congress or the news media dared to ask hard questions. And the result is the bloody mess we’re now in.
This isn’t a case of 20-20 hindsight. It was clear from the beginning that the United States didn’t have remotely enough troops to carry out the crazies’ agenda — and Mr. Bush never asked for a bigger army.
As I wrote back in January 2003, this meant that the “Bush doctrine” of preventive war was, in practice, a plan to “talk trash and carry a small stick.” It was obvious even then that the administration was preparing to invade Iraq not because it posed a real threat, but because it looked like a soft target.
(More ... The Price of Fantasy - New York Times) ¶ 13:51 0 comments
Top-Secret World Loses Blogger (WashingtonPost.com)
Top-Secret World Loses Blogger
CIA Contractor Is Fired When Internal Post Crosses the Line
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 21, 2006; Page A15
Christine Axsmith, a software contractor for the CIA, considered her blog a success within the select circle of people who could actually access it.
Only people with top-secret security clearances could read her musings, which were posted on Intelink, the intelligence community's classified intranet. Writing as Covert Communications, CC for short, she opined in her online journal on such national security conundrums as stagflation, the war of ideas in the Middle East and -- in her most popular post -- bad food in the CIA cafeteria.
But the hundreds of blog readers who responded to her irreverent entries with titles such as "Morale Equals Food" won't be joining her ever again.
On July 13, after she posted her views on torture and the Geneva Conventions, her blog was taken down and her security badge was revoked. On Monday, Axsmith was terminated by her employer, BAE Systems, which was helping the CIA test software.
(More ... Top-Secret World Loses Blogger) ¶ 13:36 0 comments
CIA Contractor Is Fired When Internal Post Crosses the Line
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 21, 2006; Page A15
Christine Axsmith, a software contractor for the CIA, considered her blog a success within the select circle of people who could actually access it.
Only people with top-secret security clearances could read her musings, which were posted on Intelink, the intelligence community's classified intranet. Writing as Covert Communications, CC for short, she opined in her online journal on such national security conundrums as stagflation, the war of ideas in the Middle East and -- in her most popular post -- bad food in the CIA cafeteria.
But the hundreds of blog readers who responded to her irreverent entries with titles such as "Morale Equals Food" won't be joining her ever again.
On July 13, after she posted her views on torture and the Geneva Conventions, her blog was taken down and her security badge was revoked. On Monday, Axsmith was terminated by her employer, BAE Systems, which was helping the CIA test software.
(More ... Top-Secret World Loses Blogger) ¶ 13:36 0 comments
7.18.2006
A New Alliance Of Democrats Spreads Funding (WashingtonPost.com)
But Some in Party Bristle At Secrecy and Liberal Tilt
By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 17, 2006; Page A01
An alliance of nearly a hundred of the nation's wealthiest donors is roiling Democratic political circles, directing more than $50 million in the past nine months to liberal think tanks and advocacy groups in what organizers say is the first installment of a long-term campaign to compete more aggressively against conservatives.
A year after its founding, Democracy Alliance has followed up on its pledge to become a major power in the liberal movement. It has lavished millions on groups that have been willing to submit to its extensive screening process and its demands for secrecy.
These include the Center for American Progress, a think tank with an unabashed partisan edge, as well as Media Matters for America, which tracks what it sees as conservative bias in the news media. Several alliance donors are negotiating a major investment in Air America, a liberal talk-radio network.
But the large checks and demanding style wielded by Democracy Alliance organizers in recent months have caused unease among Washington's community of Democratic-linked organizations. The alliance has required organizations that receive its endorsement to sign agreements shielding the identity of donors. Public interest groups said the alliance represents a large source of undisclosed and unaccountable political influence.
(More ... A New Alliance Of Democrats Spreads Funding) ¶ 21:52 0 comments
By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 17, 2006; Page A01
An alliance of nearly a hundred of the nation's wealthiest donors is roiling Democratic political circles, directing more than $50 million in the past nine months to liberal think tanks and advocacy groups in what organizers say is the first installment of a long-term campaign to compete more aggressively against conservatives.
A year after its founding, Democracy Alliance has followed up on its pledge to become a major power in the liberal movement. It has lavished millions on groups that have been willing to submit to its extensive screening process and its demands for secrecy.
These include the Center for American Progress, a think tank with an unabashed partisan edge, as well as Media Matters for America, which tracks what it sees as conservative bias in the news media. Several alliance donors are negotiating a major investment in Air America, a liberal talk-radio network.
But the large checks and demanding style wielded by Democracy Alliance organizers in recent months have caused unease among Washington's community of Democratic-linked organizations. The alliance has required organizations that receive its endorsement to sign agreements shielding the identity of donors. Public interest groups said the alliance represents a large source of undisclosed and unaccountable political influence.
(More ... A New Alliance Of Democrats Spreads Funding) ¶ 21:52 0 comments
How Welfare Reform Changed America (USATODAY.com)
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Michelle Gordon was 30, a poor, single mother with four kids between 5 and 13, when the federal government decided in 1996 that parents on welfare should go to work.
Since then, Gordon's life has been "a little bit of a roller coaster." She has held about 10 jobs — at a call center, as a nurse's aide, as a janitorial supervisor, most recently at a grocery store. She lost that job on April 19, her 40th birthday. It took her two months to find another. For 25 hours a week, she cleans bathrooms and vacuums floors at a drug rehabilitation center.
Mary Bradford was 45 in 1996, with three children between 11 and 25, when she traded welfare for a job filling orders at Victorian Trading Co. Ten years later, her office has moved from Missouri to Kansas, and she's still with the company. She's a production supervisor, and her earnings have more than doubled from the $7 an hour she made in 1996. "Most likely, I'll retire from here," Bradford says.
"She's reliable as the sun coming up," says Randy Rolston, the company's co-founder. "I can't think of a day she's missed."
The paths that Gordon and Bradford have traveled illustrate the successes and frustrations in the decade since the nation's welfare system was overhauled to require work and limit benefits.
The law signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.
In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.
(More ... USATODAY.com - How welfare reform changed America) ¶ 19:54 0 comments
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Michelle Gordon was 30, a poor, single mother with four kids between 5 and 13, when the federal government decided in 1996 that parents on welfare should go to work.
Since then, Gordon's life has been "a little bit of a roller coaster." She has held about 10 jobs — at a call center, as a nurse's aide, as a janitorial supervisor, most recently at a grocery store. She lost that job on April 19, her 40th birthday. It took her two months to find another. For 25 hours a week, she cleans bathrooms and vacuums floors at a drug rehabilitation center.
Mary Bradford was 45 in 1996, with three children between 11 and 25, when she traded welfare for a job filling orders at Victorian Trading Co. Ten years later, her office has moved from Missouri to Kansas, and she's still with the company. She's a production supervisor, and her earnings have more than doubled from the $7 an hour she made in 1996. "Most likely, I'll retire from here," Bradford says.
"She's reliable as the sun coming up," says Randy Rolston, the company's co-founder. "I can't think of a day she's missed."
The paths that Gordon and Bradford have traveled illustrate the successes and frustrations in the decade since the nation's welfare system was overhauled to require work and limit benefits.
The law signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.
In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states' rules or have used up all the benefits they're allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.
(More ... USATODAY.com - How welfare reform changed America) ¶ 19:54 0 comments
Yo Blair! Bush And Blair Unplugged (Newswire.co.nz)
2:07 PM, 18 Jul 2006
United States President, George W Bush, has described what Hezbollah is doing in Lebanon as “shit” in an unguarded conversation recorded by a television camera.
President Bush’s informal chat with British Prime Minister Tony Blair was picked up at the end of the G8 morning session in St Petersburg by a Russian media microphone and broadcast around the world.
The conversation shows Mr Bush and Mr Blair get on so well that the President greets the Prime Minister with the words “Yo, Blair. How are you doin’?”
In “Bush and Blair unplugged”, the U.S. President expresses his delight at being given a present, apparently a Burberry sweater, by his British friend.
On the unfolding Middle East conflict, Mr Bush suggested a solution. “The thing is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over,” he told Mr Blair. The “they” was widely presumed to be Russia.
A transcript of their exchange also reveals that Mr Blair volunteered for the task of going to the Middle East and taking the heat ahead of a visit by “Condi”, or U.S. Secretary of State. Condoleezza Rice.
Asked what Mr Bush said when told his comments were overheard, White House spokesman Tony Snow said: "His reaction first was 'What did I say?', so we showed him the transcript, then he rolled his eyes and laughed."
(More ... Yo Blair! Bush And Blair Unplugged) ¶ 19:36 0 comments
United States President, George W Bush, has described what Hezbollah is doing in Lebanon as “shit” in an unguarded conversation recorded by a television camera.
President Bush’s informal chat with British Prime Minister Tony Blair was picked up at the end of the G8 morning session in St Petersburg by a Russian media microphone and broadcast around the world.
The conversation shows Mr Bush and Mr Blair get on so well that the President greets the Prime Minister with the words “Yo, Blair. How are you doin’?”
In “Bush and Blair unplugged”, the U.S. President expresses his delight at being given a present, apparently a Burberry sweater, by his British friend.
On the unfolding Middle East conflict, Mr Bush suggested a solution. “The thing is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over,” he told Mr Blair. The “they” was widely presumed to be Russia.
A transcript of their exchange also reveals that Mr Blair volunteered for the task of going to the Middle East and taking the heat ahead of a visit by “Condi”, or U.S. Secretary of State. Condoleezza Rice.
Asked what Mr Bush said when told his comments were overheard, White House spokesman Tony Snow said: "His reaction first was 'What did I say?', so we showed him the transcript, then he rolled his eyes and laughed."
(More ... Yo Blair! Bush And Blair Unplugged) ¶ 19:36 0 comments
7.16.2006
AP Poll: Republicans in Danger of Losing Congress (CNN.com)
Friday, July 14, 2006; Posted: 9:57 a.m. EDT (13:57 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November.
With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.
Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic. The party out of power also holds the edge among persuadable voters, a prospect that doesn't bode well for the Republicans.
The election ultimately will be decided in 435 House districts and 33 Senate contests, in which incumbents typically hold the upper hand. But the survey underscored the difficulty Republicans face in trying to persuade a skeptical public to return them to Washington.
(More ... CNN.com - AP Poll: Republicans in danger of losing Congress - Jul 14, 2006) ¶ 12:48 0 comments
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November.
With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.
Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic. The party out of power also holds the edge among persuadable voters, a prospect that doesn't bode well for the Republicans.
The election ultimately will be decided in 435 House districts and 33 Senate contests, in which incumbents typically hold the upper hand. But the survey underscored the difficulty Republicans face in trying to persuade a skeptical public to return them to Washington.
(More ... CNN.com - AP Poll: Republicans in danger of losing Congress - Jul 14, 2006) ¶ 12:48 0 comments
Couple Reiterate Claims They Were Punished (WashingtonPost.com)
By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 15, 2006; Page A02
Former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, former CIA officer Valerie Plame, said yesterday that Vice President Cheney, presidential adviser Karl Rove and other administration officials knowingly lied and abused their power to get revenge against the couple for criticizing President Bush's rationale for going to war in Iraq.
Plame's identity as a classified CIA officer was allegedly leaked to the media by top Bush administration officials. She and her husband filed a civil lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court accusing Cheney, Rove, former top Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and other unnamed government officials of violating Plame's and Wilson's constitutional rights, invading their privacy, endangering their children and ruining their careers.
Plame, at a joint appearance with her husband at the National Press Club, said she would "much rather" be a CIA operative than a plaintiff in a lawsuit.
She said that she and Wilson, both of whom had worked in government for years, filed the suit with "heavy hearts." Wilson said the couple were under "no illusions about how tough this fight will be." But, he said, "the time has come to hold those who use their official positions to exact personal revenge accountable and responsible for their actions."
Although the appearance was billed as a news conference, the couple took no questions after reading prepared statements.
A Cheney spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment on the suit, citing a policy of not discussing litigation.
Legal analysts said they expect Cheney to argue that he is immune from the suit. But they also said that if a judge allows the litigation to proceed, the lawsuit could allow Plame and Wilson to demand documents from Cheney and others, and force the vice president to sit for a deposition.
(More ... Couple Reiterate Claims They Were Punished) ¶ 12:09 0 comments
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 15, 2006; Page A02
Former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, former CIA officer Valerie Plame, said yesterday that Vice President Cheney, presidential adviser Karl Rove and other administration officials knowingly lied and abused their power to get revenge against the couple for criticizing President Bush's rationale for going to war in Iraq.
Plame's identity as a classified CIA officer was allegedly leaked to the media by top Bush administration officials. She and her husband filed a civil lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court accusing Cheney, Rove, former top Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and other unnamed government officials of violating Plame's and Wilson's constitutional rights, invading their privacy, endangering their children and ruining their careers.
Plame, at a joint appearance with her husband at the National Press Club, said she would "much rather" be a CIA operative than a plaintiff in a lawsuit.
She said that she and Wilson, both of whom had worked in government for years, filed the suit with "heavy hearts." Wilson said the couple were under "no illusions about how tough this fight will be." But, he said, "the time has come to hold those who use their official positions to exact personal revenge accountable and responsible for their actions."
Although the appearance was billed as a news conference, the couple took no questions after reading prepared statements.
A Cheney spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment on the suit, citing a policy of not discussing litigation.
Legal analysts said they expect Cheney to argue that he is immune from the suit. But they also said that if a judge allows the litigation to proceed, the lawsuit could allow Plame and Wilson to demand documents from Cheney and others, and force the vice president to sit for a deposition.
(More ... Couple Reiterate Claims They Were Punished) ¶ 12:09 0 comments
7.13.2006
White House Source Disclosed in Spy Scandal (Guardian.co.uk)
David Fickling and agencies
Wednesday July 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
The journalist at the centre of a criminal investigation into the naming of a CIA agent has revealed that top presidential aide Karl Rove played a major role in the affair.
Robert Novak, a conservative columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, admitted publicly for the first time that Mr Rove, one of George Bush's closest advisers, had been among his sources for a story outing CIA agent Valerie Plame. Publicly naming a CIA operative is a criminal offence in the US.
The affair raised suggestions that the White House was endangering national security for the sake of discrediting an Iraq war critic.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | White House source disclosed in spy scandal) ¶ 08:03 0 comments
Wednesday July 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
The journalist at the centre of a criminal investigation into the naming of a CIA agent has revealed that top presidential aide Karl Rove played a major role in the affair.
Robert Novak, a conservative columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, admitted publicly for the first time that Mr Rove, one of George Bush's closest advisers, had been among his sources for a story outing CIA agent Valerie Plame. Publicly naming a CIA operative is a criminal offence in the US.
The affair raised suggestions that the White House was endangering national security for the sake of discrediting an Iraq war critic.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | White House source disclosed in spy scandal) ¶ 08:03 0 comments
7.12.2006
Ohio Democrats Make Nice to Unseat DeWine (WashingtonPost.com)
By Chris Cillizza
Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Page A04
Don't expect Paul Hackett to be taking any vacations with Rep. Sherrod Brown this summer, but the two Ohio Democrats have buried their differences for the fall.
Hackett, a veteran of the Iraq war who has become a favorite of liberal bloggers and the Democratic "net roots," endorsed Brown's Ohio Senate candidacy yesterday -- five months after leaving the race himself.
"Maybe I don't like every issue Sherrod Brown believes in, but we agree on 95 percent of the issues," Hackett said. "Maybe I am not going to go fishing with him, but he shares my core concerns."
Hackett's support for Brown is an about-face from some sour comments he made after dropping from the race. At the time he alleged that Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) had strong-armed him out of the contest, and he dismissed Brown as a "very liberal, Democratic, long-standing U.S. congressman." To Mother Jones magazine, he suggested that Brown might be fitted with a "dunce cap."
Hackett said his change of heart came Thursday while he was mowing his lawn. He called Brown, apologized for the way he exited the race and offered to help. The two men met in Cincinnati over the weekend to hash out the particulars of an endorsement.
National Democrats saw a public pronouncement by Hackett as essential to unifying Ohio Democrats behind Brown as he seeks to unseat Republican Sen. Mike DeWine in the fall.
(More ... Ohio Democrats Make Nice to Unseat DeWine) ¶ 08:40 0 comments
Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Page A04
Don't expect Paul Hackett to be taking any vacations with Rep. Sherrod Brown this summer, but the two Ohio Democrats have buried their differences for the fall.
Hackett, a veteran of the Iraq war who has become a favorite of liberal bloggers and the Democratic "net roots," endorsed Brown's Ohio Senate candidacy yesterday -- five months after leaving the race himself.
"Maybe I don't like every issue Sherrod Brown believes in, but we agree on 95 percent of the issues," Hackett said. "Maybe I am not going to go fishing with him, but he shares my core concerns."
Hackett's support for Brown is an about-face from some sour comments he made after dropping from the race. At the time he alleged that Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) had strong-armed him out of the contest, and he dismissed Brown as a "very liberal, Democratic, long-standing U.S. congressman." To Mother Jones magazine, he suggested that Brown might be fitted with a "dunce cap."
Hackett said his change of heart came Thursday while he was mowing his lawn. He called Brown, apologized for the way he exited the race and offered to help. The two men met in Cincinnati over the weekend to hash out the particulars of an endorsement.
National Democrats saw a public pronouncement by Hackett as essential to unifying Ohio Democrats behind Brown as he seeks to unseat Republican Sen. Mike DeWine in the fall.
(More ... Ohio Democrats Make Nice to Unseat DeWine) ¶ 08:40 0 comments
US in $80m 'Cuba Democracy' Plan (news.BBC.co.uk)
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 July 2006, 08:25 GMT 09:25 UK
US President George W Bush has approved an $80m (£43m) fund which he says will go towards boosting democracy in Cuba.
Mr Bush said the fund would help the Cuban people in their "transition from repressive control to freedom".
The fund is part of proposals by a commission analysing US policy towards Cuba after the eventual death of Fidel Castro, who turns 80 next month.
The Cuban government said the plan was an act of aggression, violating Cuba's sovereignty and international law.
The president of Cuba's National Assembly, Ricardo Alarcon, said the world should be outraged by the actions of the US.
"They will not destroy the nation. They will not succeed in doing that. But they will cause harm and deprivation and suffering of individuals," he said.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Americas | US in $80m 'Cuba democracy' plan) ¶ 08:35 0 comments
US President George W Bush has approved an $80m (£43m) fund which he says will go towards boosting democracy in Cuba.
Mr Bush said the fund would help the Cuban people in their "transition from repressive control to freedom".
The fund is part of proposals by a commission analysing US policy towards Cuba after the eventual death of Fidel Castro, who turns 80 next month.
The Cuban government said the plan was an act of aggression, violating Cuba's sovereignty and international law.
The president of Cuba's National Assembly, Ricardo Alarcon, said the world should be outraged by the actions of the US.
"They will not destroy the nation. They will not succeed in doing that. But they will cause harm and deprivation and suffering of individuals," he said.
(More ... BBC NEWS | Americas | US in $80m 'Cuba democracy' plan) ¶ 08:35 0 comments
The Treason Card (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 7, 2006
The nature of the right-wing attack on The New York Times — an attack not on the newspaper's judgment, but on its motives — seems to have startled many people in the news media. After an editorial in The Wall Street Journal declared that The Times has what amount to treasonous intentions — that it "has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it" — The Journal's own political editor pronounced himself "shocked," saying that "I don't know anybody on the news staff of The Wall Street Journal that believes that."
But anyone who was genuinely shocked by The Journal's willingness to play the treason card must not have been paying attention these past five years.
Over the last few months a series of revelations have confirmed what should have been obvious a long time ago: the Bush administration and the movement it leads have been engaged in an authoritarian project, an effort to remove all the checks and balances that have heretofore constrained the executive branch.
Much of this project involves the assertion of unprecedented executive authority — the right to imprison people indefinitely without charges (and torture them if the administration feels like it), the right to wiretap American citizens without court authorization, the right to declare, when signing laws passed by Congress, that the laws don't really mean what they say.
But an almost equally important aspect of the project has been the attempt to create a political environment in which nobody dares to criticize the administration or reveal inconvenient facts about its actions. And that attempt has relied, from the beginning, on ascribing treasonous motives to those who refuse to toe the line. As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan "attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism."
(More ... The Treason Card - New York Times) ¶ 08:32 0 comments
Published: July 7, 2006
The nature of the right-wing attack on The New York Times — an attack not on the newspaper's judgment, but on its motives — seems to have startled many people in the news media. After an editorial in The Wall Street Journal declared that The Times has what amount to treasonous intentions — that it "has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it" — The Journal's own political editor pronounced himself "shocked," saying that "I don't know anybody on the news staff of The Wall Street Journal that believes that."
But anyone who was genuinely shocked by The Journal's willingness to play the treason card must not have been paying attention these past five years.
Over the last few months a series of revelations have confirmed what should have been obvious a long time ago: the Bush administration and the movement it leads have been engaged in an authoritarian project, an effort to remove all the checks and balances that have heretofore constrained the executive branch.
Much of this project involves the assertion of unprecedented executive authority — the right to imprison people indefinitely without charges (and torture them if the administration feels like it), the right to wiretap American citizens without court authorization, the right to declare, when signing laws passed by Congress, that the laws don't really mean what they say.
But an almost equally important aspect of the project has been the attempt to create a political environment in which nobody dares to criticize the administration or reveal inconvenient facts about its actions. And that attempt has relied, from the beginning, on ascribing treasonous motives to those who refuse to toe the line. As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan "attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism."
(More ... The Treason Card - New York Times) ¶ 08:32 0 comments
In Big Shift, U.S. to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees (NYTimes.com)
By DAVID STOUT and JOHN O’NEIL
Published: July 11, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 11 — The Bush administration called today for Congress to fix, rather than scrap, the system of military tribunals that was struck down by the Supreme Court last month, while the Pentagon pledged to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions as the court required.
But a key Republican senator warned that the administration was risking a “long, hot summer’’ if it pushed Congress to retain the tribunal system for the suspects now held at the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, instead of working to adapt traditional military courts to meet the demands of the war on terror.
The new Pentagon policy, outlined in a memo released today, and the proposal for modifying military tribunals, outlined in testimony before a Senate panel, represent the administration’s most detailed response to the Supreme Court ruling so far. The court found that the tribunals were illegal, and contradicted President Bush’s assertion that terror suspects were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
President Bush said last week that he “would comply’’ with the court’s ruling, but he has given no details of how he would do so.
The Pentagon memo, issued last Friday and released today, orders that all detainees be treated in compliance with what is known as Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a passage that requires humane treatment and a minimum standard of judicial protections for prisoners.
(More ... In Big Shift, U.S. to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees - New York Times) ¶ 08:28 0 comments
Published: July 11, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 11 — The Bush administration called today for Congress to fix, rather than scrap, the system of military tribunals that was struck down by the Supreme Court last month, while the Pentagon pledged to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions as the court required.
But a key Republican senator warned that the administration was risking a “long, hot summer’’ if it pushed Congress to retain the tribunal system for the suspects now held at the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, instead of working to adapt traditional military courts to meet the demands of the war on terror.
The new Pentagon policy, outlined in a memo released today, and the proposal for modifying military tribunals, outlined in testimony before a Senate panel, represent the administration’s most detailed response to the Supreme Court ruling so far. The court found that the tribunals were illegal, and contradicted President Bush’s assertion that terror suspects were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
President Bush said last week that he “would comply’’ with the court’s ruling, but he has given no details of how he would do so.
The Pentagon memo, issued last Friday and released today, orders that all detainees be treated in compliance with what is known as Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a passage that requires humane treatment and a minimum standard of judicial protections for prisoners.
(More ... In Big Shift, U.S. to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees - New York Times) ¶ 08:28 0 comments
