Democrats Abroad New Zealand
11.30.2006
Supreme Court Takes Up Global Warming Case (NYTimes.com)
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 29, 2006
Filed at 12:04 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court stepped gingerly into the national debate over global warming on Wednesday, asking how much harm would occur if the Environmental Protection Agency continues its refusal to regulate greenhouse gases from new vehicles.
In the first case about global warming to reach the high court, a lawyer for 12 states and 13 environmental groups pressed the justices to make the government act, saying the country faces grave environmental harm.
Inaction is like lighting ''a fuse on a bomb,'' said James Milkey, an assistant attorney general for the state of Massachusetts.
Opening up an hour of arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, ''When is the predicted cataclysm?''
It's not cataclysmic, but rather ''ongoing harm,'' Milkey replied.
Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, representing the Bush administration, cautioned justices that EPA regulation could have a significant economic impact on the United States since 85 percent of the U.S. economy is tied to sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Garre also argued that EPA was right not to act given ''the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change.''
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Published: November 29, 2006
Filed at 12:04 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court stepped gingerly into the national debate over global warming on Wednesday, asking how much harm would occur if the Environmental Protection Agency continues its refusal to regulate greenhouse gases from new vehicles.
In the first case about global warming to reach the high court, a lawyer for 12 states and 13 environmental groups pressed the justices to make the government act, saying the country faces grave environmental harm.
Inaction is like lighting ''a fuse on a bomb,'' said James Milkey, an assistant attorney general for the state of Massachusetts.
Opening up an hour of arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, ''When is the predicted cataclysm?''
It's not cataclysmic, but rather ''ongoing harm,'' Milkey replied.
Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, representing the Bush administration, cautioned justices that EPA regulation could have a significant economic impact on the United States since 85 percent of the U.S. economy is tied to sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Garre also argued that EPA was right not to act given ''the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change.''
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Labels: Climate Change, New York Times, SCOTUS
¶ 08:05 0 comments
Pro-Peace Symbol Forces Win Battle in Colorado Town (NYTimes.com)
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: November 29, 2006
DENVER, Nov. 28 — Peace is fighting back in Pagosa Springs.
Skip to next paragraph
Last week, a couple were threatened with fines of $25 a day by their homeowners’ association unless they removed a four-foot wreath shaped like a peace symbol from the front of their house.
The fines have been dropped, and the three-member board of the association has resigned, according to an e-mail message sent to residents on Monday.
Two board members have disconnected their telephones, apparently to escape the waves of callers asking what the board could have been thinking, residents said. The third board member, with a working phone, did not return a call for comment.
In its original letter to the couple, Lisa Jensen and Bill Trimarco, the association said some neighbors had found the peace symbol politically “divisive.”
A board member later told a newspaper that he thought the familiar circle with angled lines was also, perhaps, a sign of the devil.
The peace symbol came to prominence in the late 1950s as the logo for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a British antiwar group, according to the group’s Web site. It incorporates the semaphore flag images for the letters in the group’s name, a “D” atop an “N.”
Other people have said the upright line with arms angled down, commonplace in the United States in the Vietnam War, especially, has roots in the early Christian era, representing a twisted or broken cross.
Mr. Trimarco said he put up the wreath as a general symbol of peace on earth, not as a commentary on the Iraq war or another political statement.
In any case, there are now more peace symbols in Pagosa Springs, a town of 1,700 people 200 miles southwest of Denver, than probably ever in its history.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Published: November 29, 2006
DENVER, Nov. 28 — Peace is fighting back in Pagosa Springs.
Skip to next paragraph
Last week, a couple were threatened with fines of $25 a day by their homeowners’ association unless they removed a four-foot wreath shaped like a peace symbol from the front of their house.
The fines have been dropped, and the three-member board of the association has resigned, according to an e-mail message sent to residents on Monday.
Two board members have disconnected their telephones, apparently to escape the waves of callers asking what the board could have been thinking, residents said. The third board member, with a working phone, did not return a call for comment.
In its original letter to the couple, Lisa Jensen and Bill Trimarco, the association said some neighbors had found the peace symbol politically “divisive.”
A board member later told a newspaper that he thought the familiar circle with angled lines was also, perhaps, a sign of the devil.
The peace symbol came to prominence in the late 1950s as the logo for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a British antiwar group, according to the group’s Web site. It incorporates the semaphore flag images for the letters in the group’s name, a “D” atop an “N.”
Other people have said the upright line with arms angled down, commonplace in the United States in the Vietnam War, especially, has roots in the early Christian era, representing a twisted or broken cross.
Mr. Trimarco said he put up the wreath as a general symbol of peace on earth, not as a commentary on the Iraq war or another political statement.
In any case, there are now more peace symbols in Pagosa Springs, a town of 1,700 people 200 miles southwest of Denver, than probably ever in its history.
(More ... New York Times > U.S. > Politics)
Labels: Iraq, New York Times
¶ 08:01 0 comments
11.29.2006
Vote Disparity Still a Mystery In Fla. Election For Congress (WashingtonPost.com)
By Peter Whoriskey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; Page A03
SARASOTA, Fla., Nov. 28 -- Almost since the time the votes were tallied here on election night, the race for Florida's 13th Congressional District has been surrounded by a contentious mystery:
Why were there no votes for Congress recorded from more than 18,000 people who chose candidates in other races?
The answer is central not only to the outcome of the election, which for now has been won by Republican Vern Buchanan by a mere 369 votes and is in litigation, but also to the ongoing debates over whether the electronic voting systems in use nationwide can yield reliable tallies and recounts. Coincidentally, the latest dust-up has occurred in the contest for the seat being vacated by Katherine Harris, who presided over Florida's election apparatus during the much-disputed 2000 contest between President Bush and former vice president Al Gore.
So far, there are three theories, and lots of political and legal posturing.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics > Elections)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; Page A03
SARASOTA, Fla., Nov. 28 -- Almost since the time the votes were tallied here on election night, the race for Florida's 13th Congressional District has been surrounded by a contentious mystery:
Why were there no votes for Congress recorded from more than 18,000 people who chose candidates in other races?
The answer is central not only to the outcome of the election, which for now has been won by Republican Vern Buchanan by a mere 369 votes and is in litigation, but also to the ongoing debates over whether the electronic voting systems in use nationwide can yield reliable tallies and recounts. Coincidentally, the latest dust-up has occurred in the contest for the seat being vacated by Katherine Harris, who presided over Florida's election apparatus during the much-disputed 2000 contest between President Bush and former vice president Al Gore.
So far, there are three theories, and lots of political and legal posturing.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics > Elections)
Labels: 2006 election, blackbox voting, Washington Post
¶ 20:29 0 comments
11.28.2006
What, No Tipping the People’s Servants? (NYTimes.com)
By DOROTHY SAMUELS
Published: November 27, 2006
If you think Washington’s culture of corruption is bad now and couldn’t get appreciably worse, my hunch is you don’t know about United States v. Valdes. This pending federal case could end up making it legal for public officials to accept gratuities for granting certain types of favored government treatment.
I know, you’re thinking that I must be exaggerating. Stuffing the pockets of government officials with cash to gain some sort of edge is plainly against the law, right? I’ve always thought so. That is, I did until last February, when a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, splitting 2 to 1, overturned the conviction of a former District of Columbia police detective named Nelson Valdes.
The basic facts are not in dispute. In an effort to cover influence-peddling that may not rise to bribery, the federal gratuities law makes it a crime for a public official to seek or receive “anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed.”
Mr. Valdes became an apparent violator by accepting hundreds of dollars in cash as reward for delving into computerized police records to obtain vehicle-registration and arrest-warrant information on drivers at the request of someone who — surprise — turned out to be an F.B.I. informant. Indicted for bribery, the detective was convicted by a jury of the “lesser-included offense” of receiving an illegal gratuity.
Incredibly, the appellate panel tossed out the conviction, finding the anti-gratuities prohibition didn’t apply because Mr. Valdes’s granting of preferential access to police information lacked a sufficiently “formal” relationship to a decision or action in fulfillment of his “official” public duties. Huh? Mr. Valdes enjoyed access to the police database only because of his official status. And it’s not as if researching the background of individuals is removed from a cop’s day-to-day job. Police officers do it every time they write a traffic ticket.
(More ... New York Times > OpEd > Editorial Observer)
Published: November 27, 2006
If you think Washington’s culture of corruption is bad now and couldn’t get appreciably worse, my hunch is you don’t know about United States v. Valdes. This pending federal case could end up making it legal for public officials to accept gratuities for granting certain types of favored government treatment.
I know, you’re thinking that I must be exaggerating. Stuffing the pockets of government officials with cash to gain some sort of edge is plainly against the law, right? I’ve always thought so. That is, I did until last February, when a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, splitting 2 to 1, overturned the conviction of a former District of Columbia police detective named Nelson Valdes.
The basic facts are not in dispute. In an effort to cover influence-peddling that may not rise to bribery, the federal gratuities law makes it a crime for a public official to seek or receive “anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed.”
Mr. Valdes became an apparent violator by accepting hundreds of dollars in cash as reward for delving into computerized police records to obtain vehicle-registration and arrest-warrant information on drivers at the request of someone who — surprise — turned out to be an F.B.I. informant. Indicted for bribery, the detective was convicted by a jury of the “lesser-included offense” of receiving an illegal gratuity.
Incredibly, the appellate panel tossed out the conviction, finding the anti-gratuities prohibition didn’t apply because Mr. Valdes’s granting of preferential access to police information lacked a sufficiently “formal” relationship to a decision or action in fulfillment of his “official” public duties. Huh? Mr. Valdes enjoyed access to the police database only because of his official status. And it’s not as if researching the background of individuals is removed from a cop’s day-to-day job. Police officers do it every time they write a traffic ticket.
(More ... New York Times > OpEd > Editorial Observer)
Labels: New York Times, Opinion
¶ 07:41 1 comments
11.25.2006
Iraq A Moral Blunder, Says War Hero (Australian.com.au)
Patrick Walters, National security editor
November 25, 2006
THE former SAS officer who devised and executed the Iraq war plan for Australia's special forces says that the nation's involvement has been a strategic and moral blunder.
Peter Tinley, who was decorated for his military service in Afghanistan and Iraq, has broken ranks to condemn the Howard Government over its handling of the war and has called for an immediate withdrawal of Australian troops.
"It was a cynical use of the Australian Defence Force by the Government," the ex-SAS operations officer told The Weekend Australian yesterday.
"This war duped the Australian Defence Force and the Australian people in terms of thinking it was in some way legitimate."
As the lead tactical planner for Australia's special forces in the US in late 2002, Mr Tinley was in a unique position to observe intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and the coalition's military preparations in the lead-up to the war.
Mr Tinley, 44, who retired from the army last year after a distinguished 25-year career, said the US-led coalition had been naive in its thinking about what it could achieve after a quick military invasion of Iraq.
"They never had enough troops to fully lock down the major centres and infrastructure or the borders," he said.
(More ... The Australian > Iraq a moral blunder, says war hero)
November 25, 2006
THE former SAS officer who devised and executed the Iraq war plan for Australia's special forces says that the nation's involvement has been a strategic and moral blunder.
Peter Tinley, who was decorated for his military service in Afghanistan and Iraq, has broken ranks to condemn the Howard Government over its handling of the war and has called for an immediate withdrawal of Australian troops.
"It was a cynical use of the Australian Defence Force by the Government," the ex-SAS operations officer told The Weekend Australian yesterday.
"This war duped the Australian Defence Force and the Australian people in terms of thinking it was in some way legitimate."
As the lead tactical planner for Australia's special forces in the US in late 2002, Mr Tinley was in a unique position to observe intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and the coalition's military preparations in the lead-up to the war.
Mr Tinley, 44, who retired from the army last year after a distinguished 25-year career, said the US-led coalition had been naive in its thinking about what it could achieve after a quick military invasion of Iraq.
"They never had enough troops to fully lock down the major centres and infrastructure or the borders," he said.
(More ... The Australian > Iraq a moral blunder, says war hero)
Labels: Iraq, The Australian
¶ 22:57 0 comments
11.23.2006
How To Be Big John (Slate.com)
Five challenges for front-runner McCain.
By John Dickerson
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2006, at 6:39 PM ET
In 2000, John McCain's top advisers could fit in the back cabin of the Straight Talk Express. They often did. For his 2008 presidential race, there will be enough of them that they'll need their own bus, or maybe two. McCain's 2000 campaign Web site was colorful and displayed photos from his flyboy days; now it's black and white, sober and presidential.
These changes are just some of the small ones that come with being at the top of the list of men hoping to win the Republican Party's presidential nomination. McCain may not top every early poll, but he is the front-runner. No other candidate has his organization, experience, fan base, and staff talent. To cement his standing, he delivered two speeches after Election Day to conservative organizations GOPAC and the Federalist Society. Why is he hustling so hard? Because he will be far more closely scrutinized and tested than he was last time. Here are five reasons he'll maybe wish he could go back to being an insurgent:
(More ... Slate > Politics > Five challenges for front-runner McCain)
By John Dickerson
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2006, at 6:39 PM ET
In 2000, John McCain's top advisers could fit in the back cabin of the Straight Talk Express. They often did. For his 2008 presidential race, there will be enough of them that they'll need their own bus, or maybe two. McCain's 2000 campaign Web site was colorful and displayed photos from his flyboy days; now it's black and white, sober and presidential.
These changes are just some of the small ones that come with being at the top of the list of men hoping to win the Republican Party's presidential nomination. McCain may not top every early poll, but he is the front-runner. No other candidate has his organization, experience, fan base, and staff talent. To cement his standing, he delivered two speeches after Election Day to conservative organizations GOPAC and the Federalist Society. Why is he hustling so hard? Because he will be far more closely scrutinized and tested than he was last time. Here are five reasons he'll maybe wish he could go back to being an insurgent:
(More ... Slate > Politics > Five challenges for front-runner McCain)
Labels: 2008 election, McCain, Slate
¶ 18:38 0 comments
Most Americans Favour Guest-worker Programme: Poll (Reuters.com)
Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:02am ET144
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Most Americans believe illegal immigrants should be allowed to become guest workers and eventually U.S. citizens, but Congress should do more to close the border to stop more illegals entering the country, according to a new poll published on Tuesday.
The nationwide poll, conducted by Quinnipiac University, found that by a margin of 69 percent to 27 percent, American voters say illegal immigrants should be allowed into a guest worker program with the ability to work toward citizenship over a period of several years. Such a guest worker program had wide support among voters of all political stripes.
But 71 percent of voters said Congress must do more to deal with illegal immigrants entering the country.
"Two-thirds of Americans favor a guest-worker program with a path to citizenship," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Maybe a lot of Americans think back to the stories of their own immigrant families."
"But Americans also want to close the borders to keep out illegal immigrants in the future," Carroll added. "There are big margins for a tougher border policy among all parties and among men and women."
Sixty-five percent of American voters support -- and 32 percent oppose -- laws in their own community to fine businesses hiring illegal immigrants, according to the poll.
"Americans think more needs to be done to deal with illegal immigration, and they want it done in their own neighborhoods as well," Carroll said.
(More ... Reuters > News > Politics > Most Americans favor guest-worker program: poll)
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Most Americans believe illegal immigrants should be allowed to become guest workers and eventually U.S. citizens, but Congress should do more to close the border to stop more illegals entering the country, according to a new poll published on Tuesday.
The nationwide poll, conducted by Quinnipiac University, found that by a margin of 69 percent to 27 percent, American voters say illegal immigrants should be allowed into a guest worker program with the ability to work toward citizenship over a period of several years. Such a guest worker program had wide support among voters of all political stripes.
But 71 percent of voters said Congress must do more to deal with illegal immigrants entering the country.
"Two-thirds of Americans favor a guest-worker program with a path to citizenship," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Maybe a lot of Americans think back to the stories of their own immigrant families."
"But Americans also want to close the borders to keep out illegal immigrants in the future," Carroll added. "There are big margins for a tougher border policy among all parties and among men and women."
Sixty-five percent of American voters support -- and 32 percent oppose -- laws in their own community to fine businesses hiring illegal immigrants, according to the poll.
"Americans think more needs to be done to deal with illegal immigration, and they want it done in their own neighborhoods as well," Carroll said.
(More ... Reuters > News > Politics > Most Americans favor guest-worker program: poll)
Labels: immigration, poll, Reuters
¶ 18:18 0 comments
US Could Bomb Iran Nuclear Sites in 2007: Analysts (CommonDreams.org)
22 November 2006
Agence France Press
President George W. Bush could choose military action over diplomacy and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities next year, political analysts in Washington agree.
"I think he is going to do it," John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a military issues think tank, told AFP.
"They are going to bomb WMD facilities next summer," he added, referring to nuclear facilities Iran says are for peaceful uses and Washington insists are really intended to make nuclear bombs, or weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
"It would be a limited military action to destroy their WMD capabilities" added the analyst, believing a US military invasion of Iran is not on the table.
US journalist Seymour Hersh also said at the weekend that White House hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney were intent on attacking Iran with or without the approval of the US Congress, both houses of which switch from Republican to Democratic control in January after the November 7 legislative elections.
The New Yorker weekly published an article by Hersh saying that one month before the elections, Cheney held a meeting on Iran in which he said the military option would never be discarded.
(More ... Common Dreams > Agence France Press > US Could Bomb Iran Nuclear Sites in 2007: Analysts)
Agence France Press
President George W. Bush could choose military action over diplomacy and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities next year, political analysts in Washington agree.
"I think he is going to do it," John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a military issues think tank, told AFP.
"They are going to bomb WMD facilities next summer," he added, referring to nuclear facilities Iran says are for peaceful uses and Washington insists are really intended to make nuclear bombs, or weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
"It would be a limited military action to destroy their WMD capabilities" added the analyst, believing a US military invasion of Iran is not on the table.
US journalist Seymour Hersh also said at the weekend that White House hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney were intent on attacking Iran with or without the approval of the US Congress, both houses of which switch from Republican to Democratic control in January after the November 7 legislative elections.
The New Yorker weekly published an article by Hersh saying that one month before the elections, Cheney held a meeting on Iran in which he said the military option would never be discarded.
(More ... Common Dreams > Agence France Press > US Could Bomb Iran Nuclear Sites in 2007: Analysts)
Labels: AFP, Iran, nuclear proliferation
¶ 18:12 0 comments
11.19.2006
Embittered Insides Turn Against Bush (WashingtonPost.com)
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 19, 2006; Page A01
The weekend after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, Kenneth Adelman and a couple of other promoters of the Iraq war gathered at Vice President Cheney's residence to celebrate. The invasion had been the "cakewalk" Adelman predicted. Cheney and his guests raised their glasses, toasting President Bush and victory. "It was a euphoric moment," Adelman recalled.
Forty-three months later, the cakewalk looks more like a death march, and Adelman has broken with the Bush team. He had an angry falling-out with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this fall. He and Cheney are no longer on speaking terms. And he believes that "the president is ultimately responsible" for what Adelman now calls "the debacle that was Iraq."
Adelman, a former Reagan administration official and onetime member of the Iraq war brain trust, is only the latest voice from inside the Bush circle to speak out against the president or his policies. Heading into the final chapter of his presidency, fresh from the sting of a midterm election defeat, Bush finds himself with fewer and fewer friends. Some of the strongest supporters of the war have grown disenchanted, former insiders are registering public dissent and Republicans on Capitol Hill blame him for losing Congress.
A certain weary crankiness sets in with any administration after six years. By this point in Bill Clinton's tenure, bitter Democrats were competing to denounce his behavior with an intern even as they were trying to fight off his impeachment. Ronald Reagan was deep in the throes of the Iran-contra scandal. But Bush's strained relations with erstwhile friends and allies take on an extra edge of bitterness amid the dashed hopes of the Iraq venture.
"There are a lot of lives that are lost," Adelman said in an interview last week. "A country's at stake. A region's at stake. This is a gigantic situation. . . . This didn't have to be managed this bad. It's just awful."
The sense of Bush abandonment accelerated during the final weeks of the campaign with the publication of a former aide's book accusing the White House of moral hypocrisy and with Vanity Fair quoting Adelman, Richard N. Perle and other neoconservatives assailing White House leadership of the war.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics > Embittered Insides Turn Against Bush)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 19, 2006; Page A01
The weekend after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, Kenneth Adelman and a couple of other promoters of the Iraq war gathered at Vice President Cheney's residence to celebrate. The invasion had been the "cakewalk" Adelman predicted. Cheney and his guests raised their glasses, toasting President Bush and victory. "It was a euphoric moment," Adelman recalled.
Forty-three months later, the cakewalk looks more like a death march, and Adelman has broken with the Bush team. He had an angry falling-out with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this fall. He and Cheney are no longer on speaking terms. And he believes that "the president is ultimately responsible" for what Adelman now calls "the debacle that was Iraq."
Adelman, a former Reagan administration official and onetime member of the Iraq war brain trust, is only the latest voice from inside the Bush circle to speak out against the president or his policies. Heading into the final chapter of his presidency, fresh from the sting of a midterm election defeat, Bush finds himself with fewer and fewer friends. Some of the strongest supporters of the war have grown disenchanted, former insiders are registering public dissent and Republicans on Capitol Hill blame him for losing Congress.
A certain weary crankiness sets in with any administration after six years. By this point in Bill Clinton's tenure, bitter Democrats were competing to denounce his behavior with an intern even as they were trying to fight off his impeachment. Ronald Reagan was deep in the throes of the Iran-contra scandal. But Bush's strained relations with erstwhile friends and allies take on an extra edge of bitterness amid the dashed hopes of the Iraq venture.
"There are a lot of lives that are lost," Adelman said in an interview last week. "A country's at stake. A region's at stake. This is a gigantic situation. . . . This didn't have to be managed this bad. It's just awful."
The sense of Bush abandonment accelerated during the final weeks of the campaign with the publication of a former aide's book accusing the White House of moral hypocrisy and with Vanity Fair quoting Adelman, Richard N. Perle and other neoconservatives assailing White House leadership of the war.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics > Embittered Insides Turn Against Bush)
Labels: Bush, Iraq, Washington Post
¶ 20:11 0 comments
Chertoff Says U.S. Threatened by International Law (Reuters.com)
Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:31pm ET
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Bush administration official on Friday said the European Union, the United Nations and other international entities increasingly are using international law to challenge U.S. powers to reject treaties and protect itself from attack.
"International law is being used as a rhetorical weapon against us," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal appellate judge, said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative policy group.
Chertoff cited members of the European Parliament in particular as harboring an "increasingly activist, left-wing and even elitist philosophy of law" at odds with American practices and interests.
Game Console Wars
Photo
The video game industry's own clash of the titans reboots this week with the midnight launch of Sony's PlayStation 3 and Sunday's debut of Nintendo's Wii.
Full coverage
But he said the same pattern could be seen in the policies of the United Nations and other international bodies.
"What we see here is a vision of international law that if taken aggressively would literally strike at the heart of some of our basic fundamental principals -- separation of powers, respect for the Senate's ability to ratify treaties and ... reject treaties," Chertoff said.
President George W. Bush's administration has been repeatedly criticized by rights groups and foreign governments, including some allies, over some of the tactics it has used in Washington's war on terrorism since the September 11 attacks.
Critics have aimed at Bush's policies such as the indefinite detention of foreign terrorism suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
(More ... Reuters > News > Politics > Article)
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Bush administration official on Friday said the European Union, the United Nations and other international entities increasingly are using international law to challenge U.S. powers to reject treaties and protect itself from attack.
"International law is being used as a rhetorical weapon against us," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal appellate judge, said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative policy group.
Chertoff cited members of the European Parliament in particular as harboring an "increasingly activist, left-wing and even elitist philosophy of law" at odds with American practices and interests.
Game Console Wars
Photo
The video game industry's own clash of the titans reboots this week with the midnight launch of Sony's PlayStation 3 and Sunday's debut of Nintendo's Wii.
Full coverage
But he said the same pattern could be seen in the policies of the United Nations and other international bodies.
"What we see here is a vision of international law that if taken aggressively would literally strike at the heart of some of our basic fundamental principals -- separation of powers, respect for the Senate's ability to ratify treaties and ... reject treaties," Chertoff said.
President George W. Bush's administration has been repeatedly criticized by rights groups and foreign governments, including some allies, over some of the tactics it has used in Washington's war on terrorism since the September 11 attacks.
Critics have aimed at Bush's policies such as the indefinite detention of foreign terrorism suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
(More ... Reuters > News > Politics > Article)
Labels: Homeland Security, International Law, Reuters
¶ 19:45 0 comments
11.18.2006
Michael Moore's Pledge (LATimes.com)
The liberal filmmaker extends an olive branch to disheartened conservatives.
By Michael Moore, MICHAEL MOORE directed the Oscar-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11." His next film, "Sicko," will be released this summer.
November 17, 2006
I WOULD LIKE TO extend an olive branch. Those of you who consider yourselves conservative and usually vote Republican have not had a very good couple of weeks. Trust me, I know how this feels.
In fact, those of us on the other side of the fence don't really know what it's like to win, so if we seem a bit awkward right now (were we supposed to vote for the majority leader the speaker said to vote for, or stick to our promise to the other guy?), forgive us.
I know you are dismayed at the results of last week's election. You've got to be freaking out about what this bunch of tree-hugging, latte-sipping, men-kissing-men advocates will do now that the country is in our hands. I don't blame you. We'd never admit it, but we secretly admire you because you know how to chop down a tree, take your coffee black and enjoy watching women kissing women. Good on you!
What I don't want is for you to drop into the deep funk we liberals have been in for two-plus decades. Yes, your Republican revolution is over, but hang in there. And do not despair. I, and the millions who voted for Democrats, have no interest in revenge for the last 12 years. In fact, let me make 12 promises as to how we will treat you, the minority, in the coming years.
(More ... Los Angeles Times > OpED > Opinion > Michael Moore)
By Michael Moore, MICHAEL MOORE directed the Oscar-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11." His next film, "Sicko," will be released this summer.
November 17, 2006
I WOULD LIKE TO extend an olive branch. Those of you who consider yourselves conservative and usually vote Republican have not had a very good couple of weeks. Trust me, I know how this feels.
In fact, those of us on the other side of the fence don't really know what it's like to win, so if we seem a bit awkward right now (were we supposed to vote for the majority leader the speaker said to vote for, or stick to our promise to the other guy?), forgive us.
I know you are dismayed at the results of last week's election. You've got to be freaking out about what this bunch of tree-hugging, latte-sipping, men-kissing-men advocates will do now that the country is in our hands. I don't blame you. We'd never admit it, but we secretly admire you because you know how to chop down a tree, take your coffee black and enjoy watching women kissing women. Good on you!
What I don't want is for you to drop into the deep funk we liberals have been in for two-plus decades. Yes, your Republican revolution is over, but hang in there. And do not despair. I, and the millions who voted for Democrats, have no interest in revenge for the last 12 years. In fact, let me make 12 promises as to how we will treat you, the minority, in the coming years.
(More ... Los Angeles Times > OpED > Opinion > Michael Moore)
Labels: 2006 election, LATimes, Michael Moore, Opinion
¶ 10:00 0 comments
11.16.2006
US Rejects Annan Call to Reduce Geenhouse Gases (Reuters.com)
Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:05am ET
NAIROBI (Reuters) - The United States rejected on Wednesday a plea by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to cut emissions of greenhouse gases and to join the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol on fighting global warming.
"We think that the United States has been leading in terms of its ground-breaking initiatives," Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, told a news conference during November 6-17 U.N. talks on combating global warming.
Earlier, Annan told environment ministers from 70 nations that there was a "shocking lack of leadership" in cutting emissions. He also said: "I think it would be preferable if they (the United States) signed the Kyoto agreement."
Dobriansky said that the United States was sticking to its goal of braking, rather than capping, the rise in emissions and investing heavily in new technologies to fight global warming.
"We seek to slow, reverse and to really curb emissions," she said.
President George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying that caps on emissions of greenhouse gases would cost U.S. jobs and wrongly excluded developing nations from targets for 2012.
(More ... Reuters > News > U.S. > Article)
NAIROBI (Reuters) - The United States rejected on Wednesday a plea by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to cut emissions of greenhouse gases and to join the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol on fighting global warming.
"We think that the United States has been leading in terms of its ground-breaking initiatives," Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, told a news conference during November 6-17 U.N. talks on combating global warming.
Earlier, Annan told environment ministers from 70 nations that there was a "shocking lack of leadership" in cutting emissions. He also said: "I think it would be preferable if they (the United States) signed the Kyoto agreement."
Dobriansky said that the United States was sticking to its goal of braking, rather than capping, the rise in emissions and investing heavily in new technologies to fight global warming.
"We seek to slow, reverse and to really curb emissions," she said.
President George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying that caps on emissions of greenhouse gases would cost U.S. jobs and wrongly excluded developing nations from targets for 2012.
(More ... Reuters > News > U.S. > Article)
Labels: Annan, Bush, Climate Change, Reuters, UN
¶ 07:58 0 comments
UN's Annan Launches Plan to Help Africa on Climate (Reuters.com)
By Daniel Wallis and Gerard Wynn
NAIROBI, Nov 15 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan launched a plan on Wednesday to help Africa fight global warming, and criticised a "frightening lack of leadership" in confronting what he called one of the world's biggest threats.
"Global climate change must take its place alongside those threats -- conflict, poverty, the proliferation of deadly weapons -- that have traditionally monopolised first-order political attention," he told ministers at a U.N. conference.
Annan announced the plan by six U.N. agencies called the "Nairobi Framework" to help developing nations, especially in Africa, get more funds to promote clean energies such as wind and hydropower. He urged rich donor nations to contribute.
Annan also said the U.N.'s environment and development agencies were launching a scheme to help poor nations factor climate change into development plans, such as building roads, bridges or buildings to withstand more floods or droughts.
"Climate change is not just an environmental issue, as too many people still believe. It is an all-encompassing threat," he said at the talks, which are seeking ways to extend the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol on fighting climate change beyond 2012.
"While the Kyoto Protocol is a crucial step forward, that step is far too small. And as we consider how to go further still, there remains a frightening lack of leadership," he said.
Annan, a Ghanaian who will step down from his U.N. post in December, did not mention any country by name in his address to environment ministers from about 100 nations.
(More ... Reuters > News > World Crises > Article)
NAIROBI, Nov 15 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan launched a plan on Wednesday to help Africa fight global warming, and criticised a "frightening lack of leadership" in confronting what he called one of the world's biggest threats.
"Global climate change must take its place alongside those threats -- conflict, poverty, the proliferation of deadly weapons -- that have traditionally monopolised first-order political attention," he told ministers at a U.N. conference.
Annan announced the plan by six U.N. agencies called the "Nairobi Framework" to help developing nations, especially in Africa, get more funds to promote clean energies such as wind and hydropower. He urged rich donor nations to contribute.
Annan also said the U.N.'s environment and development agencies were launching a scheme to help poor nations factor climate change into development plans, such as building roads, bridges or buildings to withstand more floods or droughts.
"Climate change is not just an environmental issue, as too many people still believe. It is an all-encompassing threat," he said at the talks, which are seeking ways to extend the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol on fighting climate change beyond 2012.
"While the Kyoto Protocol is a crucial step forward, that step is far too small. And as we consider how to go further still, there remains a frightening lack of leadership," he said.
Annan, a Ghanaian who will step down from his U.N. post in December, did not mention any country by name in his address to environment ministers from about 100 nations.
(More ... Reuters > News > World Crises > Article)
Labels: Annan, Climate Change, Reuters, UN
¶ 07:55 0 comments
11.15.2006
Rumsfeld Faces German Legal Test (news.BBC.co.uk)
Tuesday, 14 November 2006, 12:39 GMT
A lawyers' group has asked Germany to sue former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over alleged prisoner abuse in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
The complaint was filed by the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of a Saudi man held in Cuba and 11 Iraqis held in Baghdad.
German law allows the pursuit of cases originating anywhere in the world.
State prosecutors have yet to decide whether to pursue the case. An earlier request for a case in 2004 was dropped.
Michael Ratner, the centre's president, said he felt the case had a better chance of success now because Mr Rumsfeld was no longer in office and could not exert the same degree of "political pressure".
He added that the centre had more evidence than it did in 2004, citing the case of a detained Saudi national, Mohamad al-Qahtani.
"Al-Qahtani was a man who the US alleged is al-Qaeda, who is in Guantanamo. The entire torture log of al-Qahtani over a period of two months was exposed," Mr Ratner told the BBC.
(More ... BBC World Service > Rumsfeld Faces German Legal Test)
A lawyers' group has asked Germany to sue former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over alleged prisoner abuse in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
The complaint was filed by the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of a Saudi man held in Cuba and 11 Iraqis held in Baghdad.
German law allows the pursuit of cases originating anywhere in the world.
State prosecutors have yet to decide whether to pursue the case. An earlier request for a case in 2004 was dropped.
Michael Ratner, the centre's president, said he felt the case had a better chance of success now because Mr Rumsfeld was no longer in office and could not exert the same degree of "political pressure".
He added that the centre had more evidence than it did in 2004, citing the case of a detained Saudi national, Mohamad al-Qahtani.
"Al-Qahtani was a man who the US alleged is al-Qaeda, who is in Guantanamo. The entire torture log of al-Qahtani over a period of two months was exposed," Mr Ratner told the BBC.
(More ... BBC World Service > Rumsfeld Faces German Legal Test)
Labels: Guantanamo, Iraq, Rumsfeld, War Crimes
¶ 21:41 0 comments
11.14.2006
Pizza Anyone?
A pizza delivery company advertising billboard observed near the corner of Lincoln Road and Moorhouse Avenue in Christchurch just after the election ...
Labels: 2006 election
¶ 23:10 0 comments
11.12.2006
Hard Lessons All Round From America (Guardian.co.uk)
Leader
Sunday November 12, 2006
The Observer
Members of the US Congress have two basic functions: they should pass laws for the benefit of the people and they should exert constitutional restraint on the White House. Last week, voters judged their delegates to have failed on both counts. They had legislated to enrich themselves and their friends; they had not challenged a President who, after winning office on a slim majority, pursued a divisive, partisan agenda with aggressive ineptitude. Since a majority of congressmen were, like the President, Republicans, voters wanting a change gave control to the Democrats.
Top of the list of grievances was the Iraq war. Acknowledging the rebuke, President Bush sacked Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. His departure was overdue. Mr Rumsfeld refused before the war to make plans for the stabilisation and reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq. He believed the task would be easy and that there would be no need for a prolonged US military presence in the country. He was proved utterly wrong, but refused to acknowledge it. As long as Rumsfeld was in charge at the Pentagon, the political debate about what to do in Iraq was stifled. His departure will not change the situation on the ground, but it will end the denial. Recognising the reality that Iraq is in danger of collapsing into bloody chaos would be an improvement on the policy of pretending it is not.
The Democrats, while effective in their attacks on the White House, do not have other policies of their own for Iraq. American mothers want their soldier sons out of harm's way forthwith, but the politicians know that it is in neither US nor Iraqi interests to surrender the country to bloodthirsty militias and al-Qaeda mercenaries. Realism, in the short term at least, may mean more rather than less military engagement, targeting the militia leaders directly instead of waiting for the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to have them arrested when clearly he will not.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > The Observer > Leader)
Sunday November 12, 2006
The Observer
Members of the US Congress have two basic functions: they should pass laws for the benefit of the people and they should exert constitutional restraint on the White House. Last week, voters judged their delegates to have failed on both counts. They had legislated to enrich themselves and their friends; they had not challenged a President who, after winning office on a slim majority, pursued a divisive, partisan agenda with aggressive ineptitude. Since a majority of congressmen were, like the President, Republicans, voters wanting a change gave control to the Democrats.
Top of the list of grievances was the Iraq war. Acknowledging the rebuke, President Bush sacked Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. His departure was overdue. Mr Rumsfeld refused before the war to make plans for the stabilisation and reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq. He believed the task would be easy and that there would be no need for a prolonged US military presence in the country. He was proved utterly wrong, but refused to acknowledge it. As long as Rumsfeld was in charge at the Pentagon, the political debate about what to do in Iraq was stifled. His departure will not change the situation on the ground, but it will end the denial. Recognising the reality that Iraq is in danger of collapsing into bloody chaos would be an improvement on the policy of pretending it is not.
The Democrats, while effective in their attacks on the White House, do not have other policies of their own for Iraq. American mothers want their soldier sons out of harm's way forthwith, but the politicians know that it is in neither US nor Iraqi interests to surrender the country to bloodthirsty militias and al-Qaeda mercenaries. Realism, in the short term at least, may mean more rather than less military engagement, targeting the militia leaders directly instead of waiting for the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to have them arrested when clearly he will not.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > The Observer > Leader)
Labels: 2006 election, Guardian, Iraq, Opinion
¶ 19:36 0 comments
11.10.2006
Democrats Take Control of Senate As Allen Concedes to Webb in Va. (WashingtonPost.com)
Victor Vows New Approach To Iraq War
By Michael D. Shear and Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 10, 2006; Page A01
Democrat James Webb, who campaigned for Virginia's U.S. Senate seat by opposing the war in Iraq and calling for economic fairness, yesterday succeeded in his improbable bid to unseat Republican George Allen, giving the Democrats a 51-seat majority and control of both houses of Congress.
Webb's lead over Allen widened yesterday in the post-election vote canvass, and Allen graciously conceded to Webb to make the victory official. A short time later, Virginia's newest senator, who lives in Fairfax County, addressed a giddy crowd of hundreds of supporters in front of the Arlington County Courthouse.
His victory ended two days of suspense over which party would control the Senate. Going into Tuesday's election, the Democrats needed six seats for control, and it was Webb, a former Republican and Reagan administration official, who gave them the sixth seat.
"It is Virginia that turned the Senate blue," Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) told the cheering crowd.
Webb will take his place in a Congress in which Democrats will control both houses for the first time in 12 years.
(More ... Washington Post > Metro > Special Reports > Virginia Politics)
By Michael D. Shear and Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 10, 2006; Page A01
Democrat James Webb, who campaigned for Virginia's U.S. Senate seat by opposing the war in Iraq and calling for economic fairness, yesterday succeeded in his improbable bid to unseat Republican George Allen, giving the Democrats a 51-seat majority and control of both houses of Congress.
Webb's lead over Allen widened yesterday in the post-election vote canvass, and Allen graciously conceded to Webb to make the victory official. A short time later, Virginia's newest senator, who lives in Fairfax County, addressed a giddy crowd of hundreds of supporters in front of the Arlington County Courthouse.
His victory ended two days of suspense over which party would control the Senate. Going into Tuesday's election, the Democrats needed six seats for control, and it was Webb, a former Republican and Reagan administration official, who gave them the sixth seat.
"It is Virginia that turned the Senate blue," Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) told the cheering crowd.
Webb will take his place in a Congress in which Democrats will control both houses for the first time in 12 years.
(More ... Washington Post > Metro > Special Reports > Virginia Politics)
Labels: 2006 election, Senate, Virginia, Washington Post
¶ 19:37 0 comments
The Great Revulsion (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 10, 2006
I’m not feeling giddy as much as greatly relieved. O.K., maybe a little giddy. Give ’em hell, Harry and Nancy!
Here’s what I wrote more than three years ago, in the introduction to my column collection “The Great Unraveling”: “I have a vision — maybe just a hope — of a great revulsion: a moment in which the American people look at what is happening, realize how their good will and patriotism have been abused, and put a stop to this drive to destroy much of what is best in our country.”
At the time, the right was still celebrating the illusion of victory in Iraq, and the bizarre Bush personality cult was still in full flower. But now the great revulsion has arrived.
Tuesday’s election was a truly stunning victory for the Democrats. Candidates planning to caucus with the Democrats took 24 of the 33 Senate seats at stake this year, winning seven million more votes than Republicans. In House races, Democrats received about 53 percent of the two-party vote, giving them a margin more than twice as large as the 2.5-percentage-point lead that Mr. Bush claimed as a “mandate” two years ago — and the margin would have been even bigger if many Democrats hadn’t been running unopposed.
The election wasn’t just the end of the road for Mr. Bush’s reign of error. It was also the end of the 12-year Republican dominance of Congress. The Democrats will now hold a majority in the House that is about as big as the Republicans ever achieved during that era of dominance.
Moreover, the new Democratic majority may well be much more effective than the majority the party lost in 1994. Thanks to a great regional realignment, in which a solid Northeast has replaced the solid South, Democratic control no longer depends on a bloc of Dixiecrats whose ideological sympathies were often with the other side of the aisle.
Now, I don’t expect or want a permanent Democratic lock on power. But I do hope and believe that this election marks the beginning of the end for the conservative movement that has taken over the Republican Party.
(More ... New York Times > Opinion > Paul Krugman)
Published: November 10, 2006
I’m not feeling giddy as much as greatly relieved. O.K., maybe a little giddy. Give ’em hell, Harry and Nancy!
Here’s what I wrote more than three years ago, in the introduction to my column collection “The Great Unraveling”: “I have a vision — maybe just a hope — of a great revulsion: a moment in which the American people look at what is happening, realize how their good will and patriotism have been abused, and put a stop to this drive to destroy much of what is best in our country.”
At the time, the right was still celebrating the illusion of victory in Iraq, and the bizarre Bush personality cult was still in full flower. But now the great revulsion has arrived.
Tuesday’s election was a truly stunning victory for the Democrats. Candidates planning to caucus with the Democrats took 24 of the 33 Senate seats at stake this year, winning seven million more votes than Republicans. In House races, Democrats received about 53 percent of the two-party vote, giving them a margin more than twice as large as the 2.5-percentage-point lead that Mr. Bush claimed as a “mandate” two years ago — and the margin would have been even bigger if many Democrats hadn’t been running unopposed.
The election wasn’t just the end of the road for Mr. Bush’s reign of error. It was also the end of the 12-year Republican dominance of Congress. The Democrats will now hold a majority in the House that is about as big as the Republicans ever achieved during that era of dominance.
Moreover, the new Democratic majority may well be much more effective than the majority the party lost in 1994. Thanks to a great regional realignment, in which a solid Northeast has replaced the solid South, Democratic control no longer depends on a bloc of Dixiecrats whose ideological sympathies were often with the other side of the aisle.
Now, I don’t expect or want a permanent Democratic lock on power. But I do hope and believe that this election marks the beginning of the end for the conservative movement that has taken over the Republican Party.
(More ... New York Times > Opinion > Paul Krugman)
Labels: 2006 election, Krugman, New York Times, Opinion
¶ 19:11 0 comments
Regime Change (NZHerald.co.nz)
Today's editorial cartoon from Rod Emmerson:
Labels: 2006 election, Bush, editorial cartoons, NZ Herald
¶ 08:23 0 comments
Allen Expected to Concede Senate Race (NYTimes.com)
By CHRISTINE HAUSER and JOHN M. BRODER
Published: November 9, 2006
Senator George Allen is expected to concede his re-election campaign against his Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, later this afternoon, according to two Republicans connected to the Allen campaign.
Mr. Allen is scheduled to make a statement at 3 p.m. in Alexandria.
While the race officially was hanging in the balance today, there were already signs of the outcome of the closely watched elections race that will determine which party controls the United State Senate.
Many election analysts concluded that Senator Allen was unlikely to close the roughly 7,000 vote margin separating him from Mr. Webb, who has already claimed victory. And the Associated Press, a widely accepted authority for calling elections, agreed on Wednesday with Mr. Webb, declaring Mr. Allen, a Republican, the loser. A Webb victory gives the Democrats control of the Senate, with 51 seats.
A senior Allen adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity said on Wednesday that if the margin did not narrow significantly, Mr. Allen would not challenge the result.
(More ... New York Times > Politics > 2006 Election)
Published: November 9, 2006
Senator George Allen is expected to concede his re-election campaign against his Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, later this afternoon, according to two Republicans connected to the Allen campaign.
Mr. Allen is scheduled to make a statement at 3 p.m. in Alexandria.
While the race officially was hanging in the balance today, there were already signs of the outcome of the closely watched elections race that will determine which party controls the United State Senate.
Many election analysts concluded that Senator Allen was unlikely to close the roughly 7,000 vote margin separating him from Mr. Webb, who has already claimed victory. And the Associated Press, a widely accepted authority for calling elections, agreed on Wednesday with Mr. Webb, declaring Mr. Allen, a Republican, the loser. A Webb victory gives the Democrats control of the Senate, with 51 seats.
A senior Allen adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity said on Wednesday that if the margin did not narrow significantly, Mr. Allen would not challenge the result.
(More ... New York Times > Politics > 2006 Election)
Labels: 2006 election, New York Times, Senate
¶ 08:19 0 comments
11.09.2006
Democrats Close In on Senate (LATimes.com)
Republican election defeats and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's departure may signal Iraq policy changes.
By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
November 9, 2006
WASHINGTON — A day after discontent with the Iraq war prompted sweeping election defeats for the Republican Party, President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged voters had given him "a thumping" and said the chief architect of his military strategy, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, had resigned.
The announcement came hours after Democrats won a majority in the House for the first time in 12 years and seemed all but certain to take control of the Senate — barring unexpected changes in the vote totals in two states.
In the past, Bush repeatedly defended Rumsfeld, even as progress in the war stalled and as the Defense secretary, known for his confident and bristling manner, piled up critics in both parties. But on Wednesday, the president said he and Rumsfeld agreed that the Pentagon needed "fresh eyes."
"He himself understands that Iraq is not working well enough, fast enough," Bush said. He said he would nominate Robert M. Gates — who served as CIA director under Bush's father — as his new Defense secretary.
News that one of the most powerful figures in Washington was leaving office came as GOP hopes faded that they could win two close Senate races, in Virginia and Montana, that would decide control of the Senate.
Virginia officials had not confirmed final results, but the Associated Press declared that Democratic candidate Jim Webb had pulled off an upset victory based on new data from election officials in all 134 voting localities. But GOP Sen. George Allen refused to concede. His aides said they wanted to wait for election officials to complete a routine review of the vote totals, expected this week.
Earlier in the day, Montana officials declared Democrat Jon Tester the Senate race winner, but GOP Sen. Conrad Burns had not given in.
In Washington, Democratic leaders were expected to hold a news conference today to celebrate their apparent victories in the two races — which would give them 51 Senate seats to the Republicans' 49. The party has not held both chambers of Congress since 1994.
(More ... LA Times > Election 2006 > Voters Side With Democrats)
By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
November 9, 2006
WASHINGTON — A day after discontent with the Iraq war prompted sweeping election defeats for the Republican Party, President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged voters had given him "a thumping" and said the chief architect of his military strategy, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, had resigned.
The announcement came hours after Democrats won a majority in the House for the first time in 12 years and seemed all but certain to take control of the Senate — barring unexpected changes in the vote totals in two states.
In the past, Bush repeatedly defended Rumsfeld, even as progress in the war stalled and as the Defense secretary, known for his confident and bristling manner, piled up critics in both parties. But on Wednesday, the president said he and Rumsfeld agreed that the Pentagon needed "fresh eyes."
"He himself understands that Iraq is not working well enough, fast enough," Bush said. He said he would nominate Robert M. Gates — who served as CIA director under Bush's father — as his new Defense secretary.
News that one of the most powerful figures in Washington was leaving office came as GOP hopes faded that they could win two close Senate races, in Virginia and Montana, that would decide control of the Senate.
Virginia officials had not confirmed final results, but the Associated Press declared that Democratic candidate Jim Webb had pulled off an upset victory based on new data from election officials in all 134 voting localities. But GOP Sen. George Allen refused to concede. His aides said they wanted to wait for election officials to complete a routine review of the vote totals, expected this week.
Earlier in the day, Montana officials declared Democrat Jon Tester the Senate race winner, but GOP Sen. Conrad Burns had not given in.
In Washington, Democratic leaders were expected to hold a news conference today to celebrate their apparent victories in the two races — which would give them 51 Senate seats to the Republicans' 49. The party has not held both chambers of Congress since 1994.
(More ... LA Times > Election 2006 > Voters Side With Democrats)
Labels: 2006 election, Bush, House, LATimes, Rumsfeld, Senate
¶ 21:44 0 comments
Nuff Said (NZHerald.co.nz)
Rod Emmerson on 2006 American Mid-term Elections
Labels: 2006 election, editorial cartoons, NZ Herald
¶ 21:40 0 comments
American Dems in NZ Celebrating Victory (scoop.co.nz)
ROTORUA--Democrats living in New Zealand are rejoicing over the spectacular performance of Democratic Party candidates in the United States mid-term elections, which will see their favoured party’s candidates regain control of the United States House of Representatives.
Democrats Abroad New Zealand’s interim country committee chairperson, Mark Chubb of Christchurch, says , “This election was clearly a mandate on the failed policies of President George W. Bush’s administration and those of the Republic Party in Congress: The American people, including those millions of Americans living abroad -- an estimated 15-20,000 of whom live here in New Zealand, now have a chance to reclaim their country and its direction, especially in foreign affairs and the global economy.”
Mr Chubb, a native of Ohio, which played a pivotal role in the 2004 presidential election that saw George W. Bush returned to the White House, noted the overwhelming defeat suffered by Republican incumbents like Senator Michael DeWine.
“Mike DeWine started his political career as the prosecuting attorney in my home county. He’s a fundamentally decent man who I know cares deeply for his country and works hard for his constituents. Nevertheless, they voted overwhelming for his opponent, the former Ohio Secretary of State Sherrod Brown. Without taking anything away from Sherrod Brown, I think that says more about what Ohioans think of George W. Bush and the Republican Party than it does about how well they like Mike DeWine.”
(More ... Scoop Media > Politics > Articles)
Democrats Abroad New Zealand’s interim country committee chairperson, Mark Chubb of Christchurch, says , “This election was clearly a mandate on the failed policies of President George W. Bush’s administration and those of the Republic Party in Congress: The American people, including those millions of Americans living abroad -- an estimated 15-20,000 of whom live here in New Zealand, now have a chance to reclaim their country and its direction, especially in foreign affairs and the global economy.”
Mr Chubb, a native of Ohio, which played a pivotal role in the 2004 presidential election that saw George W. Bush returned to the White House, noted the overwhelming defeat suffered by Republican incumbents like Senator Michael DeWine.
“Mike DeWine started his political career as the prosecuting attorney in my home county. He’s a fundamentally decent man who I know cares deeply for his country and works hard for his constituents. Nevertheless, they voted overwhelming for his opponent, the former Ohio Secretary of State Sherrod Brown. Without taking anything away from Sherrod Brown, I think that says more about what Ohioans think of George W. Bush and the Republican Party than it does about how well they like Mike DeWine.”
(More ... Scoop Media > Politics > Articles)
Labels: 2006 election, media releases, Scoop
¶ 21:38 0 comments
Thank You, America (Guardian.co.uk)
Leader
Thursday November 9, 2006
The Guardian
For six years, latterly with the backing of both houses of a markedly conservative Republican Congress, George Bush has led an American administration that has played an unprecedentedly negative and polarising role in the world's affairs. On Tuesday, in the midterm US congressional elections, American voters rebuffed Mr Bush in spectacular style and with both instant and lasting political consequences. By large numbers and across almost every state of the union, the voters defeated Republican candidates and put the opposition Democrats back in charge of the House of Representatives for the first time in a dozen years.
When the remaining recounts and legal challenges are over, the Democrats may even have narrowly won control of the Senate too. Either way, the results change the political landscape in Washington for the final two years of this now thankfully diminished presidency. They also reassert a different and better United States that can again offer hope instead of despair to the world. Donald Rumsfeld's resignation last night was a fitting climax to the voters' verdict. Thank you, America.
In US domestic terms, the 2006 midterms bring to an end the 12 intensely divisive years of Republican House rule that began under Newt Gingrich in 1994. These have been years of zealously and confrontational conservative politics that have shocked the world and, under Mr Bush, have sent America's global standing plummeting. That long political hurricane has now at last blown itself out for a while, but not before leaving America with a terrible legacy that includes climate-change denial, the end of biological stem-cell research, an aid programme tied to abortion bans, a shockingly permissive gun culture, an embrace of capital punishment equalled only by some of the world's worst tyrannies, the impeachment of Bill Clinton and his replacement by a president who does not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The approval by voters in at least five more states of same-sex marriage bans - on top of 13 similar votes in 2004 - shows that culture-war politics are far from over.
Exit polls suggest that four issues counted most in these elections - corruption scandals, the economy, terrorism and Iraq. In the end, though, it was the continuing failure of the war in Iraq that has galvanised many Americans to do what much of the rest of the world had longed for them to do much earlier. It is too soon to say whether 2006 now marks a decisive rejection of the rest of the conservative agenda as well. Only those who do not know America well will imagine that it does.
The Democratic victory was very tight in many places, but its size should not be underestimated. November 7 was a decisive nationwide win for the progressive and moderate traditions in US political life. The final majority in the House will be at least 18. The recapture of the Senate, if it happens, will involve captures from the Republicans in the north-east, the north-west, the midwest and the south. The Democrats won seven new state governorships on Tuesday, including New York and Ohio, and now control a majority nationwide. Republican governors who held on, like Arnold Schwarzenegger in California and Charlie Crist in Florida, only did so by distancing themselves from Mr Bush. The statewide Democratic wins in Ohio give their 2008 presidential candidate a platform for doing what John Kerry failed to do in this crucial state in 2004.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Reports > Leader > US Midterm Elections)
Thursday November 9, 2006
The Guardian
For six years, latterly with the backing of both houses of a markedly conservative Republican Congress, George Bush has led an American administration that has played an unprecedentedly negative and polarising role in the world's affairs. On Tuesday, in the midterm US congressional elections, American voters rebuffed Mr Bush in spectacular style and with both instant and lasting political consequences. By large numbers and across almost every state of the union, the voters defeated Republican candidates and put the opposition Democrats back in charge of the House of Representatives for the first time in a dozen years.
When the remaining recounts and legal challenges are over, the Democrats may even have narrowly won control of the Senate too. Either way, the results change the political landscape in Washington for the final two years of this now thankfully diminished presidency. They also reassert a different and better United States that can again offer hope instead of despair to the world. Donald Rumsfeld's resignation last night was a fitting climax to the voters' verdict. Thank you, America.
In US domestic terms, the 2006 midterms bring to an end the 12 intensely divisive years of Republican House rule that began under Newt Gingrich in 1994. These have been years of zealously and confrontational conservative politics that have shocked the world and, under Mr Bush, have sent America's global standing plummeting. That long political hurricane has now at last blown itself out for a while, but not before leaving America with a terrible legacy that includes climate-change denial, the end of biological stem-cell research, an aid programme tied to abortion bans, a shockingly permissive gun culture, an embrace of capital punishment equalled only by some of the world's worst tyrannies, the impeachment of Bill Clinton and his replacement by a president who does not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The approval by voters in at least five more states of same-sex marriage bans - on top of 13 similar votes in 2004 - shows that culture-war politics are far from over.
Exit polls suggest that four issues counted most in these elections - corruption scandals, the economy, terrorism and Iraq. In the end, though, it was the continuing failure of the war in Iraq that has galvanised many Americans to do what much of the rest of the world had longed for them to do much earlier. It is too soon to say whether 2006 now marks a decisive rejection of the rest of the conservative agenda as well. Only those who do not know America well will imagine that it does.
The Democratic victory was very tight in many places, but its size should not be underestimated. November 7 was a decisive nationwide win for the progressive and moderate traditions in US political life. The final majority in the House will be at least 18. The recapture of the Senate, if it happens, will involve captures from the Republicans in the north-east, the north-west, the midwest and the south. The Democrats won seven new state governorships on Tuesday, including New York and Ohio, and now control a majority nationwide. Republican governors who held on, like Arnold Schwarzenegger in California and Charlie Crist in Florida, only did so by distancing themselves from Mr Bush. The statewide Democratic wins in Ohio give their 2008 presidential candidate a platform for doing what John Kerry failed to do in this crucial state in 2004.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > Special Reports > Leader > US Midterm Elections)
Labels: 2006 election, Opinion
¶ 21:31 0 comments
11.05.2006
British Believe Bush Is More Dangerous Than Kim Jong-il (Guradian.co.uk)
· US allies think Washington threat to world peace
· Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom
Julian Glover
Friday November 3, 2006
The Guardian
America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.
Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.
The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.
It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.
The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.
Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > World > U.S. > British Believe Bus Is More Dangerous Than Kim Jong-il)
· Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom
Julian Glover
Friday November 3, 2006
The Guardian
America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.
Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.
The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.
It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.
The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.
Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > World > U.S. > British Believe Bus Is More Dangerous Than Kim Jong-il)
Labels: 2006 election, Bush, Guardian, North Korea, nuclear proliferation, poll
¶ 22:28 0 comments
11.04.2006
Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer (NYTimes.com)
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: November 3, 2006
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”
Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.
Early this morning, a spokesman for Gregory L. Schulte, the American ambassador, denied that anyone from the agency had approached Mr. Schulte about the Web site.
But former White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said today that senior officials had been cautioned against posting the information.
“John Negroponte warned us that we don’t know what’s in these documents, so these are being put out at some risk, and that was a warning that he put out right when they first released the documents,” Mr. Card said on NBC’s “Today” show, according to The Associated Press.
The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.
“For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very irresponsible,” said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation’s nuclear arms program. “There’s a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are secret and should remain so.”
The government had received earlier warnings about the contents of the Web site. Last spring, after the site began posting old Iraqi documents about chemical weapons, United Nations arms-control officials in New York won the withdrawal of a report that gave information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by causing respiratory failure.
(More ... New York Times > World > Middle East > Web Archive IS Said To Reveal Nuclear Primer)
(See also ... Daily Kos > This stuff ought to be out! Put this stuff out!)
Published: November 3, 2006
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”
Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.
Early this morning, a spokesman for Gregory L. Schulte, the American ambassador, denied that anyone from the agency had approached Mr. Schulte about the Web site.
But former White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said today that senior officials had been cautioned against posting the information.
“John Negroponte warned us that we don’t know what’s in these documents, so these are being put out at some risk, and that was a warning that he put out right when they first released the documents,” Mr. Card said on NBC’s “Today” show, according to The Associated Press.
The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.
“For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very irresponsible,” said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation’s nuclear arms program. “There’s a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are secret and should remain so.”
The government had received earlier warnings about the contents of the Web site. Last spring, after the site began posting old Iraqi documents about chemical weapons, United Nations arms-control officials in New York won the withdrawal of a report that gave information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by causing respiratory failure.
(More ... New York Times > World > Middle East > Web Archive IS Said To Reveal Nuclear Primer)
(See also ... Daily Kos > This stuff ought to be out! Put this stuff out!)
Labels: Iraq, New York Times, nuclear secrets
¶ 18:23 0 comments
Neocons Turn on Bush for incompetence Over Iraq War (Guardian.co.uk)
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday November 4, 2006
The Guardian
Several prominent neoconservatives have turned on George Bush days before critical midterm elections, lambasting his administration for incompetence in the handling of the Iraq war and questioning the wisdom of the 2003 invasion they were instrumental in promoting.
Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, who were both Pentagon advisers before the war, Michael Rubin, a former senior official in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, were among the neoconservatives who recanted to Vanity Fair magazine in an article that could influence Tuesday's battle for the control of Congress. The Iraq war has been the dominant issue in the election.
"I think the influence will be on morale [among Republicans]," said Steven Clemons, the head of the American Strategy Programme at the New America Foundation. "I think they are confusing the right. What this is yielding is ambivalence, and people will stay at home."
Mr Perle, a member of the influential Defence Policy Board that advised the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in the run-up to the war, is as outspoken in denouncing the conduct of the war as he was once bullish on the invasion. He blamed "dysfunction" in the Bush administration for the present quagmire.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > World > US > Midterm Elections > Julian Borger)
Saturday November 4, 2006
The Guardian
Several prominent neoconservatives have turned on George Bush days before critical midterm elections, lambasting his administration for incompetence in the handling of the Iraq war and questioning the wisdom of the 2003 invasion they were instrumental in promoting.
Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, who were both Pentagon advisers before the war, Michael Rubin, a former senior official in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, were among the neoconservatives who recanted to Vanity Fair magazine in an article that could influence Tuesday's battle for the control of Congress. The Iraq war has been the dominant issue in the election.
"I think the influence will be on morale [among Republicans]," said Steven Clemons, the head of the American Strategy Programme at the New America Foundation. "I think they are confusing the right. What this is yielding is ambivalence, and people will stay at home."
Mr Perle, a member of the influential Defence Policy Board that advised the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in the run-up to the war, is as outspoken in denouncing the conduct of the war as he was once bullish on the invasion. He blamed "dysfunction" in the Bush administration for the present quagmire.
(More ... Guardian Unlimited > World > US > Midterm Elections > Julian Borger)
Labels: 2006 election, Guardian, Iraq
¶ 18:06 0 comments
As Bechtel Goes (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 3, 2006
Bechtel, the giant engineering company, is leaving Iraq. Its mission — to rebuild power, water and sewage plants — wasn’t accomplished: Baghdad received less than six hours a day of electricity last month, and much of Iraq’s population lives with untreated sewage and without clean water. But Bechtel, having received $2.3 billion of taxpayers’ money and having lost the lives of 52 employees, has come to the end of its last government contract.
As Bechtel goes, so goes the whole reconstruction effort. Whatever our leaders may say about their determination to stay the course complete the mission, when it comes to rebuilding Iraq they’ve already cut and run. The $21 billion allocated for reconstruction over the last three years has been spent, much of it on security rather than its intended purpose, and there’s no more money in the pipeline.
The failure of reconstruction in Iraq raises three questions. First, how much did that failure contribute to the overall failure of the war? Second, how was it that America, the great can-do nation, in this case couldn’t and didn’t? Finally, if we’ve given up on rebuilding Iraq, what are our troops dying for?
(More ... New York Times > Opinion > Paul Krugman > As Bechtel Goes)
Published: November 3, 2006
Bechtel, the giant engineering company, is leaving Iraq. Its mission — to rebuild power, water and sewage plants — wasn’t accomplished: Baghdad received less than six hours a day of electricity last month, and much of Iraq’s population lives with untreated sewage and without clean water. But Bechtel, having received $2.3 billion of taxpayers’ money and having lost the lives of 52 employees, has come to the end of its last government contract.
As Bechtel goes, so goes the whole reconstruction effort. Whatever our leaders may say about their determination to stay the course complete the mission, when it comes to rebuilding Iraq they’ve already cut and run. The $21 billion allocated for reconstruction over the last three years has been spent, much of it on security rather than its intended purpose, and there’s no more money in the pipeline.
The failure of reconstruction in Iraq raises three questions. First, how much did that failure contribute to the overall failure of the war? Second, how was it that America, the great can-do nation, in this case couldn’t and didn’t? Finally, if we’ve given up on rebuilding Iraq, what are our troops dying for?
(More ... New York Times > Opinion > Paul Krugman > As Bechtel Goes)
Labels: Iraq, Krugman, New York Times, Opinion
¶ 17:52 0 comments
