Sunday, January 29, 2006

Feds Tip Abramoff on Client's Case

    By Neil A. Lewis
    The New York Times

    Sunday 29 January 2006

    Washington - Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist at the center of a widening influence-peddling investigation, used a contact in the federal government to give an early warning to Tyco International, one of his clients, that its subsidiaries were about to be suspended from doing business with the government, according to a court filing.

    The document, filed Friday by federal prosecutors, asserts that David H. Safavian, the former chief of the General Services Administration who is under indictment, learned in November 2003 that four subsidiaries of Tyco were about to be suspended from obtaining government work. The filing, which was reported on Saturday by The Washington Post, said Mr. Safavian told Mr. Abramoff of the impending suspensions, along with some of the confidential discussions within his agency involving the issue.

    These "internal deliberations" were the basis of suggestions made to Tyco by Mr. Abramoff about how company officials might argue against the suspension.

    The information appears to be a result of the government's arrangement with Mr. Abramoff, who has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors as part of his guilty plea to conspiracy and fraud charges.

    Prosecutors included the information in a filing in the case against Mr. Safavian, who has been charged with making false statements to investigators about a 2002 golf trip to Scotland with Mr. Abramoff. They said it showed a fuller picture of his relationship with Mr. Abramoff.

    Barbara Van Gelder, Mr. Safavian's lawyer, said in an interview on Saturday that the incident involving Tyco was irrelevant to the charges about the golfing trip, which occurred more than a year earlier. "This shows that Jack Abramoff is talking, and this is him trying to climb out of jail," Ms. Van Gelder said.

    She said that there had been nothing illegal or improper about Mr. Safavian's conversations with Mr. Abramoff about Tyco, but that they were being used "as a nasty little trial tactic" by prosecutors to damage her client.

    George Terwilliger III, a lawyer for Tyco, said company officials had first learned of the impending suspensions from Mr. Abramoff, who had represented them in another matter. But he said that the information had been unsolicited and that the government had been about to formally notify company officials in any event.

    "Any benefit to Tyco was incremental at best, because company officials were due to get a formal notice from G.S.A.," Mr. Terwilliger said in an interview on Saturday. He said the officials had treated Mr. Abramoff's information like a rumor and had called the General Services Administration, which handles government contracts. Officials there said they were about to send a letter to inform the company of the impending suspensions, he said.

    Mr. Terwilliger said the information that Mr. Abramoff had passed on as guidance about how to deal with the agency was regarded as irrelevant and was ignored. He said that after receiving confirmation of the impending suspensions, company officials turned the issue over to McKenna Long & Aldridge, "a recognized government contracts firm."

    Mr. Terwilliger said the law firm had not used Mr. Abramoff's suggestions but had been able to persuade the agency to drop the planned suspensions, arguing that Tyco had changed its management team from one that had been involved in numerous violations of securities law.

    Mr. Terwilliger said he had been assured by Justice Department officials that neither Tyco nor any of its officials were the subject of any investigation involving Mr. Safavian or Mr. Abramoff.

    --------

    Philip Shenon contributed reporting for this article.

LINK

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
    By Andrew C. Revkin
    The New York Times

    Sunday 29 January 2006

    The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

    The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

    Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

    Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

    He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

    Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination."

    Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.

    "Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."

    Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan.

    Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.

    In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.

    He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.

    But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

    In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

    He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.

    Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."

    The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."

    The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

    After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

    Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.

    Mr. Acosta said the calls and meetings with Goddard press officers were not to introduce restrictions, but to review existing rules. He said Dr. Hansen had continued to speak frequently with the news media.

    But Dr. Hansen and some of his colleagues said interviews were canceled as a result.

    In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.

    Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.

    But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal."

    Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview after Mr. Acosta, at NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would not face any retribution for doing so.

    Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was asked about the conversations, he flatly denied saying anything of the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta.

    Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to go out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have a dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?"

    Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr. Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what she told them when the conversations occurred.

    "He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D. Travis, an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists, to inform the public."

    Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-December at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr. Hansen be better controlled.

    In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's scientific contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public statements clearly as his personal views.

    "He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world," Dr. Cicerone said. "I've heard Hansen speak many times and I've read many of his papers, starting in the late 70's. Every single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it's been."

    The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.

    Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing.

    One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department. For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of warming and adapt to problems.

    In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he identified the views as his own.

    "One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff," he wrote, "is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I plan on saying or writing."

LINK

There are those who tried to stop Bush

By Daniel Klaidman, Stuart Taylor Jr. and Evan Thomas
Newsweek

Feb. 6, 2006 issue - James Comey, a lanky, 6-foot-8 former prosecutor who looks a little like Jimmy Stewart, resigned as deputy attorney general in the summer of 2005. The press and public hardly noticed. Comey's farewell speech, delivered in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, contained all the predictable, if heartfelt, appreciations. But mixed in among the platitudes was an unusual passage. Comey thanked "people who came to my office, or my home, or called my cell phone late at night, to quietly tell me when I was about to make a mistake; they were the people committed to getting it right—and to doing the right thing—whatever the price. These people," said Comey, "know who they are. Some of them did pay a price for their commitment to right, but they wouldn't have it any other way."

Read On

We are the enemy...

Inherently Dangerous

I have now read the entire justice department document defending the NSA warrantless wiretaps.

It is a longer version of what the administration has been saying all along. It admits that the wiretaps were not authorized under FISA unless the AUMF is considered authorization to bypass FISA. That argument has already been hacked to death. It is an exceedingly weak argument.

To re-address this argument briefly, the document states that the AUMF authorized the president to ignore FISA because of the "President's... long-recognized power to engage in communications intelligence targeted at the enemy." These warrantless wiretaps were of US citizens within the United States, not the "enemy." Is there any due process or oversight involved before US citizens can be declared an enemy of the state? The president says no, the decision is his and his alone. That seems to jar with the Bill of Rights.

The document also states that FISA is a restriction "placed on national security operations during times of peace." As mentioned in other posts, FISA is part of Title 50 of the US Code, which is entitled "War and National Security." The president is claiming that laws specifically written for "War and National Security" are laws only relevant in times of peace.

The other argument is the "inherent authority" as commander-in-chief argument. That is even weaker. Commander in Chief is a military title, not a civilian one. It merely means that generals are subordinate to the president - not that Congress is, and most definitely not that civilians are subordinate. Generals can't order civilians about and damn sure can't ignore the law. Neither can a "commander in chief." The president is "commander in chief" only for the military. He is not your commander in chief unless you are on active duty.

What is appalling is the length the administration goes to in order to make these exceedingly weak arguments. The entire document is basically a long justification for the president's power to collect foreign intelligence. The problem with that argument is that it is not disputed, not by anybody. Yes, the president DOES have the authority to spy on our enemies. His powers over foreign policy and foreign intelligence collection are great. The problem is with DOMESTIC intelligence collection. The problem is not with wiretapping Al Queda, it is wiretapping IN THE UNITED STATES, ON US CITIZENS, WITHOUT A WARRANT. This is not about foreign intelligence, it is about our government's actions with respect to US citizens. It is about US.

The document does not even address the FISA restrictions on wiretapping of "US Persons" and constantly repeats that the wiretaps were "international" and that only terrorists and those suspected of terrorism were targeted. Of course this ignores the 4th Amendment. For those who aren't sure if this is a violation of the 4th Amendment, please recall that it was demanded by the People before they would agree to adopting the Constitution, and that our nation had just fought a war against a government that did exactly what the president is claiming he can do - spy on us without a warrant. If the Founding Fathers found the searches and seizures by British soldiers, in wartime, when our territory was a battlefield, so objectionable that they would demand their own government be prevented from doing the same things without a warrant, then why does the President think he can do so merely because we are at war?

The 4th Amendment was not written merely to control law enforcement officers. When it was written there were no organized police forces in existence. In addition, the Bill of Rights was not considered to apply to the states at the time, but only to limit the powers of the federal government. The federal government at the time didn't have any police forces or even any law enforcement responsibilities. Those duties were considered to be the exclusive province of the states. No, the 4th Amendment was considered to apply to soldiers conducting searches of suspected enemies of the state - because who else would conduct those searches in 1789 or 1791? There was no FBI, there was no Justice Department, there was no police force anywhere at all. If the federal government wanted to conduct a search of anybody in 1791 it would order soldiers or sailors to do it. The president now claims that it does not apply to searches of US citizens inside the United States because we are at war and intelligence collection is part of the nature of military force. The document presents the 4th Amendment as only a law-enforcement restriction applying in the "criminal context." That goes against the plain language of the 4th Amendment, its history, and common sense.

The administration also argues that warrantless wiretapping by presidents has a long history, but all the references are to pre-FISA warrantless wiretaps. FDR or Woodrow Wilson could not have violated FISA because FISA didn't exist. Warrantless wiretaps by pre-FISA presidents do not help the administration make its case - and, tellingly, that point is also not even addressed. The guys that wrote this document are obviously some smart lawyers, and the fact that they didn't even address the pre-FISA nature of prior warrantless wiretaps is damning in the extreme. The cases the adminstration cites in support are either pre-FISA or not on point.

The administration also, bizarrely, cites the wiretapping of US telegraph lines by a confederate general during the civil war in support of its contention that wiretapping in time of war does not require a warrant. This is astonishing. The actions of a man who was a self-declared enemy of the United States, who took up arms against the Constitution of the United States and was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of US Army soldiers, is being cited in order to show that the president is not violating the Constitution? I didn't realize that the actions of our enemies could be used to set Constitutional law precedents. But yes, in wartime the military can spy on the enemy. Nobody has suggested otherwise. The enemy is not protected by the 4th Amendment or FISA. We, the People of the United States, are protected - unless, of course, the administration's argument is allowed to stand unchallenged.

The only conclusion I can come to from the document is that the president feels we are the enemy - or at least, anybody he wants to declare an enemy is now an enemy. The 4th Amendment does not have a presidential "opt-out" provision. It clearly limits the power of the government, including the president, when it comes to dealing with US citizens. FISA does have exceptions for warrantless wiretaps in certain circumstances, but these were ignored. The president does not even attempt to make the case, as others did on this blog, that his actions fell within those FISA exceptions.

The document goes to great lengths in pointing out the many safeguards the executive branch set up for this program - how the AG must sign off, how the program is regularly reviewed, etc. The document suggests that this means that the Administration does not view the AUMF as a "blank check" per Hamdi. That will not suffice. Our Founding Fathers did not think it wise for the different branches of government to monitor themselves, instead setting up a system of separate but equal branches that would oversee each other. Self-monitoring is not enough. FISA was passed in the first place because self-monitoring by the Executive Branch already failed, repeatedly, in both democratic and republican administrations. The reasons FISA was passes are not discussed in the document.

The document says that if FISA is found to limit the powers of the president in gathering intelligence he feels necessary to fight the war on terror, that FISA itself is unConstitutional. This is a direct challenge to the Congress of the United States.

The document also says that it would be "unreasonable and wholly impractical to demand that Congress specifically amend FISA in order to assist the President in defending the Nation. Such specificity would also have been self-defeating because it would have apprised our adversaries of some of our most sensitive methods of intelligence gathering." Setting aside the obvious question of the need for the Patriot Act if such a statement were true, how does specifying that FISA be amended when it comes to the GWOT give any information to our enemies? Given the nature of the FISA courts, wouldn't they have already expected we would listen in or use pen registers or even data mining?

And why is there any need to amend FISA? Why not simply use the FISA courts and get warrants? The document speaks of the need for speed and flexibility. Yet FISA already allows surveillance (including wiretaps, pen registers, etc.) to be initiated immediately while warrants are sought. There is no need to "wait" for FISA approval before initiating surveillance. And FISA courts approve 99.9997368 % of the requests made. If FISA courts wouldn't approve the requests, wouldn't that probably be only in cases of egregious violations of the rights of innocent US citizens given that FISA judges only turned down 5 out of the last 19,000 requests? Is 99.9997368% agreement still too little agreement, and too much oversight, for the president? Apparently so. The document states that the "President has determined that the speed and agility required to to carry out the NSA activities successfully could not have been achieved under FISA." Aside from a clear admission that the NSA activity was not within FISA, this is insane. Again I repeat, 99.9997368% approval of warrant requests, requests can be made after surveillance has already begun, and FISA contains provisions for warrantless wiretaps in certain circumstances. And still FISA was too cumbersome?

The document also repeatedly cites the opinions of Attorneys-General to make its case. FISA is a law passed by Congress, and this attorney general can not overrule it - nor can past attorneys-general.

In short, this document confirms many of our worst fears. This president is convinced he has the authority to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, regardless of the law, because we are at war.


"Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interests to know who they're calling and why," said Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser.

Well, let me be as clear as I can be. I agree completely with that statement. It also has absolutely nothing to do with this controversy.

This is not about terrorism, war, or safety. It is much simpler than that. It is about whether are to govern ourselves, or whether we are to be governed by an all-powerful commander in chief. It is inherently dangerous - much more dangerous than anything the terrorists can accomplish.
LINK

Hagel: Bush "Can't Unilaterally Decide to violate tthe law

Karl Rove wants the American public to believe only one political party disagrees with Bush’s warrant-less domestic spying program. But this morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said the program was illegal:

HAGEL: I don’t believe, from what I’ve heard, but I’m going to give the administration an opportunity to explain it, that he has the authority now to do what he’s doing. Now, maybe he can convince me otherwise, but that’s OK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not yet.

HAGEL: Not yet. But that’s OK. If he needs more authority, he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law. He needs to come back, work with us, work with the courts if he has to, and we will do what we need to do to protect the civil liberties of this country and the national security of this country.

Hagel joins other prominent conservatives — including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) — who have questioned the legal basis of Bush’s warrant-less domestic surveillance program.

LINK

Bush knew he was breaking the law.

Bush Has Always Known His Domestic Spying Program Was Outside The Law

Bush Administration | Bush's Domestic Spying Scandal

There's one thing this story from Newsweek makes clear, the Bush administration has always known that their domestic spying program was outside the law.

The entire system of American Democracy is premised on checks and balances in the system.  It is clear from this story that the Bush team wants to remove ALL check on their power.

They were loyal conservatives, and Bush appointees. They fought a quiet battle to rein in the president's power in the war on terror. And they paid a price for it. A NEWSWEEK investigation.

Keep in mind, this story is about very conservative political appointees who were questioning the Bush administration's actions. 

Hagel speaks out against wiretapping

Hagel: Bush can't violate the law: Blasts Karl Rove also

Sen. Chuch Hagel was on THIS Week and blasted Karl Rove's politicization of terrorism and criticized the administration for attempting to use it to win elections:  (rough transcript)

Hagel: National Security should never be held hostage to a political party,  or a political issue or to an election-The American people expect more...

                                                     Video-WMP Video-QT

(hat tip David Edwards for the vid)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that what Rove is doing?

Hagel: I didn't like what Mr. Rove said because it frames terrorism...

More and more republicans are speaking out against Bush's  warrant-less eavesdropping.

LINK

The Preznit is Seriously Demented....

Bush Plans To Start Think Tank Devoted to French Political Thought

CBS will air a portion of its interview with President Bush on Sunday’s Face the Nation. You can look forward to this exchange:

CBS: “Have you had time to think about what you’re going to do after you’re president?”

BUSH: “I’m beginning to think it through a little bit. I’d like to leave behind a legacy — or a think tank, a place for people to talk about freedom and liberty and the DeTocqueville model of what DeTocqueville saw in America.

It’s curious that Alexis DeTocqueville is Bush’s inspiration for a think tank. DeTocqueville was a French political thinker who traveled extensively around America in the early 1800s and wrote famously of his perceptions of the U.S. in a two-volume set entitled Democracy In America. A review of DeTocqueville’s writings suggests that, though he wrote in the 19th Century, he may as well have been studying the politics of the Bush administration:

“I foresee that all the military rulers who may rise up in great democratic nations will find it easier to conquer with their armies than to make their armies live at peace after conquest. There are two things that a democratic people will always find very difficult, to begin a war and to end it.” [Link]

“I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” [Link]

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” [Link]

“All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.” [Link]

“When an opinion has taken root among a democratic people and established itself in the minds of the bulk of the community, it afterwards persists by itself and is maintained without effort, because no one attacks it.” [Link] (Note: DeTocqueville never imagined the creation of blogs)

We look forward to Bush’s interpretation of DeTocqueville and the opening of his think tank. Perhaps he’ll create an institutional blog, which would provide a wonderful forum to debate his legacy.

LINK
We'll continue our terrorist surveillance program against al Qaeda. Congress must reauthorize the Patriot Act so that our law enforcement and intelligence and homeland security officers have the tools they need to route the terrorists -- terrorists who could be planning and plotting within our borders,” he said.

Translation: “I’ll spy on Americans, I’m use the Constitution to wipe my ass and I’ll declare marital law and run this country like the dictator I want so desperately to be.”

On his illegal actions authorizing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans, Bush said “If the attempt to write law …is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it.”

What he is saying is “I’m above the law, goddamnit, and I’ll fight every attempt to make me obey the law.

On the Iraq war, Bush declared: “there is an act passed by Congress in 2001 which said that I must have the power to conduct this war using the incidents of war. In other words, we believe there's a constitutional power granted to Presidents, as well as, this case, a statutory power. And I'm intending to use that power -- Congress says, go ahead and conduct the war, we're not going to tell you how to do it.”

I worked on Capitol Hill for a number of years and wrote more than my share of legislation. I know a thing or two about how the government is designed to work and the checks and balances that are supposed to be built into the system. I’ve also read what Congress passed and nothing in that act or the Constitution gives Bush the authority he claims or the power he abuses. He’s not just a liar. He’s a god-damned liar.

The arrogance surfaced often as he faced the press. His eyes darted from side to side, blinking rapidly – a textbook example of a maniac on the loose.

His temper threatened to erupt more than once because a couple of reporters actually had the gall to actually question his motives.

After too many years watching this man destroy what once was a great nation, I can only conclude that Bush is insane and his insanity is protected by a brain-dead populace and a power-mad political party that can’t possibly accept the sad fact that they helped put a madman in charge of our government and have kept him there.

I believe with all my soul that George W. Bush and the Republicans who rubber-stamp his actions represent a clear and present danger to the peace and security of the United States and all must be removed from office immediately if this nation is to survive.

And those are words I never, ever, thought I’d write about a President or other elected officials of this country.

And I wish, with all my heart that I did not have to write them now.

But those who love this country and put patriotism above politics must act. America, if it wishes to remain America, must remove the cancer that threatens to destroy it.


© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue
 

Avian Flu/ Anthrax Fear-Scam - Anthrax Govt - Media Scam: Who Remembers It?

Anthrax? Hello? Anybody Home? Hello? Here we are, it's 2006. Anybody remember the Anthrax scare?

Ahhh c'mon, you remember don't you? It was that freaky time in your life when you weren't sure whether the world was about to suddenly come to an end.

Remember the days soon after 9/11, when anthrax started appearing everywhere? Do you remember how gas masks were selling on Ebay for hundreds of dollars?

Do you remember how you feared for your family's life as your television sold you a bill of goods about these Anthrax letters, reportedly sent by Arabs?

Do you remember how Anthrax was on television, in magazines, in newspapers; seemingly downloaded into your brain at almost every moment of your waking day-- for months?

According to a LexisNexis search conducted by TomDispatch.com, "between Oct. 4 and Dec. 4, 2001, 389 stories appeared in the New York Times with "anthrax" in the headline."

During the same period, 238 "anthrax" stories appeared in the Washington Post.
 
Scroll down:

Fear Avian (Bird) Flu Plans -- Not Flu Itself

EDITOR'S NOTE: Even the U.S. State Dept. is promoting the
Avian Flu Hoax Conspiracy http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=82&contentid=2925

Fear of bird flu is causing people -- and their response plans -- to act irrationally. The following article with its description of quarantine areas being set aside, and closing of schools and businesses which could include power companies, phone companies, etc is much more scary to me than H5N1.

WE DON'T HAVE A PANDEMIC STRAIN.

Major efforts to prevent bird flu from arriving on our shores or at least to make timely identification should it arrive, ought to be what we are reading about.

Bird Flu is an ANIMAL outbreak at this time, an agriculturial outbreak if you prefer, and there needs to be efforts to stamp it out and/or prevent it from spreading among animals. And the government needs to remember swine should be included in planning protocols.

Bush Is Insane:A Clear & Present Danger to the USA

George W. Bush, the out-of-control despot who thinks the Presidency of the United States is a license to lie at will, wage war on a whim and break the law without recrimination, put on his "I am in charge" face Thursday and, for all practical purposes, told anyone who thinks his powers should be subject to review or oversight to go screw themselves.

Bush told reporters that he will assert "presidential prerogatives" any damn way he pleases and will do so without apology, without question and without concern for the law, the Constitution or the rights of Americans.

His press conference was a frightening study of a madman on a tear, an insane, power-mad tyrant who believes he is above the law and cannot be questioned. Sadly, it appears no one has the balls to questions his lunacy.

“I'm going to continue do everything within my authority to protect the American people,” Bush told reporters.

That’s Bushspeak for “I’m in charge here you dumb pukes and there ain’t a damn thing you can do about it.
 
Scroll down (continued)

Avian Flu/ Anthrax Fear-Scam (Continued)

Think about that for a second. Now consider the noise made by all the other media outlets. Now add all that noise together. That's a lot of noise.

These days though, the silence is deafening.

Have you heard of anthrax lately? Do you know what became of the anthrax investigation?

Do you know if anybody was ever arrested? Do you know if the FBI has any leads? What do you know about anthrax? When was the last time you saw an anthrax story in the newspaper?

Yes, the anthrax story is gone. Like Kaiser Soza and Osama bin Laden-- vanished, 'poof', just like that! It served its purpose (just like Osama).

It got us into a war with Iraq. Mission accomplished, as they say.

But here is the real gist of it all:

* All the anthrax used in the various anthrax attacks in 2001 came from a United States military base.

They all came from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland.

But there were two separate mailings of anthrax letters.

One batch of letters was mailed on or about September 18, 2001.

This batch went to various media outlets and contained cutaneous anthrax (Ames Strain).

Then on or about October, 9, 2001, the second batch of letters was mailed out.

This batch contained a much more lethal "weaponized version" of the Ames strain.

These letters were sent to two Democratic Senators.

Hydrocarbon analysis showed that all of the anthrax found in the letters was incubated within two years of the time it was mailed.

And from CNN on June 26, 2002:

"This discovery lends credence to the theory that whoever mailed the finely milled anthrax spores -- known to be of the Ames strain -- has a current connection to a sophisticated laboratory.

Investigators have long believed the suspect possessed a sophisticated knowledge of anthrax and a high level of training."

Now, here is something everybody seems to miss.

If Osama bin Laden is responsible for the 9/11 attacks (yeah right), isn't it somewhat odd that some other group of people with certain ties to the United States government just so happened to pull off the anthrax attacks within a week of 9/11 and again on October 9?

Are we supposed to believe that the anthrax attacker(s) were just waiting around with extremely fatal weaponized anthrax in their refrigerators for the right moment?

And what about the letters? C'mon, these guys were obviously trying to frame Arabs for the attacks.

Isn't this the slightest bit suspicious to anybody in the media?

So let's recap.

* The Anthrax came from an American military base.

* The Anthrax required sophisticated knowledge and a high level of training.

* The Anthrax letters contained feeble minded language to make us all believe they were written by some "stupid Arab".

* The letters were mailed within one week of 9/11. (Were they just waiting around for a 9/11-like event to take place or was it all just a big coincidence?)

If the Anthrax attackers are related to the US government, what does that tell us about 9/11?

Perhaps this is why the media went to sleep on the anthrax story after it was revealed that the anthrax came from Fort Detrick.

Hmmmmm, what do you think? After all, if you connect the dots on anthrax, 9/11 is pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it?

A Few More Things to Make Your Head Spin:

1. Members of the White House (including Bush, Cheney, and the Cabinet) were given the antibiotic CIPRO on September 11, 2001, seven (7) days prior to the date the first anthrax letter was even mailed.

(I wasn't aware that antibiotics could save you from a jumbo jet smashing into your building, cool!)

2. Even after it was determined that the only anthrax to ever be used in a terrorist attack against American citizens came from our own military base, the Bush administration had Colin Powell waving around a vial of faux-anthrax at the United Nations in February of 2003.

We invaded and occupied Iraq because, as Colin Powell stated that day, "Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material".

(Considering that it was our own anthrax that was used against us in the 2001 anthrax letters, isn't this statement just a tad ironic?)

The president loves to make us remember 9/11.

Why doesn't he ever remind us of the anthrax attacks? Oh wait......

1/03/2006

LINK

#1 Public Enemy - Negroponte, Hayden & Firstfruits: NSA Spies on USA

Since the intelligence community's reorganization, the DCI has been replaced by the Director of National Intelligence headed by John Negroponte and his deputy, former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden.

Firstfruits was a database that contained both the articles and the transcripts of telephone and other communications of particular Washington journalists known to report on sensitive U.S. intelligence activities, particularly those involving NSA.

According to NSA sources, the targeted journalists included author James Bamford, the New York Times' James Risen, the Washington Post's Vernon Loeb, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, the Washington Times' Bill Gertz, UPI's John C. K. Daly, and this editor [Wayne Madsen], who has written about NSA for The Village Voice, CAQ, Intelligence Online, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

In addition, beginning in 2001 but before the 9-11 attacks, NSA began to target anyone in the U.S. intelligence community who was deemed a "disgruntled employee."

According to NSA sources, this surveillance was a violation of United States Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID) 18 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

The surveillance of U.S. intelligence personnel by other intelligence personnel in the United States and abroad was conducted without any warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The targeted U.S. intelligence agency personnel included those who made contact with members of the media, including the journalists targeted by Firstfruits, as well as members of Congress, Inspectors General, and other oversight agencies.

Those discovered to have spoken to journalists and oversight personnel were subjected to sudden clearance revocation and termination as "security risks."

In 2001, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rejected a number of FISA wiretap applications from Michael Resnick, the FBI supervisor in charge of counter-terrorism surveillance. The court said that some 75 warrant requests from the FBI were erroneous and that the FBI, under Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller, had misled the court and misused the FISA law on dozens of occasions.

In a May 17, 2002 opinion, the presiding FISA Judge, Royce C. Lamberth (a Texan appointed by Ronald Reagan), barred Resnick from ever appearing before the court again. The ruling, released by Lamberth's successor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelley, stated in extremely strong terms, "In virtually every instance, the government's misstatements and omissions in FISA applications and violations of the Court's orders involved information sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and prosecutors...

"How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court."

After the Justice Department appealed the FISA decision, the FISA Review court met for the first time in its history.

The three-member review court, composed of Ralph Guy of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Edward Leavy of the 9th Circuit, and Laurence Silberman [of the Robb-Silberman Commission on 911 "intelligence failures"] of the D.C. Circuit, overturned the FISA decision on the Bush administration's wiretap requests.

Based on recent disclosures that the Bush administration has been using the NSA to conduct illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens, it is now becoming apparent what vexed the FISC to the point that it rejected, in an unprecedented manner, numerous wiretap requests and sanctioned Resnick.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=123&contentid=3093&page=2

Two Top Papers Ask: Is the World on a Path to Doom...

...with an assist from the Bush White House?
 
Published: January 28, 2006 10:00 PM ET

NEW YORK While most Americans remain preoccupied with war, terrorism, high gas prices--or the coming Pitt-Jolie baby--an issue that may dwarf all of those concerns receives major attention in the Sunday editions of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

One story raises a nightmare scenario for the end of the world, at least as we know it, while the other suggests that the Bush administration doesn't want anyone to know about that.

Here are the opening paragraphs of the two stories.

*
From The Washington Post article by Juliet Eilperin:

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.

There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.

The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."
*

From The New York Times article by Andrew C. Revkin:

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination."

Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.

"Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."



LINK

I a word, YES.

Mother Earth is about to detoxify herself. Can anyone blame her?

Spies, Lies and Wiretaps

A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrant-less spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies.

The first was that the domestic spying program is carefully aimed only at people who are actively working with Al Qaeda, when actually it has violated the rights of countless innocent Americans. And the second was that the Bush team could have prevented the 9/11 attacks if only they had thought of eavesdropping without a warrant.

Sept. 11 could have been prevented. This is breathtakingly cynical. The nation's guardians did not miss the 9/11 plot because it takes a few hours to get a warrant to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail messages. They missed the plot because they were not looking. The same officials who now say 9/11 could have been prevented said at the time that no one could possibly have foreseen the attacks. We keep hoping that Mr. Bush will finally lay down the bloody banner of 9/11, but Karl Rove, who emerged from hiding recently to talk about domestic spying, made it clear that will not happen — because the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America. "President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," he told Republican officials. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

Mr. Rove knows perfectly well that no Democrat has ever said any such thing — and that nothing prevented American intelligence from listening to a call from Al Qaeda to the United States, or a call from the United States to Al Qaeda, before Sept. 11, 2001, or since. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act simply required the government to obey the Constitution in doing so. And FISA was amended after 9/11 to make the job much easier.

Only bad guys are spied on. Bush officials have said the surveillance is tightly focused only on contacts between people in this country and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Vice President Dick Cheney claimed it saved thousands of lives by preventing attacks. But reporting in this paper has shown that the National Security Agency swept up vast quantities of e-mail messages and telephone calls and used computer searches to generate thousands of leads. F.B.I. officials said virtually all of these led to dead ends or to innocent Americans. The biggest fish the administration has claimed so far has been a crackpot who wanted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch — a case that F.B.I. officials said was not connected to the spying operation anyway.

The spying is legal. The secret program violates the law as currently written. It's that simple. In fact, FISA was enacted in 1978 to avoid just this sort of abuse. It said that the government could not spy on Americans by reading their mail (or now their e-mail) or listening to their telephone conversations without obtaining a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The court has approved tens of thousands of warrants over the years and rejected a handful.

As amended after 9/11, the law says the government needs probable cause, the constitutional gold standard, to believe the subject of the surveillance works for a foreign power or a terrorist group, or is a lone-wolf terrorist. The attorney general can authorize electronic snooping on his own for 72 hours and seek a warrant later. But that was not good enough for Mr. Bush, who lowered the standard for spying on Americans from "probable cause" to "reasonable belief" and then cast aside the bedrock democratic principle of judicial review.

Just trust us. Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans' rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust. The domestic spying program is part of a well-established pattern: when Mr. Bush doesn't like the rules, he just changes them, as he has done for the detention and treatment of prisoners and has threatened to do in other areas, like the confirmation of his judicial nominees. He has consistently shown a lack of regard for privacy, civil liberties and judicial due process in claiming his sweeping powers. The founders of our country created the system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance.

The rules needed to be changed. In 2002, a Republican senator — Mike DeWine of Ohio — introduced a bill that would have done just that, by lowering the standard for issuing a warrant from probable cause to "reasonable suspicion" for a "non-United States person." But the Justice Department opposed it, saying the change raised "both significant legal and practical issues" and may have been unconstitutional. Now, the president and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are telling Americans that reasonable suspicion is a perfectly fine standard for spying on Americans as well as non-Americans — and they are the sole judges of what is reasonable.

So why oppose the DeWine bill? Perhaps because Mr. Bush had already secretly lowered the standard of proof — and dispensed with judges and warrants — for Americans and non-Americans alike, and did not want anyone to know.

War changes everything. Mr. Bush says Congress gave him the authority to do anything he wanted when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. There is simply nothing in the record to support this ridiculous argument.

The administration also says that the vote was the start of a war against terrorism and that the spying operation is what Mr. Cheney calls a "wartime measure." That just doesn't hold up. The Constitution does suggest expanded presidential powers in a time of war. But the men who wrote it had in mind wars with a beginning and an end. The war Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney keep trying to sell to Americans goes on forever and excuses everything.

Other presidents did it. Mr. Gonzales, who had the incredible bad taste to begin his defense of the spying operation by talking of those who plunged to their deaths from the flaming twin towers, claimed historic precedent for a president to authorize warrantless surveillance. He mentioned George Washington, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These precedents have no bearing on the current situation, and Mr. Gonzales's timeline conveniently ended with F.D.R., rather than including Richard Nixon, whose surveillance of antiwar groups and other political opponents inspired FISA in the first place. Like Mr. Nixon, Mr. Bush is waging an unpopular war, and his administration has abused its powers against antiwar groups and even those that are just anti-Republican.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is about to start hearings on the domestic spying. Congress has failed, tragically, on several occasions in the last five years to rein in Mr. Bush and restore the checks and balances that are the genius of American constitutional democracy. It is critical that it not betray the public once again on this score.

LINK
 
It sure as hell is critical!

Saturday, January 28, 2006

US audit finds 'spectacular' waste of funds in Iraq

Millions lost in 'chaotic misuse,' while report says many reconstruction projects won't be finished.
 
| csmonitor.com
"Spectacular misuse of tens of millions of dollars."

That is what The Australian says an audit by the the US Special Inspector-General for Iraq Reconstruction of the former Coalition Provisional Authority office in Hilla, Iraq, has uncovered. The newspaper says the report details bundles of money stashed in filing cabinets, a US soldier who gambled away thousands of dollars, and stacks of newly minted notes distributed without receipts.

The findings come almost a year after Stuart Bowen, the Inspector-General, found that more than $9 billion of Iraq's oil revenues, which was disbursed in 2004 by the then US-led CPA, could not be accounted for.

The audit, released on Wednesday ... describes a country in the months after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein awash with US dollars and a "wild west" atmosphere where even multi-million-dollar contracts were paid for in cash ...

The huge sums in cash were paid out with little or no supervision and often without any paperwork, the reconstruction spending audit found. The report found problems with almost 2000 contracts worth $US88.1 million.

The New York Times reports that the new audit found problems "in an area that includes half the land mass in Iraq, with new findings in the southern and central provinces of Anbar, Karbala, Najaf, Wasit, Babil, and Qadisiya."
Read On

Post-Katrina Promises Unfulfilled

On the Gulf Coast, Federal Recovery Effort Makes Halting Progress
 
....and why would anyone be surprised by this?

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 28, 2006; A01

Nearly five months after Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, President Bush's lofty promises to rebuild the Gulf Coast have been frustrated by bureaucratic failures and competing priorities, a review of events since the hurricane shows.

While the administration can claim some clear progress, Bush's ringing call from New Orleans's Jackson Square on Sept. 15 to "do what it takes" to make the city rise from the waters has not been matched by action, critics at multiple levels of government say, resulting in a record that is largely incomplete as Bush heads into next week's State of the Union address.

The problems include the slow federal cleanup of debris in Mississippi and Louisiana; a lack of authority for Bush's handpicked recovery coordinator, Donald E. Powell; the shortage and poor quality of housing for evacuees; and federal restrictions on reconstruction money and where coastal communities can rebuild.

With the onset of the hurricane season just four months away, there is no agreement on how to rebuild New Orleans, how to pay for that effort or even who is leading the cross-governmental partnership, according to elected leaders. While there is money to restore the city's flood defenses to protect against another Category 3 hurricane, it remains unclear whether merely reinforcing the levees will be enough to draw residents back.

New strains emerged this week when Bush aides rejected a plan by Rep. Richard H. Baker (R-La.) to set up a government corporation that would buy back the mortgages of storm-damaged homes around New Orleans. Instead, the government limited the use of $6.2 billion in grants to the rebuilding of 20,000 homes destroyed outside federally insured flood zones.

Dismayed state and local officials said the president's approach does not provide help for an additional 185,000 destroyed homes. They warned that the federal government's halting recovery effort is undermining, at a critical juncture, the confidence of homeowners, insurers and investors about returning.

"They gave us a ladder to reach all of our housing needs, but the top rungs are missing," Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) said in statement from Baton Rouge. "You can't fix a $12 billion problem with $6 billion."

Without a government mechanism to compensate homeowners and then clean up and repackage entire, devastated neighborhoods for developers, much of the city will never be rebuilt, Baker said.

Below are some of the major promises Bush made in his Jackson Square speech, and how the government has fared:

· Housing. Bush promised to empty shelters quickly, meet the immediate needs of the displaced, register victims, and provide housing aid in the form of rental assistance and trailers.

In Mississippi, 33,378 occupied trailers are meeting 89 percent of the estimated housing needs. But there have been 34,000 repair requests and maintenance complaints, according to Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.).

In Louisiana, trailers have been provided for about 37 percent of the estimated 90,000 displaced families in need of housing. Officials acknowledge production bottlenecks and in-state battles over sites. Trailer costs have swelled from $19,000 to $75,000 apiece.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration are struggling to meet unprecedented demands. FEMA is providing rental assistance to 700,000 families, but about 75,000 people are still in hotels. In some places, there is a shortage of rental housing available for evacuees.

As of Jan. 16, 18,943 applications for rental help had yet to be processed. As of this week, the SBA said that 190,000 of 363,000 applications for disaster loans to homeowners and businesses are still pending.

"It just doesn't seem to be well organized," said Ronald D. Utt, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has written about disaster housing policy. "Things in some respects have gotten more confused than they were a couple weeks after the storm."

· Cleanup. The president vowed "to get the work done quickly . . honestly and wisely," but a key first step -- cleanup -- has not gone smoothly.

Thirty million cubic yards of debris remain uncollected -- enough to build a five-sided column more than 50 stories tall over the Pentagon -- provoking environmental concerns, fears of runaway spending abuses and a spirit-sapping despair. Layers of subcontractors have caused debris removal costs to quadruple from $8 per cubic yard to $32 per cubic yard, said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who visited the region on Jan. 17 as part of a Senate delegation.

Legal questions initially slowed the cleanup effort, along with red tape and contracting disputes.

"The worst fears of many policymakers are being realized," Coburn said. ". . Bureaucratic delays have caused the recovery effort to be appallingly slow and inefficient."

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said she is working with a bipartisan group of senators to broaden Powell's authority over people and funds.

· Rebuilding. On the broader question of rebuilding, Bush promised "a close partnership" with state and local leaders, with the federal government playing a secondary role. But the U.S. government is the key player because it provides money, determines access to flood insurance, and takes primary responsibility for infrastructure and cleanup.

Officials from both parties credit the president for committing $85 billion in federal funds and for approving tax relief and incentives such as the Gulf Opportunity Zone, which provides tax breaks for businesses in Mississippi and Louisiana. Still, they say the overall cost of the rebuilding is a major concern. "I want to remind the people in that part of the world, $85 billion is a lot," Bush said at a news conference on Thursday.

Baker's proposed Louisiana Recovery Corp. would cost another $10 billion to $30 billion, although supporters say the entity would recoup its costs as land values rise.

New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin's commission has recommended a plan that would not rebuild heavily damaged neighborhoods unless a critical mass of residents return, possibly shrinking the city and making it easier to defend against floods. But state and local governments say the Bush administration is thwarting their plans to take the next step by opposing Baker's bill.

Bush said he opposes "creating additional federal bureaucracies." But Baker said that the White House should develop an alternative. "That is the discussion we need to have: What does their plan really mean -- what does this region of the world look like 10 years from now, versus what does our version look like?" Baker said.

· Reimbursement. Bush said the government would reimburse states for the costs of taking in evacuees and cities for emergency costs. But Mississippi and Louisiana officials say their needs are greater and will continue for years.

Searching for money to pay for reconstruction, Louisiana officials want a share of more than $5 billion in federal offshore oil and gas revenue generated from the state's industries. The administration opposes such a change.

Louisiana state and local governments say they face more than $8 billion in lost taxes and fees over the next four years.

Eddie Favre, the mayor of Bay St. Louis, Miss., whose population has fallen from 8,200 to 6,000 since the storm, noted that half the city's $7 million general fund came from a casino, a fourth from sales taxes and a fourth from property taxes.

But the casino is closed, sales tax revenue amounts to "a couple hundred thousand dollars" and income from property taxes is expected to fall to 10 percent of pre-storm levels. "The one thing we have not seen anything on to date . . is funding for the governmental entities to make up for lost revenue over the next three, five, seven years," Favre said.

· Levees. Bush said New Orleans and Louisiana "will have a large part in the engineering decisions" to protect New Orleans. But clear differences in federal and local interests are emerging.

State and local officials have said employers and investors will not take the risk of returning unless New Orleans's flood defenses are strengthened to withstand the strongest, Category 5, storms, an undertaking that could cost more than $30 billion.

Because of budgetary constraints and the approaching hurricane season, the administration has committed to spending $2.9 billion to restore levees to pre-Katrina (Category 3) design standards, with additional floodgates and concrete and steel reinforcement, and $8 million to study going further.

"It's a step where a leap is needed," said former New Orleans mayor Marc H. Morial, now president of the National Urban League. "We believe that everyone should have a right to return, and everyone should have a right to rebuild."

Beyond levees and housing, the region faces other huge challenges, Powell said, including jobs, schools and health care. One in every five Louisiana prime-rate mortgages is 30 days or more past due. One in six adults is unemployed. Only 15 percent of schools and 32 percent of hospitals are open in Orleans Parish, and one in three grocery stores and restaurants in the region are open.

Louisiana officials who are working with the president say that he is committed to help but that his administration has had to be pushed by Congress, and is failing to lead because its attention is focused on Iraq, the domestic spying debate and producing a new budget.

"This great city will rise again," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). "The question is whether the city and the region will be doing it alone, dragging the federal government with us every step of the way, or will this administration get in gear and put their mind to the task at hand."

Louisiana officials say that they expect the president to offer new funding and initiatives, and that they will try to revive Baker's measure, a $2 billion health care relief plan and a $450 million business bridge-loan program.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company
LINK

Most Americans want Bush to come clean on Abramoff

As usual, he doesn't care.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three in four Americans want President George W. Bush to disclose his aides' links with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a demand the White House has rejected so far, according to a poll published on Saturday.

The Washington Post said the demand was supported by clear majorities of both Republicans and Democrats in the Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted between January 23 and January 26.

Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud charges this month and agreed to help U.S. prosecutors in a corruption probe that has sparked calls for reform of the Washington practice of lobbying lawmakers with donations and favors to influence legislation.

At a White House news conference on Thursday, Bush said he did not know Abramoff and would not release photographs in which the two appeared together.

He said the release of the photographs would be used for "pure political purposes" by Democrats.

The Washington Post said 76 percent of those surveyed said Bush should release lists of all meetings between his aides and Abramoff. Eighteen percent disagreed.

"Two in three Republicans joined with eight in 10 Democrats and political independents in favoring disclosure," the paper said.

It said 1,002 people were interviewed and the poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

LINK

- Poll: 51 percent of Americans support air strike in Iran

According to a Fox News poll published Thursday, 59 percent of Americans believe the United States should take all measures necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear arms.  

The poll also revealed 51 percent of Americans support an air strike in Iran, while 46 percent back aerial, as well as ground operations. (Yitzhak Benhorin, Washington)
LINK

Hurricane Investigators See 'Fog of War' at White House - New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 — The White House was beset by the "fog of war" in the crucial days immediately after Hurricane Katrina, leaving it unable to respond properly to the unfolding catastrophe, House investigators said Friday after getting the most detailed briefing yet on how President Bush's staff had handled the events.

The closed-door briefing, attended mostly by House committee aides, was provided by Kenneth Rapuano, who as Mr. Bush's deputy domestic security adviser was the senior official in charge of managing storm events at the White House when the hurricane struck. The meeting was a compromise, a result of White House objections to the investigators' requests for copies of e-mail messages and other correspondence from top presidential aides.

Mr. Rapuano, those present said, acknowledged that he left the White House about 10 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 29, the night the storm hit. Some two hours later, the White House received a report indicating that a major levee in New Orleans had been breached and that most of the city had already been flooded. The report was sent by an official of the Federal Emergency Management Agency who had flown over the city late that afternoon.

But Mr. Rapuano said that before he left that night, the White House received a separate report from the Army Corps of Engineers saying an evaluation of the levees was still under way.

The White House, Mr. Rapuano said, finally received confirmation about the levee breach about 6 a.m. on Tuesday, the morning after it occurred. But even then, it does not appear that word got immediately to Mr. Bush, who was on vacation and who later said that he had had a "sense of relaxation" and had thought the city had "dodged a bullet."

"We are left with a picture of a White House that was plagued by the fog of war," said David Marin, the Republican staff director to the House committee investigating the government's response to the hurricane. "The committee is likely to find a disturbing inability by the White House to de-conflict and analyze information — and that had consequences."

Trent Duffy, the deputy White House press secretary, who also attended the briefing, acknowledged that all levels of the government had suffered from a lack of clarity about the events as they developed.

"There was a lack of situational awareness at all levels," Mr. Duffy said in an interview on Friday. "That is one of the biggest lessons everyone in emergency preparedness has learned because of the storm."

With the House not yet in session, only one lawmaker from the investigative committee — its chairman, Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia — was present for the briefing. Mr. Rapuano told him and the staff investigators that the White House role had been to monitor the situation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and its parent, the Department of Homeland Security, were operationally in charge, he said.

The investigators expressed frustration that the White House did not seem to have been more actively involved. But Mr. Duffy, echoing a point made by Mr. Rapuano, said: "The White House should not be making combat decisions in Iraq. The same is true for a domestic emergency response."

The committee staff members also asked why it had taken Mr. Bush until the following Saturday, nearly a week after the storm, to order a large number of federal troops to the Gulf Coast.

Mr. Rapuano said that the Pentagon had already started to send troops and that in fact 5,000 of them had arrived by that point.

Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, had asked for many more three days earlier, but Mr. Rapuano said the problem was that she had not provided specifics as to what kind of troops she needed.

If the investigators cannot determine, through either testimony or written correspondence, what various presidential aides knew, and when, it will be hard to pinpoint where failures occurred within the White House, said Mr. Marin, the staff director for the House committee.

"There is a difference between having enough information to find institutional fault, which we have," he said, "and having information to assign individual blame, which in large part we don't."


LINK

Iran to fire missiles if attacked

 

Iran would launch medium-range missiles if attacked, a military leader said, accusing Britain and the United States of arming rebels as international pressure mounts on Tehran over its nuclear plans.

Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guard, told state television on Saturday: "If we come under a military attack, we will respond with our very effective missile defence."

    

Western states suspect Iran of secretly aiming to build a nuclear bomb. Tehran insists its nuclear facilities are intended to produce only electricity.

   

The United States and Israel have said they would prefer to solve the stand-off through diplomacy but have not ruled out a military strike.

   

Military experts reckon the Revolutionary Guard's Shahab-3 missiles have a range of some 2000 km, meaning Israel, US bases in the Gulf and foreign troops in Iraq lie within their range.

Read On

India changes tune, defends Iran: Way to go Bush

NEW DELHI, Jan 27: India on Friday distanced itself from US-led calls to isolate Iran at next week’s meeting of the IAEA after controversial remarks on the issue by Washington’s envoy to Delhi enraged the nation as seldom seen before.

The Indian foreign ministry, facing a barrage of criticism for apparent obsequiousness towards Washington that ranged from allies in the Left Front to former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, appeared to have rowed back from its recent bonhomie with the United States.

“During the past two weeks, India has been undertaking active consultations with all key members of the IAEA Board of Governors and with Iran, in order to avoid confrontation and to promote the widest possible consensus on handling the Iran nuclear issue,” a spokesman for the Indian foreign ministry said.

He explained that in all the consultations, India has urged “that Iran’s right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy for its development consistent with its international obligations and commitments should be respected”.

The spokesman said: “Iran’s willingness to work together with the IAEA to remove any outstanding issues, about its nuclear programme should be welcomed.” In this regard, the agency should be allowed to proceed according to its work programme and submit a detailed report, he said.

India, he said, also welcomes all initiatives, “including from Russia, which could enable a consensus to be reached on this issue and urges further intensive efforts in that direction”.

In the bargain India appealed to “all concerned countries (to) avoid confrontation and work in the spirit of seeking a mutually acceptable solution”.

The Indian clarification, which came in response to a question, coincided with comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that India should be ready to make hard choices ahead.

Earlier this week, US Ambassador David Mulford, in apparent eagerness to clinch a civil nuclear energy deal with India before President George W. Bush arrives here on March 1, said the move could die in the US Congress if India did not vote against Iran at the February 2 IAEA meeting.

The Indian Express, which supports the deal, cautioned: “India and the US are raucous democracies. Public statements from either side quickly feed into the domestic politics of the other and complicate the negotiations between the two governments. India and the US have made much progress in the last few years because they have learnt one hard lesson from the wasted decades of the past: avoid hectoring each other in public. Mulford’s remarks are an awful deviation from that sensible rule.”

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government is already under considerable pressure from the Left as well as sections of the Congress to reverse its IAEA vote, the Express wrote. “By linking the implementation of the nuclear pact and the Iran vote, Mulford has undercut the prospects of India moving forward on both.”

The Hindu said: “In publicly warning India, on Republic Day eve, to vote against Iran or else, (Mulford) has outrageously crossed the line of diplomatic propriety, inviting condemnation from political players ranging from the Left to Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

“But he has also done India a service by letting the cat out of the bag, if it was ever fully in. In his interview to the Press Trust of India, he has spotlighted the pitiful terms of the bargain struck by the Manmohan Singh government with Washington under the signboard of civilian nuclear cooperation,” The Hindu said.

“Who can, after Mr Mulford’s egregious forthcomingness, doubt that the bargain requires India to behave like a marionette — forced at every turn of major international events to go against its own national instincts and interests for fear of offending Washington? Today it is a fatwa on Iran, tomorrow it will be a diktat on India’s plan to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities, which Mr. Mulford has found to fall short of ‘minimum standards’.”

The Asian Age, commenting on Mr Mulford’s faux pas, observed: “Sometimes when you say something often enough, you start saying it in your sleep. This is what appears to have happened to US Ambassador to India David C. Mulford who stunned his own, and definitely Manmohan Singh’s, governments with his recent interview to a news agency.”
LINK