Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Lanya

Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 75
991
3DHS / Pombo tries to figure out what to do with himself
« on: November 20, 2006, 01:21:18 PM »
Pombo considers options in wake of stunning defeat
7-term GOP congressman seething over tactics of foes

Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Monday, November 20, 2006
 


(11-20) 04:00 PST Washington -- This is not what Rep. Richard Pombo expected to be doing in the weeks after the election.

He's packing up his congressional office. His wife, Annette, is moving personal items from their townhouse on Capitol Hill. He's preparing to hand his gavel as chairman of the House Resources Committee to a Democrat. His staff will soon turn over files to the man who stunned the political world by beating him, wind engineer and political neophyte Jerry McNerney.

The seven-term Republican lawmaker is already thinking about other things, like attending his kids' sports games and landscaping the yard on his cattle ranch in Tracy.

"My wife's got a to-do list that's 14 years old," he said, with a laugh that's half-wince.

The brash 45-year-old conservative, who's led a decadelong crusade to rewrite the nation's environmental laws, isn't sure what he'll do next. He's already getting job offers, but must wait because of ethics rules. He hopes to continue to push the agenda of property-rights groups. And he's not ruling out running to regain his congressional seat.

He's convinced that his successor, McNerney, will be ousted two years from now.

"There's no doubt," Pombo said. "We're already hearing guys are talking about running against him in the primary because they know in a different atmosphere the chances of him holding that district aren't that great. Because he's going to have to vote. Nobody would cover him before, who he was, but as the incumbent they will have to. He's going to be voting on things that the people in that district don't like."

He said there are several Republican mayors and state legislators in the district who would make good candidates. And he added, "I may consider running again for Congress. I really haven't made that decision, and I don't want to make that decision right now."

McNerney, who spent last week in Washington for the orientation for newly elected members, said through a spokesman that he would delight in a rematch with Pombo.

"The voters soundly rejected him, so we say 'bring it on' if he wants to come back for more," said McNerney's campaign manager, A.J. Carrillo.

Many of Pombo's colleagues in Congress were shocked by his loss. He was the only Republican committee chairman defeated. During votes last week on the House floor, lawmakers of both parties approached him to ask, "What happened?"

Pombo is still digesting the loss. In a wide-ranging interview, he used humor to deflect questions about how he's coping with his defeat. But his post-election sentiments are clear: He's furious at his opponents for the very personal campaign they waged against him, and he is still stunned because they pulled it off.

Pombo said he respects McNerney -- "there's probably nothing I agree with him on, but that doesn't make him a bad guy" -- but he's livid at the major environmental groups who targeted him for defeat two years ago and ran a well-financed campaign to do just that.

Sitting at the long conference table in his committee office, Pombo dissected the numbers from election day. In 2004, he beat McNerney by 22 percentage points by winning 96,000 votes in San Joaquin County, which makes up the bulk of his 11th Congressional District and has been his political base. But two years later, he got less than half that total, just 45,000 votes.

He said the figures show how his opponents -- with a barrage of anti-Pombo mailers, billboards and TV and radio ads -- persuaded his voters to stay home.

"They couldn't win with the Democrats. They had to suppress the Republican vote," he said. "The last couple weeks what they were doing was walking, calling and mailing Republicans with a heavy, 'He's corrupt, it's time to get him out' thing to try to drive down the vote of Republicans. And it worked."

Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife and a leader of the effort against Pombo, sees it a little differently. When his group first polled voters in September 2005, about a third of the district's voters viewed Pombo as anti-environment and too close to special interests. By May, after the environmentalists' campaign began, more than half of voters held that view, he said.

"All we had to do was reinforce and broadcast the very reasons that voters were unhappy with him and why their approval of him was so low," Schlickeisen said.

Pombo acknowledged that his own polls in the last week showed the only way he would win was with a big GOP turnout. Pombo believes California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's romp depressed turnout for him and many other Republican candidates statewide.

"It was a done deal. There was no reason for the Republicans to show up," he said.

Analysts say other factors also hurt Pombo, including anger over the Iraq war and frustration with President Bush and the GOP Congress, which persuaded many independent voters nationwide to vote Democratic. An influx of new voters also may have helped McNerney in this swing district, which twice backed Bush but also voted for California's two Democratic senators.

Although his clout is diminished, Pombo remains chairman for a few weeks. He's still negotiating with senators over separate bills approved by the House and Senate to boost offshore drilling. The Senate bill, which Pombo dislikes because it opens only a limited area of the Gulf of Mexico to drilling, is seen by most lawmakers as the only bill with a chance to pass in the final days of this Congress.

He is proud of several policy successes as chairman, including passing President Bush's Healthy Forests legislation to thin fire-prone forests with logging and a recent deal to restore the San Joaquin River. But his signature initiatives -- approving oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and overhauling the Endangered Species Act -- stalled in Congress and are unlikely to be taken up by Democrats.

His likely successor as House Resources chairman, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., praised Pombo for working closely with Democrats on the committee, although they often clashed over environmental issues.

"He felt that some of the safeguards that have worked over the decades were not working," Rahall said. "I think the vast majority of Americans believe they are. That's a balance I'll seek to restore as chairman."

Pombo never liked the Washington scene -- the cocktail parties and black-tie dinners -- and he appears ready to be back in his blue jeans and cowboy boots with the 3,000 head of cattle on his family's 500-acre feedlot. He said he won't miss the twice-weekly cross-country flights or seeing his name in headlines. Too many lawmakers, he thinks, grow addicted to the attention.

"A lot of these guys think they are important, and they buy off on their own press," he said. "I think it's important work, I think what we do here has an impact on people's lives, but the guys doing it aren't important."

Some close to Pombo believe this could be his last campaign. He has never shied away from political combat, but the race left hard feelings for many in his tight-knit Portuguese family, who felt the Pombo name was dragged through the mud.

"Everyone was disappointed I lost," he said. "But it got so ugly and so personal, I think they were happy it was over with."

E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/20/MNG0DMGE031.DTL

992
3DHS / Did the president return the money?
« on: November 20, 2006, 11:50:37 AM »


Noe sentenced to 18 years in prison
By Mark Niquette
The Columbus Dispatch
Monday, November 20, 2006 10:22 AM
Associated Press
Tom Noe listens to the verdicts being read in Lucas County Common Pleas Court last week.

TOLEDO -- Coin dealer Thomas W. Noe was sentenced to 18 years in state prison this morning for stealing from a rare-coin investment he managed for the state.

Judge Thomas J. Osowik also ordered that Noe start serving the state sentence after he finishes a 27-month prison term for an unrelated federal conviction. That means he will spend 20 years and three months behind bars.

Osowik also fined Noe $120,000 plus the cost of the investigation, which prosecutors said was nearly $3 million.

A hearing also has been scheduled one week for today to determine what restitution Noe must pay, which prosecutors say is at least $13.7 million that Noe stole from the $50 million investment he managed for the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

Noe lawyer John R. Mitchell said in court the defense disputes that figure. He said after the sentencing that Noe, who appeared in court shackled in a blue Lucas County jail jump suit, also would appeal the conviction but declined further comment.

Noe's attorneys had asked Osowik to sentence Noe only to the mandatory minimum of 10 years that he faced on the state charges, and to allow Noe to serve the state and federal sentences at the same time.

But prosecutors asked Osowik to give Noe more time than the minimum on the state charges and to order that the sentences be served consecutively, arguing they were separate cases. Osowik agreed.

Although Osowik said the case was a “run-of-the mill embezzlement,” he ruled that Noe was in a position of public trust and stole form the state investment at “shockingly alarming rate.”

A Lucas County jury convicted Noe on 29 of the 40 felony counts including engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, aggravated theft, money laundering and tampering with records.

The jury acquitted Noe on seven money laundering and four tampering with records charges.

But Noe was convicted on the most serious charges, a first-degree felony theft of more than $1 million and the racketeering charge. The later carries a mandatory sentence of at least 10 years in prison.

Prosecutors say Noe, a once-prominent Republican contributor, stole from the bureau investment to pay off debts and for other personal uses.

Noe's attorneys argued at trial that Noe's contract with the bureau gave him broad authority over the funds and characterized the money he took as loans or advances. If Noe failed to pay back that money, it would be a civil case and not a criminal matter, his attorneys said.

The lawyers filed additional evidence today arguing the case should have been moved out of Lucas County because of pre-trial publicity.

Noe has spent that past week in the Lucas County jail. He was handcuffed and taken into custody by federal marshals after the guilty verdict was announced last Monday.

Earlier this year, Noe pleaded guilty to federal charges of illegally funneling $45,400 to President Bush's re-election campaign in 2003 and was sentenced to two years and three months in federal prison.

The collapse of the Noe's coin investment last May sparked a series of state ethics and investment scandals that helped Democrats reclaim the governor's office other state posts in the Nov. 7 election.

mniquette@dispatch.com
http://columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=227840

993
3DHS / Realism? Pessimism? Who knows.
« on: November 19, 2006, 03:37:45 PM »
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-kissinger19nov19,1,4993756.story

Kissinger says democracy is out of reach for Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900287.html

Kissinger says Iraq win "impossible."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/11/19/blair.musharraf.terror.ap/index.html

Blair says force alone can't beat terrorism.  Fancy that. We gots to fight smart too? Dang.




994
3DHS / Houston janitors held in jail on $39.1 million bond
« on: November 19, 2006, 01:34:45 AM »
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061117/nyf130.html?.v=5

Press Release   Source: SEIU

Houston Crackdown on Right to Peaceful Protest, Freedom of Speech...
Friday November 17, 11:17 pm ET
44 Janitors Arrested in Non-Violent Civil Disobedience in Houston Held on Combined $39.1 Million Bond
For peaceful protestors charged with Class B misdemeanors, bond for each set at unprecedented $888,888 cash; For Harris County man recently charged with murder, bond set at $30,000

HOUSTON, Nov. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- In an unprecedented transparent attempt to severely limit the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech of low-wage Houston janitors and their supporters, a Harris County District Attorney has set an extraordinarily high bond of $888,888 cash for each of the 44 peaceful protestors arrested last night. Houston janitors and their supporters, many of them janitors from other cities, were participating in an act of non-violent civil disobedience, protesting in the intersection of Travis at Capitol when they were arrested in downtown Houston Thursday night. They were challenging Houston's real estate industry to settle the janitors' strike and agree on a contract that provides the 5,300 janitors in Houston with higher wages and affordable health insurance.

The combined $39.1 million bond for the workers and their supporters is far and above the normal amount of bail set for people accused of even violent crimes in Harris County. While each of the non-violent protestors is being held on $888,888 bail ...

    * For a woman charged with beating her granddaughter to death with a
      sledgehammer, bail was set at $100,000;

    * For a woman accused of disconnecting her quadriplegic mother's breathing
      machine, bail was set at $30,000;

    * For a man charged with murder for stabbing another man to death in a bar
      brawl, bail was set at $30,000;

    * For janitors and protesters charged with Class B misdemeanors for past
      non-violent protests, standard bail has been set at $500 each.

More than 5,300 Houston janitors are paid $20 a day with no health insurance, among the lowest wages and benefits of any workers in America.

Community activists and leaders expressed concern and dismay today at the police's use of horses to intimidate and corral janitors participating in the non-violent civil disobedience Thursday night in downtown Houston. The police's choice to use horses to stop the protest resulted in four people being injured, including an 83-year old female janitor from New York.

In a statement released today prior to the bonds being set, U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee said, "A protest is a sign of freedom in the United States and exercises our basic rights to free speech."

Photos and video shot by people in the crowd during the incident are available on http://www.houstonjanitors.org

Background:

More than 1,700 SEIU janitors in Houston have been on strike since October 23 over civil rights abuses and a failure to bargain in good faith by their employers, the five national cleaning companies ABM, OneSource, GCA, Sanitors, and Pritchard.

With five of the most influential players in Houston's commercial real estate industry refusing to intervene in the dispute, the workers' strike against five national cleaning firms is increasing in scope and intensity. In the highly competitive market of contract cleaning, it the building landlords that hire the cleaning firms that negotiate and set rates for janitors' wages and benefits. These five major landlords, Hines, Transwestern, Crescent, Brookfield Properties, and the oil giant Chevron, have the power to settle the strike by directing the cleaning contractors they hire to provide higher wages and health insurance all workers need to support their families.

In every city, the janitors work for many of the same national cleaning firms in buildings owned by the same national commercial landlords. But, while janitors in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and other cities make more than $10 an hour, have health insurance and full-time work, Houston workers are paid an average of $20 a day, with no health insurance for part-time work.

Last fall, 5,300 Houston janitors made the historic choice to form a union with SEIU (Service Employees International Union). Their decision capped one of the largest successful organizing drives by private sector workers ever in the Southern half of the United States. Since forming a union with SEIU, Houston janitors have been seeking a raise to $8.50/hour, more hours, and health insurance in a citywide union contract. For more info, visit houstonjanitors.org

More than 225,000 janitors in 29 cities are members of SEIU.



http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/18/162219/61

Here's a testimonial from one of the organizers of the protest.  Brutality against workers should not be tolerated in our country.

    We sat down in the intersection and the horses came immediately. It was really violent. They arrested us, and when we got to jail, we were pretty beat up. Not all of us got the medical attention we needed. The worst was a protester named Julia, who is severely diabetic. We kept telling the guards about her condition but they only gave her a piece of candy. During roll call, she started to complain about light-headedness. Finally she just collapsed unconscious on the floor. It was like she just dropped dead. The guard saw it but just kept going through the roll. Susan ran over there and took her pulse while the other inmates were yelling for help, saying we need to call somebody. The medical team strolled over, taking their own sweet time. She was unconscious for like 4 or 5 minutes.

    They really tried to break us down. The first night they put the temperature so high that a woman--one of the other inmates--had a seizure. The second night they made it freezing and took away many of our blankets. We didn't have access to the cots so we had to sleep on a concrete floor. When we would finally fall asleep the guards would come and yell `Are you Anna Denise Solís? Are you so and so?' One of the protesters had a fractured wrist from the horses. She had a cast on and when she would fall asleep the guard would kick the cast to wake her up. She was in a lot of pain.

    The guards would tell us: `This is what you get for protesting.' One of them said, `Who gives a shit about janitors making 5 dollars an hour? Lots of people make that much.' The other inmates--there were a lot of prostitutes in there--said that they had never seen the jail this bad. The guards told them: `We're trying to teach the protesters a lesson.' Nobody was getting out of jail because the processing was so slow. They would tell the prostitutes that everything is the protesters' fault. They were trying to turn everybody against each other.

    I felt like I was in some Third World jail, not in America. One of the guards called us `whores' and if we talked back, we didn't get any lunch. We didn't even have the basic necessities. It felt like a police state, like marshal law, nobody had rights. Some of us had been arrested in other cities, and it was never this bad before.

    They tried to break us down, to dehumanize us. But we were stronger. We made friends with the other inmates and we organized them. The prostitutes felt a lot of solidarity with us. All of us together told stories, and played games like telephone and charades. We even did stand-up comedy monologues about what was happening to us and we all laughed. One woman--a woman of deep faith--gave a sermon that was both funny and deadly serious. We showed them that we weren't afraid. We did it all together. Now we're ready to fight on for basic American rights like the freedom of speech and the right to protest.  --Anna Denise Solís, Lead Organizer, SEIU Local 1877, San José, CA.

995
3DHS / Ruled by Faith
« on: November 18, 2006, 11:10:06 PM »
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19590

Feature
A Country Ruled by Faith
By Garry Wills
George W. Bush
(click for larger image)George W. Bush by David Levine

The right wing in America likes to think that the United States government was, at its inception, highly religious, specifically highly Christian, and even more specifically highly biblical. That was not true of that government or any later government—until 2000, when the fiction of the past became the reality of the present. George W. Bush was not only born-again, like Jimmy Carter. His religious conversion came late, and took place in the political setting of Billy Graham's ministry to the powerful. He was converted during a stroll with Graham on his father's Kennebunkport compound. It is true that Dwight Eisenhower was guided to baptism by Graham. But Eisenhower was a famous and formed man, the principal military figure of World War II, the leader of NATO, the president of Columbia University—his change in religious orientation was just an addition to many prior achievements. Bush's conversion at a comparatively young stage in his life was a wrenching away from mainly wasted years. He joined a Bible study culture in Texas that was unlike anything Eisenhower bought into.

Bush was a saved alcoholic—and here, too, he had no predecessor in the White House. Ulysses Grant conquered the bottle, but not with the help of Jesus. Other presidents were evangelicals. Three of them belonged to the Disciples of Christ—James Garfield, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan. But none of the three— nor any of the other forty-two presidents preceding Bush (including his father)—would have answered a campaign debate question as he did. Asked who was his favorite philosopher, he said "Jesus Christ." And why? "Because he changed my heart." Over and over, when he said anything good about someone else—including Vladimir Putin—he said it was because "he has a good heart," which is evangelical-speak (as in "condoms cannot change your heart"). Bush talks evangelical talk as no other president has, including Jimmy Carter, who also talked the language of the secular Enlightenment culture that evangelists despise. Bush told various evangelical groups that he felt God had called him to run for president in 2000: "I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."[1]

Bush promised his evangelical followers faith-based social services, which he called "compassionate conservatism." He went beyond that to give them a faith-based war, faith-based law enforcement, faith-based education, faith-based medicine, and faith-based science. He could deliver on his promises because he stocked the agencies handling all these problems, in large degree, with born-again Christians of his own variety. The evangelicals had complained for years that they were not able to affect policy because liberals left over from previous administrations were in all the health and education and social service bureaus, at the operational level. They had specific people they objected to, and they had specific people with whom to replace them, and Karl Rove helped them do just that.

It is common knowledge that the Republican White House and Congress let "K Street" lobbyists have a say in the drafting of economic legislation, and on the personnel assigned to carry it out, in matters like oil production, pharmaceutical regulation, medical insurance, and corporate taxes. It is less known that for social services, evangelical organizations were given the same right to draft bills and install the officials who implement them. Karl Rove had cultivated the extensive network of religious right organizations, and they were consulted at every step of the way as the administration set up its policies on gays, AIDS, condoms, abstinence programs, creationism, and other matters that concerned the evangelicals. All the evangelicals' resentments under previous presidents, including Republicans like Reagan and the first Bush, were now being addressed.

[much longer article.....................]

996
3DHS / House Dems target oil tax breaks
« on: November 18, 2006, 03:01:29 PM »
Dems Take Aim at Oil Industry Tax Breaks

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Saturday, November 18, 2006; 1:50 PM

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are targeting billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks for quick repeal next year. A broader energy proposal that would boost alternative energy sources and conservation is expected to be put off until later.

Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil."

Yet the energy plan being assembled by Pelosi's aides for the initial round of legislation is less ambitious than her pronouncement might suggest.

For the most part, the tax benefits are ones that lawmakers talked of repealing this year when Congress struggled to respond to the public outcry over soaring summer fuel prices and oil companies' huge profits.

Topping the list for repeal are:

_Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration.

_A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this country instead of going abroad.

Democrats say neither tax benefit should be needed for an industry reaping large profits at today's high crude oil prices.

Over 10 years, the production tax credit saves oil companies $5 billion and the refinery measure and exploration credit a total of about $1.4 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Other oil tax breaks probably will go unchallenged. That includes some passed by Congress only a year ago and others already targeted for repeal this year.

For example, House Democrats have no plans to change a provision that allows oil companies to avoid billions of dollars in taxes by the way they calculate inventories. The Senate this year agreed to a repeal; the effort was abandoned amid House GOP opposition and an uproar from other industries that also benefit from the tax language.

House Democrats also are shying away from tampering with more than $1 billion worth of oil- and gas-related tax breaks, enacted last year. These breaks largely benefit small companies or gas utilities rather than the major oil companies now awash in cash.

Nevertheless, the House and Senate are expected to push legislation early to force oil companies to renegotiate flawed offshore drilling leases that have allowed the companies to avoid paying federal royalties. The loss eventually could cost the government $10 billion, according to some congressional estimates.

Other prime targets of House and Senate Democrats include:

_Alleged price gouging. Proposals to create a federal price gouging law for gasoline and other fuels probably will move quickly.

_More incentives and mandates to expand the use of ethanol and biodiesel as a substitute for gasoline. Requiring oil companies to phase in retail pumps that deliver fuel that is 85 percent ethanol.

_Requiring power companies to produce a percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Such a measure is a priority of Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., incoming chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

_Extending energy efficiency tax credits approved by Congress last year. Most are scheduled to expire at the end of next year.

_Expanding a tax break for buyers of gas-electric hybrid cars and offering more incentives for automakers to build greater numbers of the vehicles.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who will take over as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he plans hearings on legislation to spur further production and distribution of ethanol and biodiesel, and promote conservation.

But he suggested it will take time to produce legislation. "The process is a long one. It takes hearings, it takes fact finding," said Dingell in a telephone interview.

On the Senate side, Bingaman probably will avoid writing a single broad energy bill, preferring to push through specific legislation. Among Bingaman's other goals are new incentives to spur renewable energy development and more tax breaks for conservation.

Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said if the country is to reduce its addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a "crash program" to develop more alternative energy sources, dramatically increase conservation and examine "whether or not we should break up the big oil companies."

Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3 leadership position among Senate Democrats and will be one of the party's top strategists.
© 2006 The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/18/AR2006111800480_pf.html

997
3DHS / Obvious double standard in media
« on: November 18, 2006, 02:46:10 PM »
  GOP gets a thumpin', and media revive their substance-free, sophomoric taunting ... of Democrats
[.........]

  It's easy enough to look past the obvious, if unintentional, double standard. After all, if the public isn't well-served by the sort of inane, substance-free mockery and derision to which the media have subjected progressives in recent years, such treatment of conservatives would merely even the score, not necessarily constitute a move toward more responsible treatment of serious issues. So we might see the lack of sophomoric taunting as a positive.

    That would be a mistake. The political media aren't becoming more responsible; they're simply continuing to direct their scorn at Democrats and progressives. Just this week, media have hyped purported Democratic disarray while downplaying or ignoring altogether GOP infighting; falsely suggested that Nancy Pelosi is as unpopular as President Bush; asserted that Democrats — who do not yet actually control Congress and won't until next year — are "starting to feel some of the pressure" of catching Osama bin Laden without explaining how Bush and the GOP let him get away; and suggested that Nancy Pelosi, who hasn't even become speaker of the House yet, is already "damaged goods." Meanwhile, Trent Lott, who has as good a claim on being "damaged goods" as anyone, is the beneficiary of a media whitewash of his history of associating himself with racist organizations and ideas. Fox News, not typically known for subtlety or for downplaying controversy, told viewers that Lott "ran into a little bit of difficulty, but now he's making a comeback." Yes, that unpleasantness about his suggestion that America would be better off had a segregationist been elected president is behind him, and Lott is now ready, we presume, to act as a uniter, not a divider. Right.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611170014

998
3DHS / Epic sanctimony
« on: November 17, 2006, 09:47:16 PM »
Good Riddance To The Gingrichites
CBS' Meyer: GOP 'Chess Club' Ruled The House For 12 Years And Won't Be Missed

   
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16, 2006
Former Rep. Newt Gingrich led the "Contract With America" crowd in 1994. (AP)

Quote

History reveals that often great leaders and intellectuals appear in clusters, inspiring and motivating each other to extraordinary achievement ... The opposite is also true.
   
(CBS) This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

This is a story I should have written 12 years ago when the "Contract with America" Republicans captured the House in 1994. I apologize.

Really, it's just a simple thesis: The men who ran the Republican Party in the House of Representatives for the past 12 years were a group of weirdos. Together, they comprised one of the oddest legislative power cliques in our history. And for 12 years, the media didn't call a duck a duck, because that's not something we're supposed to do.

I'm not talking about the policies of the Contract for America crowd, but the character. I'm confident that 99 percent of the population — if they could see these politicians up close, if they watched their speeches and looked at their biographies — would agree, no matter what their politics or predilections.

I'm confident that if historians ever spend the time on it, they'll confirm my thesis. Same with forensic psychiatrists. I have discussed this with scores of politicians, staffers, consultants and reporters since 1994 and have found few dissenters.

Politicians in this country get a bad rap. For the most part, they are like any high-achieving group in America, with roughly the same distribution of pathologies and virtues. But the leaders of the GOP House didn't fit the personality profile of American politicians, and they didn't deviate in a good way. It was the Chess Club on steroids.

The iconic figures of this era were Newt Gingrich, Richard Armey and Tom Delay. They were zealous advocates of free markets, low taxes and the pursuit of wealth; they were hawks and often bellicose; they were brutal critics of big government.

Yet none of these guys had success in capitalism. None made any real money before coming to Congress. None of them spent a day in uniform. And they all spent the bulk of their adult careers getting paychecks from the big government they claimed to despise. Two resigned in disgrace.

Having these guys in charge of a radical conservative agenda was like, well, putting Mark Foley in charge of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. Indeed, Foley was elected in the Class of '94 and is not an inappropriate symbol of their regime.

More than the others, Newton Leroy Gingrich lived out a very special hypocrisy. In addition to the above biographical dissonance, Gingrich was one of the most sharp-tongued, articulate and persuasive attack dogs in modern politics. His favorite target was the supposed immorality and corruption of the Democratic Party. With soaring rhetoric, he condemned his opponents as anti-American and dangerous to our country's family values — "grotesque" was a favorite word.

Yet this was a man who was divorced twice — the first time when his wife was hospitalized for cancer treatment, the second time after an affair was revealed.

Gingrich made his bones in the party by relentlessly attacking Democratic corruption, yet he was hounded from office because of a series of serious ethics questions. He posed as a reformer of the House, yet championed a series of deforms that made the legislative process more closed, more conducive to hiding special interest favors and less a forum for genuine debate.

And he did it all with epic sanctimony.

.................

Dick Meyer is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/15/opinion/meyer/main2182755.shtml

999
3DHS / This is going to be fun
« on: November 17, 2006, 04:40:00 PM »
November 17th, 2006
Pat Leahy wants to investigate Laura Ingraham
By: John Amato @ 11:20 AM - PST 

Now this would be just a little justice. via email: Pat Leahy at a hearing on voter fraud all but demanded that the Justice Department investigate and even prosecute Laura Ingraham for her election-day call to her listeners to jam the phone lines Democrats set up for reporting voter machine problems and the like.

Audio-MP3

Media Matters explains:

    As the weblog Firedoglake first noted, during the November 7 edition of her nationally syndicated talk radio show, Laura Ingraham urged listeners to jam the phone lines of 1-888-DEM-VOTE, a voter assistance hotline sponsored by the Democratic Party. Ingraham stated: "I want you to call it and I want you tell us what you get when you call 1-888-DEM-VOTE. They're on top of all of the shenanigans at the polling stations. One problem: you can't get through." Minutes later, while talking with a listener who called the hotline, Ingraham said: "Let's keep 'dem' lines ringing."

Filed Under: Wingnuts, Right Wing Pundits, scandals

November 17th, 2006
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/17/pat-leahy-wants-to-investigate-laura-ingraham/
Transcript of Ingraham:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611070019

1000
3DHS / Leahy: Papers, please
« on: November 17, 2006, 04:21:13 PM »
   

Dem judiciary leader seeks torture documents

Brian Beutler
Published: Friday November 17, 2006

Print This  Email This

In a letter addressed to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, soon to be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has requested the release of documents that outline the Bush Administration's interrogation policies.

If the request is not met, the Democratically-controlled judiciary will have the option to subpoena when the new congress begins in January.

The documents, which have long been thought to exist by observers and critics of America's national security policies, were confirmed to exist as the result of a still-pending Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the ACLU.

One of those documents is believed to be a companion piece to the now-infamous August 2002 memorandum which redefined torture and, as a result, broadened the range of interrogation tactics permitted in the field.

The companion document, the so-called “Yoo Two” document (named after legal counsel John Yoo) is believed to contain a list of actual techniques that have been approved by the Department of Justice—and which therefore are legally protected interrogation methods used by intelligence operatives against suspected terrorists.

A press release issued today contends that Leahy "had previously requested all documents relating to the treatment of detainees from the Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA and the Department of Defense."

Those requests have turned up numerous controversial memos and reports detailing the handling of so-called enemy combatants by U.S. soldiers and intelligence officials, but the now-uncovered documents were never included.

According to the ACLU, the documents specify “interrogation methods that the CIA may use against top al-Qaeda members.”

Last November, a news report surfaced detailing six so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. What remains unclear, and what the documents requested by Leahy might reveal, is which of these techniques are legal in the eyes of the justice department.

“The American people and their representatives in Congress," Leahy insists, "are entitled to know the truth about the Bush Administration’s interrogation policies and practices that have engendered criticism at home, contributed so negatively to the image of the United States around the world and served to undercut our efforts against terrorism,”

The full text of the letter, as obtained by RAW STORY, appears below.
#

November 16, 2006

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

Recent press accounts indicate that, after years of denials, the Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged the existence of additional documents detailing the Bush Administration’s interrogation and detention policy for terrorism suspects. According to press reports, the CIA recently disclosed the existence of two interrogation-related documents – a presidential directive regarding the CIA’s interrogation methods and detention facilities located outside of the United States, and an August 2002 Department of Justice Memorandum to the CIA General Counsel regarding CIA interrogation methods (the “2nd Bybee memo”) – in connection with an ongoing FOIA lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

As you know, for more than two years, I have repeatedly sought answers from the Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Defense regarding reported and, in some instances, documented cases of the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. The photographs and reports of prisoner abuse in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere that have emerged during the past two years depict an interrogation and detention system operating contrary to U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

Prisoner abuse is one aspect of a broader problem, which includes the use of so-called “extraordinary renditions” to send people to other countries where they will be subject to torture. We diminish our own values as a Nation – and lose credibility as an advocate of human rights around the world – by engaging in, or outsourcing, torture.

The American people deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush Administration in developing the interrogation policies and practices that have engendered such deep criticism and concern at home and around the world. I ask that you promptly respond to the following questions and document requests.

   1.

      Please produce any and all directives, memoranda, and/or orders, including any and all attachments to such documents, regarding CIA interrogation methods or policies for the treatment of detainees, including but not limited to the directive signed by President Bush governing CIA interrogation methods, or allowing the CIA to set up detention centers located outside of the United States.
   2.

      Please produce any and all Department of Justice directives, memoranda, and/or guidance, including any and all attachments to such documents, regarding CIA detention and/or interrogation methods, including but not limited to the August 2002 Memorandum from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to the CIA General Counsel regarding CIA interrogation methods (the “2nd Bybee memo”).
   3.

      Please produce any and all documents in the custody of the Department of Justice regarding the legality of specific interrogation tactics and/or federal criminal prohibitions on torture and abuse that were used in the preparation of the 2nd Bybee memo referenced above.
   4.

      Please state whether the 2nd Bybee memo was withdrawn, replaced, or modified after the Administration withdrew the Office of Legal Counsel’s memorandum regarding U.S. obligations under anti-torture law, dated August 2002 (the “1st Bybee Memo”) in December 2004. If so, please produce any and all revisions, or modifications of the 2nd Bybee memo.
   5.

      Please produce any and all Department of Justice documents that interpret, or advise on, the scope of interrogation practices permitted and prohibited by the Detainee Treatment Act or the Military Commissions Act.
   6.

      Please produce an index of any and all documents relating to investigations and/or reviews conducted by the Department of Justice into detainee abuse by U.S. military or civilian personnel in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison, or elsewhere.

I look forward to comprehensive responses to the above questions and document requests.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY United States Senator

cc: General Michael V. Hayden, USAF Director Central Intelligence Agency Room Number 7D56 OHB Washington, D.C. 20505

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Dem_judiciary_leader_seeks_torture_documents_1117.html

1001
3DHS / It wasn't creme brulee but it would have done the job
« on: November 17, 2006, 03:36:24 PM »
[Title reference is to this: Ann Coulter: "We Need Somebody To Put Rat Poisoning In Justice Stevens' Creme Brulee"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/27/ann-coulter-we-need-som_n_14588.html ]
November 17, 2006
Justice Recalls Treats Laced With Poison
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 — A discussion of recent threats to judges’ safety, at a bar association conference in suburban Dallas last week, became startlingly specific when Sandra Day O’Connor, the retired Supreme Court justice, recounted that each justice had received in the mail “a wonderful package of home-baked cookies” that contained “enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court.”

Justice O’Connor’s remarks were reported on Thursday in The Star-Telegram in Fort Worth.

Although the episode was not publicly disclosed when it occurred in April 2005, it had a public, although little-noticed, denouement last month when the sender of the poisoned cookies was sentenced in federal court here to 15 years in prison.

The sender, Barbara Joan March of Bridgeport, Conn., pleaded guilty to 14 counts of “mailing injurious articles.” The 14 recipients included the nine justices; the chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and the director and deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The packages, containing either candy or baked goods, were laced with rat poison.

All mail received at the Supreme Court is screened, and the tainted packages never reached the justices, said Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer. The danger posed by the packages was immediately apparent. Each contained a typewritten letter stating either, “I am going to kill you,” or, “We are going to kill you,” and adding, “This is poisoned.”

The letters carried various return addresses of people who had earlier connections with Ms. March, including seven who attended college with her. The F.B.I. determined that Ms. March wrote and sent the letters, typing a number of them on a typewriter at a public library near her home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/washington/17threat.html?_r=5&oref=slogin&ref=washington&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&ore&oref=login

1002
3DHS / Freeper with follow-through
« on: November 17, 2006, 03:13:41 PM »
Monday, November 13, 2006   

Hanging Chad

That's what you do with terrorists, right?

A long time ago, somewhere on the internet, I referred to Timmy McVeigh as a Freeper with follow-through. According to reports, we now have Malk-Hata's Number 2 man in federal custody.

    According to an FBI affidavit obtained by Radar, Chad Conrad Castagana, who was arrested Monday on suspicion of sending powder-filled envelopes to Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Sumner Redstone, David Letterman, Pelosi, and New York Senator Charles Schumer, purchased a $15 money order made out to "Friends of Katherine Harris" last September at a Woodland Hills, Calif., post office while he was picking up the envelopes and stamps he employed to terrorize the liberal elite.

So hanging Chad would be an execution and a tribute to Katherine Harris, all in one.

Other reports suggest that Chad, aged 39, unemployed and still living in his parents' basement, is a poster to rightwing blogs and an enthusiastic fan of Michelle Malkin. (These things practically write themselves.) The FBI and Department of Homeland Security might want to check out Chad's e-mail and buddy lists while they're searching his computer. Of course, there's no conclusive evidence that Malkin gave financial support to Castagana or helped him come up with his more clever anti-Semetic slurs, but then again there was no evidence that Chaplain James Yee passed information to Muslim prisoners of war or that Joel Henry Hinrichs was a Muslim, so you never know.

It's good to see progress in the war on terror. Of course, Chad is innocent until proven guilty through a confession obtained by waterboarding, preferably performed by our Egyptian allies.

http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2006_11_12_rogerailes_archive.html#116348877665875245

1003
3DHS / Public happy Democrats won
« on: November 16, 2006, 11:28:04 PM »
Public Cheers Democratic Victory
Expectations As High As for GOP in 1994

Released: November 16, 2006



The Democrats' big win on Nov. 7 has gotten a highly favorable response from the public. In fact, initial reactions to the Democratic victory are as positive as they were to the GOP's electoral sweep of Congress a dozen years ago. Six-in-ten Americans say they are happy that the Democratic Party won control of Congress; in December 1994, roughly the same percentage (57%) expressed a positive opinion of the GOP's takeover.

Half of Americans approve of the Democrats' plans and policies for the future, which also is comparable to approval of the GOP's proposed agenda in 1994. However, there is one important area where the parallels to 1994 do not hold: By 51%-29%, more Americans want Democratic leaders ­ rather than President Bush ­ to take the lead in solving the nation's problems. Twelve years ago, the public was divided over whether GOP congressional leaders (43%), or President Clinton (39%), should take the lead in addressing national problems.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press ­ conducted Nov. 9-12 among 1,479 Americans ­ finds that Americans are optimistic that Democrats will actually get their proposals enacted. Roughly six-in-ten (59%) say Democratic leaders will be successful in getting their programs passed into law; again, this is on par with the confidence that Americans voiced about GOP legislative prospects in December 1994.

However, in the wake of a bitter midterm campaign, the public is dubious that the election will lead to increased bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. Just 29% think that relations between Republicans and Democrats will get better in the year ahead; 46% expect relations to remain the same; and 20% predict relations will get worse.

FigureIn this regard, Democrats are cool to the idea of their leaders cooperating with President Bush. About half of Democrats (51%) say party leaders should "stand up" to Bush on important issues, even if that means less gets done in Washington; 42% believe Democratic leaders should try to work with Bush, even if it means disappointing some Democratic supporters. By contrast, most Republicans (61%) want their party's leaders to try to work with Democratic leaders, while 30% believe GOP leaders should stand up to the Democrats.

Bush's own job approval ratings have hit a new low in the aftermath of the elections. Just 32% of Americans approve of Bush's job performance compared with 58% who disapprove. Bush's job rating stands at just 24% among political independents, who proved crucial to the Democrats' victory on Nov. 7. By 57%-39%, independent voters cast ballots for Democratic candidates, according to national exit polls. Two years ago, independent voters were more divided (50% Democrat/46% Republican). See "Centrists Deliver for Democrats," November 8, 2006).

FigureThe broad opposition to President Bush among independents is reflected in their strong preference that Democratic leaders, rather than the president, take the lead in solving the nation's problems. By more than two-to-one (53%-25%), independents believe that Democratic leaders should take the lead on issues. In the aftermath of the 1994 elections, independents ­ like the public generally ­ were divided over whether President Clinton or Republican leaders should have a leading role in dealing with issues.

The survey finds that public perceptions of the situation of Iraq have gone from bad to worse. Overall, 64% feel that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is not going well, up from 59% last month and the highest percentage since the war began. In terms of specific evaluations of the situation, increasing numbers say the U.S. is losing ground in training Iraqi security forces (up 11 points since August), reducing civilian casualties (nine points), and preventing terrorists from establishing a base in Iraq (nine points).

Obama Moves Up


FigureThough some of this year's congressional elections are not yet decided, attention is already beginning to shift to the 2008 presidential race. Sen. Barack Obama has emerged as the leading rival to Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party's nomination.

Among registered Democrats, Sen. Clinton continues to lead by a wide margin ­ 39% of party voters back her, compared with 23% for Obama. But the margin narrows among independent voters; 27% say they would like to see Clinton win the Democratic nomination, while 21% favor Obama.

Among the Republican contenders, Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani both continue to attract broad support. Among registered Republicans, the two run neck-and-neck (27% for Giuliani, 26% for McCain), and both receive the support of roughly three-in-ten independents as well.

The lists of potential presidential nominees for both parties mostly consist of veteran politicians, but the public wants more people from different walks of life to compete for high political office. About six-in-ten Americans (57%) say they would like to see more non-politicians run for high office, compared with 33% who think it is important to have experienced politicians running for office. Comparable percentages of independents (59%), Democrats (59%) and Republicans (56%) say it would be good for political outsiders to run for high office.

Pelosi's Stature Growing


While most Americans still are unable to name a person who stands out in their minds as the leader of the Democratic Party these days, the proportion naming Rep. Nancy Pelosi has risen sharply following the 2006 midterm elections. Currently, 10% of Americans name Rep. Pelosi as the party's leader, up from just 1% in April. Only Hillary Clinton is cited more frequently, by 12% of respondents.

FigureThere is little party divide over perceptions of the Democratic leadership ­ Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are mentioned most frequently by Republicans, Democrats and independents. But within the Democratic Party, liberals and conservatives take a somewhat different view. Among liberal Democrats, 14% cite Howard Dean as the party's leader, on par with the percentage who cite Clinton (14%) and Pelosi (13%). But just 2% of moderate and conservative Democrats name Dean, while 14% name Clinton and 9% name Pelosi. No other leader stands out in the minds of moderate and conservative Democrats; most are unable to name anyone as the party's leader these days.

Partisans Rate their Parties


FigureThroughout the Bush presidency, Republicans nationwide have expressed far more satisfaction than Democrats with their party's performance in standing up for its traditional positions. But over the past two years, Republicans have become increasingly frustrated with their party. As a result, for the first time in more than six years, as many Democrats as Republicans give their party good marks for standing up for its traditional positions (43% of Democrats/42% of Republicans).

More than half of Democrats (52%) still say the party has done only a fair (45%) or poor (7%) job in advocating such traditional Democratic positions as protecting the interests of minorities, helping the poor and needy, and representing working people. But there is greater dissatisfaction among Republicans: 41% say the party has done only a fair job, and 15% a poor job, of standing up for traditional GOP positions like reducing the size of government, cutting taxes, and promoting conservative social values.

The last time a majority of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic gave their party positive marks for standing up for traditional party positions was during the final months of the Clinton administration (63% in September 2000). During the past six years fewer than half of Democrats and Democratic leaners felt the party was performing well in this regard, reaching an all-time low of 33% in March 2005. Democratic ratings have recovered somewhat from that low point ­ today 43% say the party is performing well on its traditional agenda, up from just 34% this June.

FigureConservative Democrats are much more positive about how well the party has performed in advocating its traditional positions than are moderate and liberal Democrats. Nearly six-in-ten conservative Democrats (58%) say the party has done an excellent or good job in this regard, compared with 40% of moderate Democrats and 37% of liberal Democrats.

Among Republicans, conservatives are more satisfied with the party's stand on key principles than are moderates in the party. Half of conservative Republicans (50%) feel the party is doing an excellent or good job standing up for traditional party positions, compared with 28% of moderates.

The growth in Republican frustration with the party has also been most notable among older Republicans. Today, just 34% of Republicans age 50 and over say the party is performing well on its core positions, down from 48% as recently as this April. Among Democrats, there is no age divide in ratings of the party's performance in this area.

Iraq Top Election Issue


The war in Iraq dominated the news this fall and was the central issue in the campaigns of many Democratic candidates for Congress. Pre-election polling consistently found more voters picking Iraq as the top issue in the election. However, results from the national exit polls suggested that the issue of corruption and scandals in government was more important to voters than the war in Iraq.

FigureThe national exit poll, conducted by the National Election Pool, asked voters to indicate how important each of six issues were to their vote, using a scale that ranged from "extremely important" to "not at all important." Government corruption was mentioned by more voters as extremely important (42%) than terrorism or the economy (40%), "values issues such as same-sex marriage or abortion" (36%), or the war in Iraq (36%). When the "extremely" and "very" important categories are combined, Iraq still fell below several other issues in importance.

The exit poll showed that comparable numbers of voters rated several issues as extremely important. By contrast, when the Pew survey presented one group of voters with the same list of issues that appeared on the exit poll ­ and then asked "which one issue mattered most to you in deciding how you voted in the congressional election" ­ certain issues emerged as ranking much higher than others.

As was the case in pre-election surveys, Iraq was mentioned most often (by 30% as a first choice, and 53% as first or second choice), with the economy following at 20% (and 37% as a first or second choice). Values issues were close behind at 16% (and 27% as a first or second choice). Corruption was mentioned by only 10% as the top issue, though it did climb to 23% among first and second choices combined.

FigureAnother group of voters was asked to state in their own words what one issue mattered most in their vote; they were not presented with a list of issues. In this format responses were much more scattered, though again, Iraq topped this list with 17%. No other single issue was mentioned by more than 7% (the economy). Terrorism, which appeared more important than Iraq to voters in the exit poll questions, was mentioned as the top issue by only 1% of respondents.

Responses to the open-ended version of this question were much more dispersed than they were in 2004, when Pew also conducted a post-election experiment on the importance of issues in the vote. In the 2004 survey, 60% of respondents mentioned one of the top four issues that had been on the exit poll list that year (Iraq, moral values, the economy and jobs, and terrorism). This year, the top four issues in the open-ended format accounted for only 30% of the total. This difference may reflect the difference between a presidential election in which opinion is crystallized around two candidates and their positions on issues, and the widely scattered nature of the political campaigns waged in a legislative election.

Partisans Far Apart in Issue Priorities


FigureAs is often the case, Democratic and Republican voters have very different views of which issues were most important. Iraq was chosen as the top issue by four-in-ten of those who voted for Democratic candidates (and by 66% as first or second choice). In contrast, just 16% of Republican voters picked Iraq (37% as a first or second choice). The economy was also more frequently mentioned as a top issue by Democratic voters (25%) than by Republicans (17%). Values issues were the top choice of Republican voters (30%), compared with just 8% of Democrats. Corruption and scandals registered with Democrats (14% picked it first), but not with Republican voters (4%). Terrorism (16%) and illegal immigration (11%) were both more important to Republican voters than to Democrats (2% each).

There also are some notable demographic differences in issue priorities. Catholics were far more likely than Protestants to cite the economy as the top issue (29% for Catholics, 18% for Protestants). White evangelical Protestants were far more likely than other groups to mention values issues such as same-sex marriage or abortion (39% vs. 16% for all voters), a pattern similar to that seen in 2004. Illegal immigration was the second ranked issue among older men; 18% mentioned it as the top issue, compared with just 7% of all voters. Just 2% of voters in the West mentioned illegal immigration as the top issue. The economy was the most frequently mentioned issue in the Midwest, with 30% citing it first (compared with 26% citing Iraq).

[..................]
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=296

1004
3DHS / Unleash the Shiites
« on: November 16, 2006, 05:14:06 PM »
Unleash the Shiites?
The U.S. may be forced to choose sides in Iraq's civil strife.
By LAURA ROZEN, a senior correspondent for the American Prospect, writes about foreign policy issues from Washington.
November 16, 2006

AS SECTARIAN violence rises in Iraq and the White House comes under increasing pressure to revamp its strategy there, a debate is emerging inside the Bush administration: Should the U.S. abandon its efforts to act as a neutral referee in the ongoing civil war and, instead, throw its lot in with the Shiites?

A U.S. tilt toward the Shiites is a risky strategy, one that could further alienate Iraq's Sunni neighbors and that could backfire by driving its Sunni population into common cause with foreign jihadists and Al Qaeda cells. But elements of the administration, including some members of the intelligence community, believe that such a tilt could lead to stability more quickly than the current policy of trying to police the ongoing sectarian conflict evenhandedly, with little success and at great cost.

This past Veterans Day weekend, according to my sources, almost the entire Bush national security team gathered for an unpublicized two-day meeting. The topic: Iraq. The purpose of the meeting was to come up with a consensus position on a new path forward. Among those attending were President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor Stephen Hadley, outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Numerous policy options were put forward at the meeting, which revolved around a strategy paper prepared by Hadley and drawn from his recent trip to Baghdad. One was the Shiite option. Participants were asked to consider whether the U.S. could really afford to keep fighting both the Sunni insurgency and Shiite militias — or whether it should instead focus its efforts on combating the Sunni insurgency exclusively, and even help empower the Shiites against the Sunnis.

To do so would be a reversal of Washington's strategy over the last two years of trying to coax the Sunnis into the political process, an effort led by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. It also would discount some U.S. military commanders' concerns that the Al Mahdi army, a Shiite militia loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada Sadr, poses as great a threat to American interests as that presented by the Sunni insurgency centered in western Iraq's Al Anbar province.

So what's the logic behind the idea of "unleashing the Shiites"? It's the path of least resistance, according to its supporters, and it could help accelerate one side actually winning Iraq's sectarian conflict, thereby shortening the conflict, while reducing some of the critical security concerns driving Shiites to mobilize their own militias in the first place.

"As an alternative Plan B, it has the virtue of possibly being more militarily effective," said Thomas Donnelly, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"When you are trying to police [a civil war], all you can do is contain it," said Monica Toft, a professor specializing in ethnic conflict at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "Whereas if you're backing one side, there are not as many variables to control."

But such a strategy brings with it significant dangers. Washington might pick the wrong leaders on the side it chooses to back. Should it, for instance, continue to back Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri Maliki, or tilt in favor of his Shiite rival, Abdelaziz Hakim, and his party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Either choice could lead to more intra-Shiite infighting and violence.

Or the strategy could drive Iraq's Sunni tribes to align themselves more closely with Al Qaeda. And it seems certain to further alienate Iraq's Sunni neighbors and erstwhile U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan — while strengthening Iran's hand in Iraq.

Among the risks of an unleash-the-Shiites strategy is that if it were adopted, the White House would be unlikely to publicly acknowledge that such a choice had been made. Like so much else that has contributed to the U.S. difficulties in Iraq, it would be a decision taken in the dark, outside the realm of public debate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rozen16nov16,0,1576363.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

1005
3DHS / Class Struggle
« on: November 16, 2006, 05:03:21 PM »
ELECTION 2006

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard.

BY JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.

Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.

Mr. Webb is the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246

Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 75