Saturday, December 31, 2005
Madeleine Albright: Bush Talks 'Victory' Too Much
In an interview posted on the Democratic National Committee's web site, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says she doesn't like the way President Bush "repeatedly" talks about achieving victory in the Iraq war.
"I was very troubled recently, particularly by [Bush's] first speech to the Naval Academy," the former top Clinton diplomat complains in a DNC audio webcast.
"They clearly had some kind of a new pollster in the White House tell them that the word 'victory' had to be repeated endlessly," Albright griped. "Plus, [there was] the backdrop that said 'victory' and then there was 'victory' on the podium. I don't know how many times he used the word 'victory.'"
Still, despite her discomfort over President Bush's victory talk, Albright insisted that she and other Democrats really do want the U.S. to prevail in Iraq.
"There's not a Democrat who doesn't want this to work," Albright said. "I think that Democrats are united in not wanting this to fail."
Still, she credited her party with forcing a debate over the question of how President Bush managed to take the country to war without "really having a very good discussion of it."
And Albright complained that it isn't fair for Democrats "to be called unpatriotic simply for asking questions and having a debate."
She also took some pot shots at her successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, suggesting that her performance during a recent trip to Europe was a diplomatic embarrassment.
Noting that Rice was repeatedly pressed by reporters to clarify U.S. "torture" policy, Albright said, "I don't think it was a trip that was particularly the one that she had in mind."
"Given the fact that it's being written that she has a great deal of influence with the president, she may have come back and said, 'You know, this was not a great trip - we've got to do something.'"
The former top Clinton diplomat suggested that Dr. Rice may be in over her head, telling the DNC: "I think that you would have had to have been really asleep at the switch not to know what a very hard trip she had and one presumes that others in the White House read the newspapers and could see she had a very hard trip."
In an interview posted on the Democratic National Committee's web site, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says she doesn't like the way President Bush "repeatedly" talks about achieving victory in the Iraq war.
"I was very troubled recently, particularly by [Bush's] first speech to the Naval Academy," the former top Clinton diplomat complains in a DNC audio webcast.
"They clearly had some kind of a new pollster in the White House tell them that the word 'victory' had to be repeated endlessly," Albright griped. "Plus, [there was] the backdrop that said 'victory' and then there was 'victory' on the podium. I don't know how many times he used the word 'victory.'"
Still, despite her discomfort over President Bush's victory talk, Albright insisted that she and other Democrats really do want the U.S. to prevail in Iraq.
"There's not a Democrat who doesn't want this to work," Albright said. "I think that Democrats are united in not wanting this to fail."
Still, she credited her party with forcing a debate over the question of how President Bush managed to take the country to war without "really having a very good discussion of it."
And Albright complained that it isn't fair for Democrats "to be called unpatriotic simply for asking questions and having a debate."
She also took some pot shots at her successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, suggesting that her performance during a recent trip to Europe was a diplomatic embarrassment.
Noting that Rice was repeatedly pressed by reporters to clarify U.S. "torture" policy, Albright said, "I don't think it was a trip that was particularly the one that she had in mind."
"Given the fact that it's being written that she has a great deal of influence with the president, she may have come back and said, 'You know, this was not a great trip - we've got to do something.'"
The former top Clinton diplomat suggested that Dr. Rice may be in over her head, telling the DNC: "I think that you would have had to have been really asleep at the switch not to know what a very hard trip she had and one presumes that others in the White House read the newspapers and could see she had a very hard trip."
Friday, December 30, 2005
Bill Clinton Authorized Extralegal Interrogations
The man who ran the Central Intelligence Agency's Bin Laden desk during the 1990s is accusing President Clinton of giving the CIA carte blanche to circumvent U.S. law and interrogate terrorist suspects in any way the agency saw fit - a directive that led to the establishment of secret CIA prisons on foreign soil.
"We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture," recalled Michael Scheuer, who headed up the agency's Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, in an interview Wednesday with the German newsmagazine Die Zeit.
Scheuer said Clinton replied: "That's up to you."
According to an Agence France Press summary of the Die Zeit interview, Scheuer explained that the Clinton administration "had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system."
The top Bin Laden hunter recalled that the extralegal directive came after "President Clinton, his national security advisor Sandy Berger and his terrorism advisor Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al-Qaeda."
The secret CIA interrogation process became known as "renditioning," Scheuer said, explaining that it included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.
"In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee," he told Die Zeit. "The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we're fairly sure."
Scheuer's revelations contradict a much ballyhooed Nov. 2, 2005 report in the Washington Post, which insisted that "the secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
After mistakenly claiming that renditioning began under President Bush, the Post noted that "considerable concern lingers [within the CIA] about the legality, morality and practicality" of the program.
The man who ran the Central Intelligence Agency's Bin Laden desk during the 1990s is accusing President Clinton of giving the CIA carte blanche to circumvent U.S. law and interrogate terrorist suspects in any way the agency saw fit - a directive that led to the establishment of secret CIA prisons on foreign soil.
"We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture," recalled Michael Scheuer, who headed up the agency's Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, in an interview Wednesday with the German newsmagazine Die Zeit.
Scheuer said Clinton replied: "That's up to you."
According to an Agence France Press summary of the Die Zeit interview, Scheuer explained that the Clinton administration "had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system."
The top Bin Laden hunter recalled that the extralegal directive came after "President Clinton, his national security advisor Sandy Berger and his terrorism advisor Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al-Qaeda."
The secret CIA interrogation process became known as "renditioning," Scheuer said, explaining that it included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.
"In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee," he told Die Zeit. "The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we're fairly sure."
Scheuer's revelations contradict a much ballyhooed Nov. 2, 2005 report in the Washington Post, which insisted that "the secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
After mistakenly claiming that renditioning began under President Bush, the Post noted that "considerable concern lingers [within the CIA] about the legality, morality and practicality" of the program.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
SBA Finds Rampant 9/11 Loan Fraud
Most companies interviewed about the government-backed Sept. 11 loans they received have told investigators they weren't hurt by the suicide attacks and didn't know they were getting terrorism assistance, an internal government investigation found.
The Small Business Administration's inspector general also reported Wednesday that lenders who doled out billions of dollars in such loans failed - 85 percent of the time - to document that recipients were actually hurt by the terrorism attacks and therefore eligible for the federal aid.
The IG, the agency's internal watchdog, concluded only nine loan recipients in the 59 cases sampled appeared to be qualified for the special disaster loans. The report said SBA officials told lenders they would not be questioned on how they gave out money.
"We believe these communications were intended to, and did, send a message to lenders that the agency would not question lender eligibility determinations," the inspector general reported.
The investigative report substantiates key findings of an Associated Press story in September that found similar problems with the SBA's Supplementary Terrorist Activity Relief (STAR) program.
The AP found that terrorism recovery loans went to businesses including a South Dakota radio station, a Virgin Islands perfume shop, a Utah dog boutique, and more than 100 Dunkin' Donuts and Subway sandwich shops in various locations.
Meanwhile, small businesses near Ground Zero in New York couldn't get the assistance they desperately sought.
SBA Administrator Hector Barreto put the best face on the findings, saying the audit did not find that loan recipients were unqualified for the program, although he did note that lender documentation could have been better.
His statement, however, was contradicted by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate committee that oversees the Small Business Administration.
"These initial findings are troubling and the committee ... will continue with its own investigation of the STAR program to get at the truth and inform Congress for the future," she said.
Snowe, who heads the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, said if abuses are discovered, "many questions must be answered by the parties involved, beginning with: How and why was this allowed to happen?"
The IG's report found:
Only 2 of 42 borrowers interviewed were aware they had obtained a STAR loan.
In cases where eligibility could not be established, 25 of 34 borrowers interviewed said they were not adversely affected by the terrorist attacks.
Thirty-six of 42 borrowers questioned said they were not asked, or could not recall if they were asked, about the impact of the attacks on their businesses.
The report said IG investigators were told by lenders that their participation originally was low because of unclear requirements.
SBA officials then embarked on a vigorous marketing campaign, and lenders interpreted their remarks to mean "that every small business could claim it was somehow impacted by the attacks, and therefore, eligible to receive a STAR loan," the report said.
Most companies interviewed about the government-backed Sept. 11 loans they received have told investigators they weren't hurt by the suicide attacks and didn't know they were getting terrorism assistance, an internal government investigation found.
The Small Business Administration's inspector general also reported Wednesday that lenders who doled out billions of dollars in such loans failed - 85 percent of the time - to document that recipients were actually hurt by the terrorism attacks and therefore eligible for the federal aid.
The IG, the agency's internal watchdog, concluded only nine loan recipients in the 59 cases sampled appeared to be qualified for the special disaster loans. The report said SBA officials told lenders they would not be questioned on how they gave out money.
"We believe these communications were intended to, and did, send a message to lenders that the agency would not question lender eligibility determinations," the inspector general reported.
The investigative report substantiates key findings of an Associated Press story in September that found similar problems with the SBA's Supplementary Terrorist Activity Relief (STAR) program.
The AP found that terrorism recovery loans went to businesses including a South Dakota radio station, a Virgin Islands perfume shop, a Utah dog boutique, and more than 100 Dunkin' Donuts and Subway sandwich shops in various locations.
Meanwhile, small businesses near Ground Zero in New York couldn't get the assistance they desperately sought.
SBA Administrator Hector Barreto put the best face on the findings, saying the audit did not find that loan recipients were unqualified for the program, although he did note that lender documentation could have been better.
His statement, however, was contradicted by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate committee that oversees the Small Business Administration.
"These initial findings are troubling and the committee ... will continue with its own investigation of the STAR program to get at the truth and inform Congress for the future," she said.
Snowe, who heads the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, said if abuses are discovered, "many questions must be answered by the parties involved, beginning with: How and why was this allowed to happen?"
The IG's report found:
Only 2 of 42 borrowers interviewed were aware they had obtained a STAR loan.
In cases where eligibility could not be established, 25 of 34 borrowers interviewed said they were not adversely affected by the terrorist attacks.
Thirty-six of 42 borrowers questioned said they were not asked, or could not recall if they were asked, about the impact of the attacks on their businesses.
The report said IG investigators were told by lenders that their participation originally was low because of unclear requirements.
SBA officials then embarked on a vigorous marketing campaign, and lenders interpreted their remarks to mean "that every small business could claim it was somehow impacted by the attacks, and therefore, eligible to receive a STAR loan," the report said.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Conservatives Wary of Election 'McCainia'
Many Democrats and independents were among those supporters who turned up at a recent Kansas City signing of Sen. John McCain’s new book "Character Is Destiny.”
But the same political views that endear McCain to Democrats and independents arouse disdain among staunch conservatives – who could deny him the White House in 2008.
"Most conservatives struggle with him,” Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, told the Kansas City Star.
Last month Rush Limbaugh castigated McCain as a "Republican in Name Only,” and earlier this year Pat Robertson told ABC News: "McCain I’d vote against under any circumstances.”
Among the issues that have landed McCain on the wrong side of conservatives are his support of campaign finance reform, his co-sponsoring of an immigration bill with Sen. Ted Kennedy, his membership in the "Gang of 14” legislators who compromised on judicial nominations, his challenge of the Bush administration’s policy on the treatment of POWs, and his attacks on the religious right.
He has called Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance” who exert an "evil influence” on the Republican Party.
"He always seems anxious to set himself apart and appeal to the Democrats,” Kevin Yowell, a Johnson County (Kan.) GOP political consultant told the Star.
McCain has said he hasn’t even "contemplated” whether he will run for president in 2008.
But a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll in mid-December showed McCain outpacing five other potential Republican candidates, including Virginia Sen. George Allen. McCain (22 percent) trailed only former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (30 percent).
Another recent poll by the National Journal had McCain leading Giuliani, although trailing Allen.
"Many conservatives don’t want to trust [McCain] with the Oval Office,” the National Journal concluded.
But McCain could conceivably win the GOP nomination without widespread support from staunch conservatives, according to Republican pollster Whit Ayres.
"He will never win the very conservatives, but he does have to do reasonably well among the somewhat conservative voters,” Ayres told the Star.
"It’s an open case right now whether he’ll be able to do that.” McCain has already sought to mend fences with Jerry Falwell, who met with the senator in his office two months ago.
"I would have very little difficulty supporting John McCain,” Falwell said afterward.
"When it comes down to Hillary Clinton and a pro-life, pro-family American hero with whom there may be some minor disagreements, I think John McCain will get an enthusiastic backing.”
Many Democrats and independents were among those supporters who turned up at a recent Kansas City signing of Sen. John McCain’s new book "Character Is Destiny.”
But the same political views that endear McCain to Democrats and independents arouse disdain among staunch conservatives – who could deny him the White House in 2008.
"Most conservatives struggle with him,” Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, told the Kansas City Star.
Last month Rush Limbaugh castigated McCain as a "Republican in Name Only,” and earlier this year Pat Robertson told ABC News: "McCain I’d vote against under any circumstances.”
Among the issues that have landed McCain on the wrong side of conservatives are his support of campaign finance reform, his co-sponsoring of an immigration bill with Sen. Ted Kennedy, his membership in the "Gang of 14” legislators who compromised on judicial nominations, his challenge of the Bush administration’s policy on the treatment of POWs, and his attacks on the religious right.
He has called Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance” who exert an "evil influence” on the Republican Party.
"He always seems anxious to set himself apart and appeal to the Democrats,” Kevin Yowell, a Johnson County (Kan.) GOP political consultant told the Star.
McCain has said he hasn’t even "contemplated” whether he will run for president in 2008.
But a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll in mid-December showed McCain outpacing five other potential Republican candidates, including Virginia Sen. George Allen. McCain (22 percent) trailed only former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (30 percent).
Another recent poll by the National Journal had McCain leading Giuliani, although trailing Allen.
"Many conservatives don’t want to trust [McCain] with the Oval Office,” the National Journal concluded.
But McCain could conceivably win the GOP nomination without widespread support from staunch conservatives, according to Republican pollster Whit Ayres.
"He will never win the very conservatives, but he does have to do reasonably well among the somewhat conservative voters,” Ayres told the Star.
"It’s an open case right now whether he’ll be able to do that.” McCain has already sought to mend fences with Jerry Falwell, who met with the senator in his office two months ago.
"I would have very little difficulty supporting John McCain,” Falwell said afterward.
"When it comes down to Hillary Clinton and a pro-life, pro-family American hero with whom there may be some minor disagreements, I think John McCain will get an enthusiastic backing.”
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Sens. Clinton, Schumer Want Defense Dollars for Donors
New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have asked the Pentagon to spend $123 million for New York projects that the Department of Defense didn't ask for – many of them benefiting the lawmakers’ campaign contributors.
Among the two Democratic senators’ projects cited by the New York Sun:
$5 million to STIDD Systems of Greenport, whose president gave $2,500 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee in May. The company makes seating for military vessels.
$8 million to the defense contracting firm DRS Technologies and its electronic warfare and network systems program in western New York. The firm's political action committee gave $8,000 to Friends of Schumer and $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Schumer chairs. The company also gave Clinton's political action committee $2,000.
$2 million to the Buffalo firm Nano-Dynamics, Incorporated, whose chairman gave $4,400 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee over the past year. Three of the firm’s officers gave $2,000 each to Schumer's campaign.
$2 million to Plug Power, Incorporated, a developer of fuel cell technology. The company's president Roger Saillant has given $2,000 to the Friends of Hillary committee over the past two years, and $3,000 to the Friends of Schumer committee over the past four years.
In announcing the projects – included in a $454 billion defense-spending bill – the two senators touted the impact they would have on the state’s economy.
And when asked about their contributions, donors said the money was not spent with the expectation of future contracts or federal grants.
But Stephen Bryen, a deputy undersecretary of defense in the Reagan administration, told the Sun that some of the New York items "are sort of frivolous from the point of view of the defense budget.
"It's like anything else: Some of it's pretty good, and some of it is taking care of their friends. That's what politics is all about. If you think you have a system based on where people who receive donations from their private sector don't tend to favor their friends, I'd like to see it."
The New York projects are "earmarks” – specific amounts of money requested by members of Congress for designated projects, which are folded into larger spending bills.
The number of pork barrel projects, including earmarks, has soared to 13,997 this year, from 1,439 in 1995, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.
And Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain recently attacked earmarks in a speech on the Senate floor.
"During a war, in a measure designed to give our fighting men and women the funds they need, the Congress has given in to its worst pork barrel instincts," he declared.
"The cumulative effect of these earmarks is the erosion of the integrity of the appropriations process, and by extension, our responsibility to the taxpayer. We must do better, for our soldiers and for the American people.
"Our system is broken if we cannot pass a defense bill in wartime without billions of dollars in pork."
New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have asked the Pentagon to spend $123 million for New York projects that the Department of Defense didn't ask for – many of them benefiting the lawmakers’ campaign contributors.
Among the two Democratic senators’ projects cited by the New York Sun:
$5 million to STIDD Systems of Greenport, whose president gave $2,500 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee in May. The company makes seating for military vessels.
$8 million to the defense contracting firm DRS Technologies and its electronic warfare and network systems program in western New York. The firm's political action committee gave $8,000 to Friends of Schumer and $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Schumer chairs. The company also gave Clinton's political action committee $2,000.
$2 million to the Buffalo firm Nano-Dynamics, Incorporated, whose chairman gave $4,400 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee over the past year. Three of the firm’s officers gave $2,000 each to Schumer's campaign.
$2 million to Plug Power, Incorporated, a developer of fuel cell technology. The company's president Roger Saillant has given $2,000 to the Friends of Hillary committee over the past two years, and $3,000 to the Friends of Schumer committee over the past four years.
In announcing the projects – included in a $454 billion defense-spending bill – the two senators touted the impact they would have on the state’s economy.
And when asked about their contributions, donors said the money was not spent with the expectation of future contracts or federal grants.
But Stephen Bryen, a deputy undersecretary of defense in the Reagan administration, told the Sun that some of the New York items "are sort of frivolous from the point of view of the defense budget.
"It's like anything else: Some of it's pretty good, and some of it is taking care of their friends. That's what politics is all about. If you think you have a system based on where people who receive donations from their private sector don't tend to favor their friends, I'd like to see it."
The New York projects are "earmarks” – specific amounts of money requested by members of Congress for designated projects, which are folded into larger spending bills.
The number of pork barrel projects, including earmarks, has soared to 13,997 this year, from 1,439 in 1995, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.
And Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain recently attacked earmarks in a speech on the Senate floor.
"During a war, in a measure designed to give our fighting men and women the funds they need, the Congress has given in to its worst pork barrel instincts," he declared.
"The cumulative effect of these earmarks is the erosion of the integrity of the appropriations process, and by extension, our responsibility to the taxpayer. We must do better, for our soldiers and for the American people.
"Our system is broken if we cannot pass a defense bill in wartime without billions of dollars in pork."
Monday, December 26, 2005
'Leaky' Leahy Leads Push for Spy Probe
Sen. Pat "Leaky" Leahy is leading the push by Senate Democrats to investigate the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance operation, saying over the weekend that the probe should be expanded to include allegations that the National Security Agency gained access to some of the country's main telephone arteries.
"As far as Congressional investigations are concerned," Leahy told the New York Times on Christmas Day, "these new revelations can only multiply and intensify the growing list of questions and concerns about the warrantless surveillance of Americans."
The Vermont Democrat's aggressive posture comes despite his own sorry record on intelligence matters. In 1987, for instance, Leahy he had to resign his post as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee after repeatedly leaking information to the press that compromised U.S. counterterrorism operations and may have killed a key U.S. intelligence asset.
The episode earned him the moniker "Leaky" Leahy with home state critics.
Now serving as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leahy isn't shy about saying where he'd like to see spy probe lead, telling the Voice of America on Wednesday: "The president is not above the law, members of the Senate are not above the law, nobody is."
He rejects comparisons with surveillance operations conducted by past administrations, insisting to reporters last week: "If you go back to Clinton and Carter, those are searches under a FISA provision into embassies, foreign embassies and things of that nature, [and were an] entirely different situation."
What's more, Leahy has even threatened to raise questions about the Bush spy program during upcoming confirmation hearings into Bush Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
In a letter to Alito last week, the Vermont Democrat warned:
"Recent revelations that the president authorized domestic eavesdropping without following the statute that requires approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is but one of several areas where the court's role as a check on overreaching by the executive may soon prove crucial."
Despite Leahy's plans for a full court press on the spy issue, Republicans have been reluctant to make an issue of his past handling of intelligence matters.
According to a 1987 editorial in the San Diego Union Tribune, however, Leahy "disclosed a top secret communications intercept during a [1985] television interview."
"The intercept, apparently of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's telephone conversations, made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens," the paper said, adding, "The reports cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation."
In July 1987, the Washington Times reported that Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi.
"I thought [the operation] was probably the most ridiculous thing I had seen, and also the most irresponsible," the then-leading Intelligence Committee Democrat allegedly said of the secret plan.
Unidentified U.S. intelligence officials told the Times that Leahy, along with Republican panel chairman Sen. Dave Durenberger, communicated a written threat to expose the operation directly to then-CIA Director William Casey.
Weeks later news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted.
Leahy vehemently denied he talked to the press about any of the Reagan administration's covert operations, saying, "I never have, and I'm not going to start now."
But just a year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, the Vermont senator had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter.
The ranking Intelligence Committee Democrat decided to let an NBC reporter comb through the committee's confidential draft report on its investigation. The network aired a report based on the inside information on Jan. 11, 1987.
After a six-month internal investigation, Leahy "voluntarily" stepped down from his committee post, releasing a statement calling his resignation "a suitable way to express ... anger and regret" over his lapse.
Leahy's anger, he said, was at himself, "for carelessly allowing the press person to examine the unclassified draft and to be alone with it."
The Vermont Democrat's Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the committee's 28-year history.
After Leahy's resignation, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided to restrict access to committee documents to a security-enhanced meeting room
Sen. Pat "Leaky" Leahy is leading the push by Senate Democrats to investigate the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance operation, saying over the weekend that the probe should be expanded to include allegations that the National Security Agency gained access to some of the country's main telephone arteries.
"As far as Congressional investigations are concerned," Leahy told the New York Times on Christmas Day, "these new revelations can only multiply and intensify the growing list of questions and concerns about the warrantless surveillance of Americans."
The Vermont Democrat's aggressive posture comes despite his own sorry record on intelligence matters. In 1987, for instance, Leahy he had to resign his post as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee after repeatedly leaking information to the press that compromised U.S. counterterrorism operations and may have killed a key U.S. intelligence asset.
The episode earned him the moniker "Leaky" Leahy with home state critics.
Now serving as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leahy isn't shy about saying where he'd like to see spy probe lead, telling the Voice of America on Wednesday: "The president is not above the law, members of the Senate are not above the law, nobody is."
He rejects comparisons with surveillance operations conducted by past administrations, insisting to reporters last week: "If you go back to Clinton and Carter, those are searches under a FISA provision into embassies, foreign embassies and things of that nature, [and were an] entirely different situation."
What's more, Leahy has even threatened to raise questions about the Bush spy program during upcoming confirmation hearings into Bush Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.
In a letter to Alito last week, the Vermont Democrat warned:
"Recent revelations that the president authorized domestic eavesdropping without following the statute that requires approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is but one of several areas where the court's role as a check on overreaching by the executive may soon prove crucial."
Despite Leahy's plans for a full court press on the spy issue, Republicans have been reluctant to make an issue of his past handling of intelligence matters.
According to a 1987 editorial in the San Diego Union Tribune, however, Leahy "disclosed a top secret communications intercept during a [1985] television interview."
"The intercept, apparently of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's telephone conversations, made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens," the paper said, adding, "The reports cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation."
In July 1987, the Washington Times reported that Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi.
"I thought [the operation] was probably the most ridiculous thing I had seen, and also the most irresponsible," the then-leading Intelligence Committee Democrat allegedly said of the secret plan.
Unidentified U.S. intelligence officials told the Times that Leahy, along with Republican panel chairman Sen. Dave Durenberger, communicated a written threat to expose the operation directly to then-CIA Director William Casey.
Weeks later news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted.
Leahy vehemently denied he talked to the press about any of the Reagan administration's covert operations, saying, "I never have, and I'm not going to start now."
But just a year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, the Vermont senator had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter.
The ranking Intelligence Committee Democrat decided to let an NBC reporter comb through the committee's confidential draft report on its investigation. The network aired a report based on the inside information on Jan. 11, 1987.
After a six-month internal investigation, Leahy "voluntarily" stepped down from his committee post, releasing a statement calling his resignation "a suitable way to express ... anger and regret" over his lapse.
Leahy's anger, he said, was at himself, "for carelessly allowing the press person to examine the unclassified draft and to be alone with it."
The Vermont Democrat's Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the committee's 28-year history.
After Leahy's resignation, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided to restrict access to committee documents to a security-enhanced meeting room
Sunday, December 25, 2005
22 Congressmen Hate Christmas
This year's "War for Christmas" – keeping "Christ" in the holiday has apparently been won. And, like many "wars," there has even been a Congressional resolution in support of keeping Christmas alive and well.
On December 15 the House of Representatives passed a resolution "protecting the symbols and traditions of Christmas" by an overwhelming 401-22 vote.
Representative JoAnn Davis (R-VA), the resolution's sponsor, said the resolution was necessary to counter "political correctness run amok."
"No one," she said, "should feel like they have done something wrong by wishing someone a Merry Christmas."
Twenty-two Democrats played Scrooge and disagreed.
Representative Robert Scott (D-VA) said Republicans were more concerned with the symbolism rather than the substance of Christmas – referring to Republican passage of a bill to slow the rate of growth in federal entitlement programs.
Davis lodged a preemptive response to critics who might question the constitutionality of her resolution.
"Celebrating Christmas is not a violation of separation of church and state," she said. "The Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue."
The text of the resolution read as follows:
Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives –
(1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.
As the Christmas season draws to a close, we thought we would share the names of the 22 Congressman who voted against the pro-Christmas resolution:
Congressman Party-State District
Ackerman D-NY 5th
Blumenauer D-OR 3rd
Capps D-CA 23rd
Cleaver D-MO 5th
DeGette D-CO 1st
Harman D-CA 36th
Hastings D-FL 23rd
Honda D-CA 15th
Lee D-CA 9th
Lewis D-GA 5th
McDermott D-WA 7th
Miller, George D-CA 7th
Moore D-WI 4th
Moran D-VA 8th
Payne D-NJ 10th
Rush D-IL 1st
Schakowsky D-IL 9th
Scott D-VA 3rd
Stark D-CA 13th
Wasserman Schultz D-FL 20th
Wexler D-FL 19th
Woolsey D-CA 6th
This year's "War for Christmas" – keeping "Christ" in the holiday has apparently been won. And, like many "wars," there has even been a Congressional resolution in support of keeping Christmas alive and well.
On December 15 the House of Representatives passed a resolution "protecting the symbols and traditions of Christmas" by an overwhelming 401-22 vote.
Representative JoAnn Davis (R-VA), the resolution's sponsor, said the resolution was necessary to counter "political correctness run amok."
"No one," she said, "should feel like they have done something wrong by wishing someone a Merry Christmas."
Twenty-two Democrats played Scrooge and disagreed.
Representative Robert Scott (D-VA) said Republicans were more concerned with the symbolism rather than the substance of Christmas – referring to Republican passage of a bill to slow the rate of growth in federal entitlement programs.
Davis lodged a preemptive response to critics who might question the constitutionality of her resolution.
"Celebrating Christmas is not a violation of separation of church and state," she said. "The Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue."
The text of the resolution read as follows:
Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives –
(1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.
As the Christmas season draws to a close, we thought we would share the names of the 22 Congressman who voted against the pro-Christmas resolution:
Congressman Party-State District
Ackerman D-NY 5th
Blumenauer D-OR 3rd
Capps D-CA 23rd
Cleaver D-MO 5th
DeGette D-CO 1st
Harman D-CA 36th
Hastings D-FL 23rd
Honda D-CA 15th
Lee D-CA 9th
Lewis D-GA 5th
McDermott D-WA 7th
Miller, George D-CA 7th
Moore D-WI 4th
Moran D-VA 8th
Payne D-NJ 10th
Rush D-IL 1st
Schakowsky D-IL 9th
Scott D-VA 3rd
Stark D-CA 13th
Wasserman Schultz D-FL 20th
Wexler D-FL 19th
Woolsey D-CA 6th
Saturday, December 24, 2005
New Year to Be Delayed ... Again
2006 has been postponed. But not for long.
A leap second will be inserted in the world's clocks just before midnight - Greenwich mean time - on New Year's Eve, the U.S. Naval Observatory reported Friday.
That means 7 p.m. EST, Dec. 31, will occur one second later than it would have otherwise.
Leap seconds are needed occasionally because modern atomic clocks measure time with great accuracy, while the rotation of the Earth can be inconsistent.
The rotation of the Earth has been slowing down, so leap seconds keep the clocks and the Earth from getting out of synch with one another.
This will be the 23rd leap second that has been inserted since 1972 when an international timekeeping agreement was signed, according to the Observatory. The last one was inserted seven years ago.
2006 has been postponed. But not for long.
A leap second will be inserted in the world's clocks just before midnight - Greenwich mean time - on New Year's Eve, the U.S. Naval Observatory reported Friday.
That means 7 p.m. EST, Dec. 31, will occur one second later than it would have otherwise.
Leap seconds are needed occasionally because modern atomic clocks measure time with great accuracy, while the rotation of the Earth can be inconsistent.
The rotation of the Earth has been slowing down, so leap seconds keep the clocks and the Earth from getting out of synch with one another.
This will be the 23rd leap second that has been inserted since 1972 when an international timekeeping agreement was signed, according to the Observatory. The last one was inserted seven years ago.
Friday, December 23, 2005
FISA Court Discouraged Moussaoui Warrant
Led by the New York Times, a chorus of administration critics have been insisting all week that there was no reason for President Bush to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when he sought to wiretap terrorists operating inside the U.S. - since the FISA Court almost always approves such requests.
But that's not what the Times reported three years ago, after FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley came forward with the allegation that the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.
Moussaoui was arrested in Minneapolis on Aug. 16, 2001 - nearly four weeks before the 9/11 attacks - after an instructor at a local flight school he attended called the F.B.I. to report that he suspected the Moroccan-born terrorist was up to no good.
In a May 2002 report the Times noted: "Two days later, F.B.I. agents in Minnesota asked Washington to obtain a special warrant to search his laptop computer."
However, there was a problem. The paper explained:
"Recent interviews of intelligence officials by The New York Times suggest that the Bureau had a reason for growing cautious about applying to a secret national security court for special search warrants that might have supplied critical information."
"The F.B.I.," officials told the Times, "had become wary after a well-regarded supervisor was disciplined because the [FISA] court complained that he had submitted improper information on applications."
The secret court went so far as to discipline Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating terrorist surveillance operations, saying they would no longer accept warrant applications from him.
Intelligence officials told the Times that the FISA Court's decision to reprimand Resnick, who had been a rising star in the FBI, "resulted in making the Bureau far less aggressive in seeking information on terrorists."
"Other officials," the paper said, complained that the FISA Court's actions against Resnick "prompted Bureau officials to adopt a play-it-safe approach that meant submitting fewer applications and declining to submit any that could be questioned."
Sen. Charles Grassley is among those who think that the FBI might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if the FISA Court hadn't discouraged the Bureau from aggressively pursuing a warrant in the Moussaoui case.
In a January 2002 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Grassley noted that had a search been permitted, "Agents would have found information in Moussaoui’s belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the [9/11] hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian Al Qaeda boss who had met with at least two other [9/11] hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials."
Led by the New York Times, a chorus of administration critics have been insisting all week that there was no reason for President Bush to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when he sought to wiretap terrorists operating inside the U.S. - since the FISA Court almost always approves such requests.
But that's not what the Times reported three years ago, after FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley came forward with the allegation that the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.
Moussaoui was arrested in Minneapolis on Aug. 16, 2001 - nearly four weeks before the 9/11 attacks - after an instructor at a local flight school he attended called the F.B.I. to report that he suspected the Moroccan-born terrorist was up to no good.
In a May 2002 report the Times noted: "Two days later, F.B.I. agents in Minnesota asked Washington to obtain a special warrant to search his laptop computer."
However, there was a problem. The paper explained:
"Recent interviews of intelligence officials by The New York Times suggest that the Bureau had a reason for growing cautious about applying to a secret national security court for special search warrants that might have supplied critical information."
"The F.B.I.," officials told the Times, "had become wary after a well-regarded supervisor was disciplined because the [FISA] court complained that he had submitted improper information on applications."
The secret court went so far as to discipline Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating terrorist surveillance operations, saying they would no longer accept warrant applications from him.
Intelligence officials told the Times that the FISA Court's decision to reprimand Resnick, who had been a rising star in the FBI, "resulted in making the Bureau far less aggressive in seeking information on terrorists."
"Other officials," the paper said, complained that the FISA Court's actions against Resnick "prompted Bureau officials to adopt a play-it-safe approach that meant submitting fewer applications and declining to submit any that could be questioned."
Sen. Charles Grassley is among those who think that the FBI might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if the FISA Court hadn't discouraged the Bureau from aggressively pursuing a warrant in the Moussaoui case.
In a January 2002 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Grassley noted that had a search been permitted, "Agents would have found information in Moussaoui’s belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the [9/11] hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian Al Qaeda boss who had met with at least two other [9/11] hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials."
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Dick Cheney's iPod Irks Reporters
He's the Vice President, Air Force Two is "his" place, and Dick Cheney can do whatever he wants on it, but that doesn't matter to the gaggle of reporters who cover his every movement.
On Cheney's trip back to the U.S. from the Middle east, members of the press who wanted to charge their laptops and other mobile devices in order to file their stories on Cheney's doings couldn't - because the Veep wanted to listen to his iPod.
It happened this way:
When Cheney was traveling home overnight Wednesday from his diplomatic mission, most of the outlets on Air Force II went on the fritz.
Working passengers began lining up their laptops to share the power from a couple of working outlets - particularly the reporters who urgently needed to prepare their articles to transmit during a quick refueling stop in England.
But when Cheney said his iPod needed to be recharged, it took precedent above all else and dominated one precious outlet for several hours.
The vice president's press staff intervened so a reporter could use the outlet for 15 minutes to charge a dead laptop, but then the digital music device was plugged back in.
That way, Cheney got his press coverage and his music, too.
And what's on the Veep's iPod?
The music on it "ranges from country to classical, according to an administration official," reports ABC news, and "he has a good amount of music from the 1940s and 1950s and apparently is fond of Johnny Cash."
He's the Vice President, Air Force Two is "his" place, and Dick Cheney can do whatever he wants on it, but that doesn't matter to the gaggle of reporters who cover his every movement.
On Cheney's trip back to the U.S. from the Middle east, members of the press who wanted to charge their laptops and other mobile devices in order to file their stories on Cheney's doings couldn't - because the Veep wanted to listen to his iPod.
It happened this way:
When Cheney was traveling home overnight Wednesday from his diplomatic mission, most of the outlets on Air Force II went on the fritz.
Working passengers began lining up their laptops to share the power from a couple of working outlets - particularly the reporters who urgently needed to prepare their articles to transmit during a quick refueling stop in England.
But when Cheney said his iPod needed to be recharged, it took precedent above all else and dominated one precious outlet for several hours.
The vice president's press staff intervened so a reporter could use the outlet for 15 minutes to charge a dead laptop, but then the digital music device was plugged back in.
That way, Cheney got his press coverage and his music, too.
And what's on the Veep's iPod?
The music on it "ranges from country to classical, according to an administration official," reports ABC news, and "he has a good amount of music from the 1940s and 1950s and apparently is fond of Johnny Cash."
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Kofi Annan Loses Cool Over Car
Embattled UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan lost his cool and lashed out at a reporter who questioned him about his son’s Mercedes-Benz.
The very undiplomatic outburst came at Annan’s year-end press conference, when he attacked James Bone, a correspondent with The Times of London who has raised questions at daily UN briefings about Annan and his son Kojo’s possible involvement in the oil-for-food scandal in Iraq.
An 18-month investigation cleared Annan of influencing an oil-for-food contract that went to a company that employed Kojo, but was strongly critical of his management of the $64 billion program.
At the press conference, Bone asked Annan about the whereabouts of a Mercedes bought by Kojo and imported into Ghana using his father’s diplomatic immunity to avoid paying taxes and customs duty.
"I think you’re being very cheeky,” the normally low-key Annan interrupted.
"Listen, James Bone, you’ve been behaving like an overgrown schoolboy in this room for many, many months and years. You are an embarrassment to your colleagues and to your profession. Please stop misbehaving and please let’s move on to a serious subject.”
Ironically, the tirade came just minutes after Annan – whose term expires next year – said a thick skin and a sense of humor were essential character traits for any future secretary-general, The Australian newspaper reports.
The president of the UN Correspondents Association came to Bone’s defense, saying: "I really have to do this for the record. James Bone is not an embarrassment. He’s a member in good standing of UNCA. He had every right to ask the question.” Annan countered: "I reserve the right to refuse to answer questions I don’t want to answer.”
He never did address the question about the Mercedes.
Embattled UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan lost his cool and lashed out at a reporter who questioned him about his son’s Mercedes-Benz.
The very undiplomatic outburst came at Annan’s year-end press conference, when he attacked James Bone, a correspondent with The Times of London who has raised questions at daily UN briefings about Annan and his son Kojo’s possible involvement in the oil-for-food scandal in Iraq.
An 18-month investigation cleared Annan of influencing an oil-for-food contract that went to a company that employed Kojo, but was strongly critical of his management of the $64 billion program.
At the press conference, Bone asked Annan about the whereabouts of a Mercedes bought by Kojo and imported into Ghana using his father’s diplomatic immunity to avoid paying taxes and customs duty.
"I think you’re being very cheeky,” the normally low-key Annan interrupted.
"Listen, James Bone, you’ve been behaving like an overgrown schoolboy in this room for many, many months and years. You are an embarrassment to your colleagues and to your profession. Please stop misbehaving and please let’s move on to a serious subject.”
Ironically, the tirade came just minutes after Annan – whose term expires next year – said a thick skin and a sense of humor were essential character traits for any future secretary-general, The Australian newspaper reports.
The president of the UN Correspondents Association came to Bone’s defense, saying: "I really have to do this for the record. James Bone is not an embarrassment. He’s a member in good standing of UNCA. He had every right to ask the question.” Annan countered: "I reserve the right to refuse to answer questions I don’t want to answer.”
He never did address the question about the Mercedes.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage
During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.
In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.
"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."
As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.
The massive invasion of privacy was justified by Echelon's defenders as an indispensable national security tool in the war on terror.
But Clinton officials also utilized the program in ways that had nothing to do with national security - such as conducting economic espionage against foreign businesses.
In his comments to Le Figaro, Woolsey defended the program, declaring flatly: "Spying on Europe is justified."
"I can tell you that five years ago, several European countries were giving substantial bribes to export business more easily. I hope that's no longer the case."
During hearings in 2000 on the surveillance flap, Woolsey told Congress that in 1993 alone, U.S. firms obtained contracts worth $6.5 billion with the help of timely intelligence information.
"We collect intelligence on those efforts to bribe foreign companies and foreign governments into awarding an airport contract to a European firm rather than an American firm," Woolsey said in a 1994 speech, in quotes picked up by the New York Post.
Predictably, European officials were outraged by what they regarded as a massive abuse of the NSA's spying capacity.
"[This is] an intolerable attack against individual liberties, competition, and the security of states," complained Martin Bangemann, then-European commissioner for industry.
But the complaints went unheeded in Washington.
In 1996, President Clinton signed the Economic Espionage Act, which, according to the Christian Science Monitor, authorized intelligence gathering on foreign businesses.
"The Clinton administration has attached especial importance to economic intelligence, setting up the National Economic Council [NEC] in parallel to the National Security Council," the Monitor reported in 1999.
"The NEC routinely seeks information from the NSA and the CIA," the paper continued, citing anonymous officials. "And the NSA, as the biggest and wealthiest communications interception agency in the world, is best placed to trawl electronic communications and use what comes up for US commercial advantage."
During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.
In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.
"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."
As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.
The massive invasion of privacy was justified by Echelon's defenders as an indispensable national security tool in the war on terror.
But Clinton officials also utilized the program in ways that had nothing to do with national security - such as conducting economic espionage against foreign businesses.
In his comments to Le Figaro, Woolsey defended the program, declaring flatly: "Spying on Europe is justified."
"I can tell you that five years ago, several European countries were giving substantial bribes to export business more easily. I hope that's no longer the case."
During hearings in 2000 on the surveillance flap, Woolsey told Congress that in 1993 alone, U.S. firms obtained contracts worth $6.5 billion with the help of timely intelligence information.
"We collect intelligence on those efforts to bribe foreign companies and foreign governments into awarding an airport contract to a European firm rather than an American firm," Woolsey said in a 1994 speech, in quotes picked up by the New York Post.
Predictably, European officials were outraged by what they regarded as a massive abuse of the NSA's spying capacity.
"[This is] an intolerable attack against individual liberties, competition, and the security of states," complained Martin Bangemann, then-European commissioner for industry.
But the complaints went unheeded in Washington.
In 1996, President Clinton signed the Economic Espionage Act, which, according to the Christian Science Monitor, authorized intelligence gathering on foreign businesses.
"The Clinton administration has attached especial importance to economic intelligence, setting up the National Economic Council [NEC] in parallel to the National Security Council," the Monitor reported in 1999.
"The NEC routinely seeks information from the NSA and the CIA," the paper continued, citing anonymous officials. "And the NSA, as the biggest and wealthiest communications interception agency in the world, is best placed to trawl electronic communications and use what comes up for US commercial advantage."
Monday, December 19, 2005
Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls
During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.
On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."
But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:
If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."
NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."
Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."
Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.
The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."
One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.
Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."
During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.
On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."
But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:
If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."
NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."
Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."
Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.
The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."
One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.
Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Nancy Pelosi: I Was Briefed on NSA Program
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi confessed late Saturday that she signed off on President Bush's decision to have a top intelligence agency conduct "unspecified activities" to gather intelligence on possible terrorists operating inside the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
"I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions," Pelosi admitted.
The San Francisco Democrat claimed she expressed "strong concerns" about the "unspecified activities" at the time, but offered no evidence to that effect.
Pelosi declined to explain why she didn't make public her concerns about the authorization, which Democrats now say was an outrageous abuse of civil rights.
Instead, Pelosi admitted keeping silent about the "unspecified activities" even though she now believes they may have been illegal, saying Bush's acknowledgment of the NSA program on Saturday "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful."
On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid also admitted he kept silent about the controversial program, even though he was briefed on its existence "a couple of months ago."
Still, he insisted that it made no difference that Democratic congressional leaders knew about the NSA program, telling Fox News Sunday: "This is something that's [the responsibility of] the president and the vice president and there's no way he can pass the buck."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi confessed late Saturday that she signed off on President Bush's decision to have a top intelligence agency conduct "unspecified activities" to gather intelligence on possible terrorists operating inside the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
"I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions," Pelosi admitted.
The San Francisco Democrat claimed she expressed "strong concerns" about the "unspecified activities" at the time, but offered no evidence to that effect.
Pelosi declined to explain why she didn't make public her concerns about the authorization, which Democrats now say was an outrageous abuse of civil rights.
Instead, Pelosi admitted keeping silent about the "unspecified activities" even though she now believes they may have been illegal, saying Bush's acknowledgment of the NSA program on Saturday "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful."
On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid also admitted he kept silent about the controversial program, even though he was briefed on its existence "a couple of months ago."
Still, he insisted that it made no difference that Democratic congressional leaders knew about the NSA program, telling Fox News Sunday: "This is something that's [the responsibility of] the president and the vice president and there's no way he can pass the buck."
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Poll: Most Americans Say 'Finish the Job' in Iraq
A solid majority of Americans oppose immediately pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, citing as a main reason the desire to finish the job of stabilizing the country, an AP-Ipsos poll found.
Some 57 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized, while 36 percent favor an immediate troop withdrawal. A year ago, 71 percent of respondents favored keeping troops in Iraq until it was stabilized.
In an effort to build public support for his Iraq policy, President Bush planned an Oval Office address for Sunday night to discuss the U.S. mission and what lies ahead in 2006.
The speech will be his first from the Oval Office since March 2003 when he announced the invasion of Iraq. In the past two weeks, the president has given four speeches on Iraq.
In the poll, when people were asked in an open-ended question the main reason the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq, 32 percent said to stabilize the country and 26 percent said to finish the rebuilding job under way.
Only one in 10 said they wanted to stay in Iraq to fight terrorism; just 3 percent said to protect U.S. national security.
"You've got to finish the job," said Terry Waterman, a store manager from Superior, Wis. "The whole world is looking to us for leadership. We can't have another Vietnam."
Other recent polling has found that when given additional options, many people favor a step somewhere in between having troops leave immediately and staying until the country is stabilized.
After months of unrelenting violence, millions of Iraqis turned out this past week to choose a parliament. Early estimates placed the voter turnout close to 70 percent of 15 million Iraqis voting.
Some 49 percent of Americans now say the war with Iraq was a mistake, according to the poll of 1,006 adults conducted Tuesday through Thursday. That compares with 53 percent in August. Two years ago, only 34 percent of those surveyed said the war was a mistake.
Two years ago, after ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was captured, 64 percent of respondents said the war was the right thing to do. Now, 42 percent say it was the right decision.
Over the past two years, some of the biggest shifts on whether the war was a good decision or a mistake have come among married people with children, those with low incomes and those with a high school education or less.
"Whether the war is a mistake is less relevant than what we should do now," said John McAdams, a political scientist at Marquette University in Milwaukee. "A fair number of people may think it's a mistake, but still don't want to lose."
A solid majority of Americans oppose immediately pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, citing as a main reason the desire to finish the job of stabilizing the country, an AP-Ipsos poll found.
Some 57 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized, while 36 percent favor an immediate troop withdrawal. A year ago, 71 percent of respondents favored keeping troops in Iraq until it was stabilized.
In an effort to build public support for his Iraq policy, President Bush planned an Oval Office address for Sunday night to discuss the U.S. mission and what lies ahead in 2006.
The speech will be his first from the Oval Office since March 2003 when he announced the invasion of Iraq. In the past two weeks, the president has given four speeches on Iraq.
In the poll, when people were asked in an open-ended question the main reason the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq, 32 percent said to stabilize the country and 26 percent said to finish the rebuilding job under way.
Only one in 10 said they wanted to stay in Iraq to fight terrorism; just 3 percent said to protect U.S. national security.
"You've got to finish the job," said Terry Waterman, a store manager from Superior, Wis. "The whole world is looking to us for leadership. We can't have another Vietnam."
Other recent polling has found that when given additional options, many people favor a step somewhere in between having troops leave immediately and staying until the country is stabilized.
After months of unrelenting violence, millions of Iraqis turned out this past week to choose a parliament. Early estimates placed the voter turnout close to 70 percent of 15 million Iraqis voting.
Some 49 percent of Americans now say the war with Iraq was a mistake, according to the poll of 1,006 adults conducted Tuesday through Thursday. That compares with 53 percent in August. Two years ago, only 34 percent of those surveyed said the war was a mistake.
Two years ago, after ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was captured, 64 percent of respondents said the war was the right thing to do. Now, 42 percent say it was the right decision.
Over the past two years, some of the biggest shifts on whether the war was a good decision or a mistake have come among married people with children, those with low incomes and those with a high school education or less.
"Whether the war is a mistake is less relevant than what we should do now," said John McAdams, a political scientist at Marquette University in Milwaukee. "A fair number of people may think it's a mistake, but still don't want to lose."
Friday, December 16, 2005
Planned Billboard Angers Arab Americans
RALEIGH, N.C. -- A group that is trying to tighten the standards for obtaining driver's licenses has come under fire for plans to post a billboard with a picture of an Arab clutching a grenade and a North Carolina license.
"The message of the ad says that Arabs are dangerous and violent people and that therefore they should not get driver's licenses, and I think that is bigoted. It's racist," said Christine Saah Nazer, spokeswoman for the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
Amanda Bowman, president of the New York-based Coalition for a Secure Driver's License, which is launching the billboard campaign in North Carolina and two other states, said: "We're not going after Arab-Americans. We're going after terrorists."
The billboard, scheduled to go up this month near the state Capitol in Raleigh, shows a man in traditional Arab head scarf. The billboard reads: "Don't license terrorists, North Carolina." Similar billboards are planned for New Mexico and Wisconsin, the coalition said.
Bowman said North Carolina lags behind in efforts to tighten driver's license laws since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Fifteen of the terrorists involved in those attacks had multiple driver's licenses, she said, though none held North Carolina licenses.
Bowman complained that in North Carolina, drivers do not have to show proof that they are in this country legally.
An audit this summer of North Carolina's licensing process by the state found the state has much less strict licensing procedures than surrounding states. The report said that information provided by applicants is not double-checked and that easily forged documents are accepted as proof of residency in the state.
Ernie Seneca, spokesman for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, said the message behind the ad was "flat-out wrong, totally inaccurate and offensive." He said the department has addressed many of the issues raised in the audit.
Also, he said, a program implemented last year eliminated some forms of identification previously deemed acceptable, and all applicants now must show U.S.-issued or U.S.-validated documents to get a license.
RALEIGH, N.C. -- A group that is trying to tighten the standards for obtaining driver's licenses has come under fire for plans to post a billboard with a picture of an Arab clutching a grenade and a North Carolina license.
"The message of the ad says that Arabs are dangerous and violent people and that therefore they should not get driver's licenses, and I think that is bigoted. It's racist," said Christine Saah Nazer, spokeswoman for the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
Amanda Bowman, president of the New York-based Coalition for a Secure Driver's License, which is launching the billboard campaign in North Carolina and two other states, said: "We're not going after Arab-Americans. We're going after terrorists."
The billboard, scheduled to go up this month near the state Capitol in Raleigh, shows a man in traditional Arab head scarf. The billboard reads: "Don't license terrorists, North Carolina." Similar billboards are planned for New Mexico and Wisconsin, the coalition said.
Bowman said North Carolina lags behind in efforts to tighten driver's license laws since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Fifteen of the terrorists involved in those attacks had multiple driver's licenses, she said, though none held North Carolina licenses.
Bowman complained that in North Carolina, drivers do not have to show proof that they are in this country legally.
An audit this summer of North Carolina's licensing process by the state found the state has much less strict licensing procedures than surrounding states. The report said that information provided by applicants is not double-checked and that easily forged documents are accepted as proof of residency in the state.
Ernie Seneca, spokesman for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, said the message behind the ad was "flat-out wrong, totally inaccurate and offensive." He said the department has addressed many of the issues raised in the audit.
Also, he said, a program implemented last year eliminated some forms of identification previously deemed acceptable, and all applicants now must show U.S.-issued or U.S.-validated documents to get a license.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Morgan Freeman Blasts Black History Month
Morgan Freeman says the concept of a month dedicated to black history is "ridiculous."
"You're going to relegate my history to a month?" the 68-year-old actor says in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" to air Sunday (7 p.m. EST). "I don't want a black history month. Black history is American history."
Black History Month has roots in historian Carter G. Woodson's Negro History Week, which he designated in 1926 as the second week in February to mark the birthdays of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.
Woodson said he hoped the week could one day be eliminated - when black history would become fundamental to American history.
Freeman notes there is no "white history month," and says the only way to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."
The actor says he believes the labels "black" and "white" are an obstacle to beating racism.
"I am going to stop calling you a white man and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man," Freeman says.
Freeman received Oscar nominations for his roles in 1987's "Street Smart," 1989's "Driving Miss Daisy" and 1994's "The Shawshank Redemption." He finally won earlier this year for "Million Dollar Baby."
Morgan Freeman says the concept of a month dedicated to black history is "ridiculous."
"You're going to relegate my history to a month?" the 68-year-old actor says in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" to air Sunday (7 p.m. EST). "I don't want a black history month. Black history is American history."
Black History Month has roots in historian Carter G. Woodson's Negro History Week, which he designated in 1926 as the second week in February to mark the birthdays of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.
Woodson said he hoped the week could one day be eliminated - when black history would become fundamental to American history.
Freeman notes there is no "white history month," and says the only way to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."
The actor says he believes the labels "black" and "white" are an obstacle to beating racism.
"I am going to stop calling you a white man and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man," Freeman says.
Freeman received Oscar nominations for his roles in 1987's "Street Smart," 1989's "Driving Miss Daisy" and 1994's "The Shawshank Redemption." He finally won earlier this year for "Million Dollar Baby."
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Senate Democrats are ‘Crazy’
Bill Kristol, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, said Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) are "crazy” if they believe that Americans don’t want to win in Iraq.
Kristol, appearing Wednesday on Fox News Channel, made his comments in response to a press conference called by the Democrats prior to President Bush’s speech Wednesday on the progress in Iraq and the war on terrorism.
Reid and Levin, looking grim during the press conference, both droned about how the president’s plan to "stay the course” in Iraq does not give hope to Americans living in the United States.
"This nation roots for success,” Kristol said. "If the war goes badly, they’ll blame President Bush, and rightly so. But they [Reid and Levin] looked defeatist, like they are half-rooting for failure.
"They are so grudging in their praise for Bush and the Iraqi people who are turning out to vote in this week’s elections at a great personal sacrifice, that I think Americans will reject or dismiss their comments completely.”
Kristol said the Democrats are foolishly and appallingly pinning their hopes on future setbacks in Iraq to help drive down President Bush’s approval numbers, which have been rising in the past few weeks.
"Politically, patriotically and from a human point of view, I don’t understand why these Democrats don’t lay off the politics and just watch the voting over the next few days,” he said. "Americans are rooting for victory – for our soldiers and for the Iraqi people.”
Bill Kristol, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, said Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) are "crazy” if they believe that Americans don’t want to win in Iraq.
Kristol, appearing Wednesday on Fox News Channel, made his comments in response to a press conference called by the Democrats prior to President Bush’s speech Wednesday on the progress in Iraq and the war on terrorism.
Reid and Levin, looking grim during the press conference, both droned about how the president’s plan to "stay the course” in Iraq does not give hope to Americans living in the United States.
"This nation roots for success,” Kristol said. "If the war goes badly, they’ll blame President Bush, and rightly so. But they [Reid and Levin] looked defeatist, like they are half-rooting for failure.
"They are so grudging in their praise for Bush and the Iraqi people who are turning out to vote in this week’s elections at a great personal sacrifice, that I think Americans will reject or dismiss their comments completely.”
Kristol said the Democrats are foolishly and appallingly pinning their hopes on future setbacks in Iraq to help drive down President Bush’s approval numbers, which have been rising in the past few weeks.
"Politically, patriotically and from a human point of view, I don’t understand why these Democrats don’t lay off the politics and just watch the voting over the next few days,” he said. "Americans are rooting for victory – for our soldiers and for the Iraqi people.”
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Late Nite Jokes
Leno
It was so cold in Washington, Dick Cheney had to use his heart defibrillator to jump start his car.
It was so cold in New York City, cab drivers were being treated for frostbite of the middle finger.
It was so cold here in la when I drove in this morning, I had to swerve to avoid the penguins marching across the Hollywood freeway.
President Bush’s approval rating is on the rise. He is up 5 points this week. You know what you call that? A Christmas miracle!
According to the U.S. Ambassador in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden may not be in control of al Qaeda anymore. I just hope for everybody in al Qaeda the new boss isn’t some kind of American hating nut case.
Letterman
"King Kong” opens tonight. As a result the terror alert has been raised to banana.
This "King Kong” craze is big. He’s so popular that next he may run for Governor of California.
Everyone is in the holiday spirit. Today Tom Cruise was lecturing Matt Lauer on egg nog.
Conan
In an interview with Brian Williams, President Bush said that he knows a lot of people that are glad that we are in Iraq. When asked who, he said, "The leaders of North Korea and Iran.”
Leno
It was so cold in Washington, Dick Cheney had to use his heart defibrillator to jump start his car.
It was so cold in New York City, cab drivers were being treated for frostbite of the middle finger.
It was so cold here in la when I drove in this morning, I had to swerve to avoid the penguins marching across the Hollywood freeway.
President Bush’s approval rating is on the rise. He is up 5 points this week. You know what you call that? A Christmas miracle!
According to the U.S. Ambassador in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden may not be in control of al Qaeda anymore. I just hope for everybody in al Qaeda the new boss isn’t some kind of American hating nut case.
Letterman
"King Kong” opens tonight. As a result the terror alert has been raised to banana.
This "King Kong” craze is big. He’s so popular that next he may run for Governor of California.
Everyone is in the holiday spirit. Today Tom Cruise was lecturing Matt Lauer on egg nog.
Conan
In an interview with Brian Williams, President Bush said that he knows a lot of people that are glad that we are in Iraq. When asked who, he said, "The leaders of North Korea and Iran.”
Monday, December 12, 2005
Late Nite Jokes
Leno
Lucky you’re in California, how bout the weather back east? There was so much snow in Washington, D.C. Dick Cheney had to take the chains off a torture suspect and put them on his car.
It is so cold in Texas, illegal immigrants are ice skating across the Rio Grande.
It is so cold in Wyoming even the straight cowboys were cuddling.
It was so cold in Philadelphia, you could see the Philadelphia Eagles last dying breath.
Let’s see what’s going on. President Bush announced today he has begun his Christmas shopping. It’s easier for him now; every year there are fewer and fewer allies to shop for.
I don’t think President Bush really understood the meaning of Hanukah. After the candles were lit, he sang happy birthday and blew them out.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was hospitalized earlier this week with a rapid heartbeat...After the doctors examined him, they replaced some of Arnold’s obsolete computer chips and reinforced his titanium exo-skeleton. He was good as new.
Leno
Lucky you’re in California, how bout the weather back east? There was so much snow in Washington, D.C. Dick Cheney had to take the chains off a torture suspect and put them on his car.
It is so cold in Texas, illegal immigrants are ice skating across the Rio Grande.
It is so cold in Wyoming even the straight cowboys were cuddling.
It was so cold in Philadelphia, you could see the Philadelphia Eagles last dying breath.
Let’s see what’s going on. President Bush announced today he has begun his Christmas shopping. It’s easier for him now; every year there are fewer and fewer allies to shop for.
I don’t think President Bush really understood the meaning of Hanukah. After the candles were lit, he sang happy birthday and blew them out.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was hospitalized earlier this week with a rapid heartbeat...After the doctors examined him, they replaced some of Arnold’s obsolete computer chips and reinforced his titanium exo-skeleton. He was good as new.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Bush's Approval Rating Rebounds
President Bush's improved standing with whites, men, Catholics and other core supporters has been a key factor in pushing his job approval rating up to 42 percent. That's the highest level since summer.
Shifting into campaign mode to reverse his slide in public opinion polls, Bush has boosted his support among key constituency groups — particularly in the Northeast and West — on his handling of Iraq and the economy, an AP-Ipsos poll found.
"Now it's not a one-sided debate," said Republican pollster Ed Goeas, citing Bush's recent speeches on the health of the economy and the high stakes in Iraq. "You have a message getting out there in a much more positive way."
Bush improved his job approval rating from 37 percent in November to 42 percent now, though his standing with the public remains relatively low. Fifty-seven percent still disapprove, down from 61.
Bush spent much of the year pushing for a Social Security plan that went nowhere, and he was put on the defensive in September and October after the slow government response to Hurricane Katrina.
Those factors combined with Iraq and the price of gasoline hitting $3 a gallon left the president with the lowest public support of his presidency from September through November.
Now, gas prices have eased, and Bush has been barnstorming the country to tout a stronger economy and claim progress in Iraq.
A recent report noted that the nation added 215,000 jobs in November, and Bush declared on Monday that "the best days are yet to come for the American economy."
On Iraq, he's halfway through a series of four speeches outlining — in the words of a huge banner behind him at one event — the administration's "Plan for Victory" in Iraq. He has been claiming new strength for both Iraq's troops and economy, while acknowledging difficulties caused by continuing violence.
The most important goal of the Iraq speeches is to shore up intensity of support with his Republican base, said Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego. "If he restores the strong support of Republicans, he can ride out the rest of the term and keep Republican politicians on his side as well," Jacobson said.
Bush's job approval among men has climbed from 39 percent in November to 47 percent now and among whites from 40 percent to 47 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos poll.
Catholics' approval went from 32 percent to 41 percent. In the Northeast, Bush's support grew from 27 to 41 percent, and in the West from 34 to 42 percent.
Overall, approval of Bush's handling of the economy was up to 42 percent in December from 37 percent last month, according to the poll of 1,002 adults taken Dec. 5-7 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. The survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The poll found approval for Bush's handling of Iraq also was up, from 37 percent last month to 41 percent now.
Those disapproving totaled 55 percent on the economy, 58 percent on Iraq, both down slightly from November.
"I think he's doing what he has to do," said Charl-Deane Almond, a Republican from Bishop, Calif. "I appreciate him standing strong with all the pressure he's under."
Still, many have mixed feelings.
Said Jonathan Schuler, an independent from Georgetown, a small city north of Austin, Texas: "If we stay in Iraq too much longer, it will be another Vietnam. If we pull out, the terrorists will look at it as a victory."
The people who disapprove of Bush's performance cite Iraq most often as the leading reason, AP-Ipsos polling found in the fall.
The administration can win support from the public by emphasizing the possibility of success, said political scientist Christopher Gelpi of Duke University.
Gelpi and his colleague and research partner at Duke, Peter Feaver, have concluded from their research that the public is more likely to tolerate some casualties and deaths if people can see that a military mission will be successful. As a special adviser on the National Security Council, Feaver is helping shape administration strategy on winning public support for the war.
While it's important for the president to talk about victory, Gelpi said, "words without deeds on the ground will ring pretty hollow."
President Bush's improved standing with whites, men, Catholics and other core supporters has been a key factor in pushing his job approval rating up to 42 percent. That's the highest level since summer.
Shifting into campaign mode to reverse his slide in public opinion polls, Bush has boosted his support among key constituency groups — particularly in the Northeast and West — on his handling of Iraq and the economy, an AP-Ipsos poll found.
"Now it's not a one-sided debate," said Republican pollster Ed Goeas, citing Bush's recent speeches on the health of the economy and the high stakes in Iraq. "You have a message getting out there in a much more positive way."
Bush improved his job approval rating from 37 percent in November to 42 percent now, though his standing with the public remains relatively low. Fifty-seven percent still disapprove, down from 61.
Bush spent much of the year pushing for a Social Security plan that went nowhere, and he was put on the defensive in September and October after the slow government response to Hurricane Katrina.
Those factors combined with Iraq and the price of gasoline hitting $3 a gallon left the president with the lowest public support of his presidency from September through November.
Now, gas prices have eased, and Bush has been barnstorming the country to tout a stronger economy and claim progress in Iraq.
A recent report noted that the nation added 215,000 jobs in November, and Bush declared on Monday that "the best days are yet to come for the American economy."
On Iraq, he's halfway through a series of four speeches outlining — in the words of a huge banner behind him at one event — the administration's "Plan for Victory" in Iraq. He has been claiming new strength for both Iraq's troops and economy, while acknowledging difficulties caused by continuing violence.
The most important goal of the Iraq speeches is to shore up intensity of support with his Republican base, said Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego. "If he restores the strong support of Republicans, he can ride out the rest of the term and keep Republican politicians on his side as well," Jacobson said.
Bush's job approval among men has climbed from 39 percent in November to 47 percent now and among whites from 40 percent to 47 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos poll.
Catholics' approval went from 32 percent to 41 percent. In the Northeast, Bush's support grew from 27 to 41 percent, and in the West from 34 to 42 percent.
Overall, approval of Bush's handling of the economy was up to 42 percent in December from 37 percent last month, according to the poll of 1,002 adults taken Dec. 5-7 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. The survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The poll found approval for Bush's handling of Iraq also was up, from 37 percent last month to 41 percent now.
Those disapproving totaled 55 percent on the economy, 58 percent on Iraq, both down slightly from November.
"I think he's doing what he has to do," said Charl-Deane Almond, a Republican from Bishop, Calif. "I appreciate him standing strong with all the pressure he's under."
Still, many have mixed feelings.
Said Jonathan Schuler, an independent from Georgetown, a small city north of Austin, Texas: "If we stay in Iraq too much longer, it will be another Vietnam. If we pull out, the terrorists will look at it as a victory."
The people who disapprove of Bush's performance cite Iraq most often as the leading reason, AP-Ipsos polling found in the fall.
The administration can win support from the public by emphasizing the possibility of success, said political scientist Christopher Gelpi of Duke University.
Gelpi and his colleague and research partner at Duke, Peter Feaver, have concluded from their research that the public is more likely to tolerate some casualties and deaths if people can see that a military mission will be successful. As a special adviser on the National Security Council, Feaver is helping shape administration strategy on winning public support for the war.
While it's important for the president to talk about victory, Gelpi said, "words without deeds on the ground will ring pretty hollow."
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Rumsfeld Puts to Rest Retirement Rumors
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted Thursday that, despite rumors to the contrary, he has no plans to retire anytime soon.
"Those reports,” Rumsfeld told reporters on Capitol Hill, "have been flying around since about four months after I assumed my post in 2002.”
"I have no plans to retire.”
Rumsfeld was responding to a report in the New York Daily News that White House officials were quietly suggesting he would step down early next year.
Rumors have swirled in Washington for the past few weeks that Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) was on the short list of potential replacements.
The Defense Department told Reuters that Rumsfeld met with Lieberman Thursday morning at the Pentagon, but said it was not an unusual meeting.
"[Secretary Rumsfeld] has breakfast with members of Congress all the time,” said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.
"Senator Lieberman just returned from Iraq, and he had some interesting observations. And he’s been very outspoken about what he’s seen and the progress that he thinks is being made there.”
Lieberman - the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential candidate - wrote an op-ed column recently for the Wall Street Journal proclaiming: "The progress in Iraq is visible and practical ... None of these remarkable changes in Iraq would have happened if Coalition Forces lead by the U.S. had not overthrown Saddam Hussein.”
Leiberman's comments directly contradict vocal statements made by many well-known and lesser known members of his own Democratic Party, such as Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Biden, and Representatives Pelosi and Murtha.
"What a colossal mistake,” he continued, "it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will, and in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.”
Lieberman has been heavily criticized by opponents of the war in Iraq. Left-wing blogs have suggested that his rumored appointment to the Secretary of Defense post would be good because it would give Democrats the chance to "get rid” of him.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted Thursday that, despite rumors to the contrary, he has no plans to retire anytime soon.
"Those reports,” Rumsfeld told reporters on Capitol Hill, "have been flying around since about four months after I assumed my post in 2002.”
"I have no plans to retire.”
Rumsfeld was responding to a report in the New York Daily News that White House officials were quietly suggesting he would step down early next year.
Rumors have swirled in Washington for the past few weeks that Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) was on the short list of potential replacements.
The Defense Department told Reuters that Rumsfeld met with Lieberman Thursday morning at the Pentagon, but said it was not an unusual meeting.
"[Secretary Rumsfeld] has breakfast with members of Congress all the time,” said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.
"Senator Lieberman just returned from Iraq, and he had some interesting observations. And he’s been very outspoken about what he’s seen and the progress that he thinks is being made there.”
Lieberman - the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential candidate - wrote an op-ed column recently for the Wall Street Journal proclaiming: "The progress in Iraq is visible and practical ... None of these remarkable changes in Iraq would have happened if Coalition Forces lead by the U.S. had not overthrown Saddam Hussein.”
Leiberman's comments directly contradict vocal statements made by many well-known and lesser known members of his own Democratic Party, such as Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Biden, and Representatives Pelosi and Murtha.
"What a colossal mistake,” he continued, "it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will, and in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.”
Lieberman has been heavily criticized by opponents of the war in Iraq. Left-wing blogs have suggested that his rumored appointment to the Secretary of Defense post would be good because it would give Democrats the chance to "get rid” of him.
Friday, December 9, 2005
RNC's 'White Flag' Ad Labels Anti-War Democrats
The Republican National Committee unveiled a new web ad Friday that says Democrats have a plan for Iraq - and that plan is "retreat and defeat."
The 60-second ad includes recent comments made by prominent Democrats, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and John Kerry (Mass.).
A white flag, symbolizing surrender, waves across each of their faces before they speak about the war.
Howard Dean says, "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."
Barbara Boxer says, "So there's no specific timeframe but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the [Iraqi] elections December 15th."
And John Kerry says, "There is no reason, Bob [Schieffer], that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children, you know, women."
The ad notes that "our country is at war" and that our soldiers and enemies are watching what Democrats say.
"Message to Democrats," the ad concludes: "Retreat and defeat is not an option."
The ad will be sent to supporters, grassroots activists and all GOP State Parties, the RNC said in a press release.
Howard Dean on Thursday told CNN that his comment about America not being able to win the war "was a little out of context. They kind of cherry-picked that one the same way the president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq. We can only win the war - which we have to win - if we change our strategy dramatically," Dean said on CNN's American Morning program.
John Kerry has blasted Republicans, notably Rush Limbaugh, for interpreting his comment to mean that U.S. soldiers are terrorists.
But Democrats have blasted President Bush for lying his way into the war by manipulating prewar intelligence.
Last month, Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, prompting President Bush to defend his war strategy in a number of speeches this month.
Republicans have accused Democrats of politicizing the war, and with the release of the RNC's latest web ad, Democrats are expected to turn that same accusation on Republicans.
The midterm elections are still eleven months away.
The Republican National Committee unveiled a new web ad Friday that says Democrats have a plan for Iraq - and that plan is "retreat and defeat."
The 60-second ad includes recent comments made by prominent Democrats, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and John Kerry (Mass.).
A white flag, symbolizing surrender, waves across each of their faces before they speak about the war.
Howard Dean says, "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."
Barbara Boxer says, "So there's no specific timeframe but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the [Iraqi] elections December 15th."
And John Kerry says, "There is no reason, Bob [Schieffer], that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children, you know, women."
The ad notes that "our country is at war" and that our soldiers and enemies are watching what Democrats say.
"Message to Democrats," the ad concludes: "Retreat and defeat is not an option."
The ad will be sent to supporters, grassroots activists and all GOP State Parties, the RNC said in a press release.
Howard Dean on Thursday told CNN that his comment about America not being able to win the war "was a little out of context. They kind of cherry-picked that one the same way the president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq. We can only win the war - which we have to win - if we change our strategy dramatically," Dean said on CNN's American Morning program.
John Kerry has blasted Republicans, notably Rush Limbaugh, for interpreting his comment to mean that U.S. soldiers are terrorists.
But Democrats have blasted President Bush for lying his way into the war by manipulating prewar intelligence.
Last month, Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, prompting President Bush to defend his war strategy in a number of speeches this month.
Republicans have accused Democrats of politicizing the war, and with the release of the RNC's latest web ad, Democrats are expected to turn that same accusation on Republicans.
The midterm elections are still eleven months away.
Thursday, December 8, 2005
John Kerry Blames Rush Limbaugh for Iraq Blooper
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry blamed top conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh Friday morning for the uproar over his claim that U.S. troops were terrorizing Iraqi women and children.
"You know, the only people who are trying to make anything out of that, to be honest with you, are Rush Limbaugh and a few people on the right," Kerry told radio host Don Imus.
On Sunday Kerry told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there was "no reason ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs - Iraqis should be doing that."
Asked if he meant to say that American soldiers were guilty of terrorism, Kerry claimed: "Obviously not."
What he meant to say, he insisted, was: "After three years, Iraqis ought to be capable of searching a home ... It's inexplicable that when the biggest killers in Iraq are suicide bombers and IEDs, improvised explosive devices, that we're still on the front lines going into homes and going out in the dead of night. And it scares people."
The one-time top Democrat said that he'd like to see U.S. troops redeployed "in a way that accomplishes the goal but does it without needlessly putting troops at risk and incurring greater difficulties in feeding the insurgency."
Citing a year-old Washington Post report that claimed Iraqis resented home searches by U.S. troops, Kerry said his "terrorizing" comment was meant to be constructive.
"That resentment hurts our soldiers," he told Imus. "I'm trying to help our soldiers. We all are."
Asked if Iraqis soldiers wouldn't be "terrorizing" the same homeowners when they take over the searches, Kerry replied: "Hopefully not."
But in the next breath he added, "They're going to resent being terrorized if that's what happens."
Failed presidential candidate John Kerry blamed top conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh Friday morning for the uproar over his claim that U.S. troops were terrorizing Iraqi women and children.
"You know, the only people who are trying to make anything out of that, to be honest with you, are Rush Limbaugh and a few people on the right," Kerry told radio host Don Imus.
On Sunday Kerry told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there was "no reason ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs - Iraqis should be doing that."
Asked if he meant to say that American soldiers were guilty of terrorism, Kerry claimed: "Obviously not."
What he meant to say, he insisted, was: "After three years, Iraqis ought to be capable of searching a home ... It's inexplicable that when the biggest killers in Iraq are suicide bombers and IEDs, improvised explosive devices, that we're still on the front lines going into homes and going out in the dead of night. And it scares people."
The one-time top Democrat said that he'd like to see U.S. troops redeployed "in a way that accomplishes the goal but does it without needlessly putting troops at risk and incurring greater difficulties in feeding the insurgency."
Citing a year-old Washington Post report that claimed Iraqis resented home searches by U.S. troops, Kerry said his "terrorizing" comment was meant to be constructive.
"That resentment hurts our soldiers," he told Imus. "I'm trying to help our soldiers. We all are."
Asked if Iraqis soldiers wouldn't be "terrorizing" the same homeowners when they take over the searches, Kerry replied: "Hopefully not."
But in the next breath he added, "They're going to resent being terrorized if that's what happens."
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
Times Blast Hillary Clinton for Flag Ploy
2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has managed to get almost everyone mad at her by coming out for a new statute that would ban flag burning, with veterans, peace protesters and even the New York Times blasting the top Democrat for pandering.
"The only effective use of [such a] statute has been by those who -- like Senator Clinton -- want to evade [a constitutional flag burning] amendment, but give the impression to constituents that they are doing something to protect the flag," the American Legion said in a press release yesterday.
The group said Clinton's proposal was "dead on arrival."
On Monday, the former first lady announced that she was backing a law sponsored by Utah Republican Sen. Robert Bennett, with her spokesman telling the New York Post that she's following through on a promise she made last year.
At the time, Clinton said: "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag-desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer."
Over at the New York Times, however, Clinton's latest bid for bipartisanship is being dismissed out of hand.
"It's hard to see this as anything but pandering," the Old Gray Lady fumes on today's editorial page, saying there's no "urgent need" to protect the flag.
Iraq war opponents have hardly been soothed by Hillary's pro-flag pronouncements, with protesters heckling her for a second time in a week before a speech yesterday in Saratoga Springs.
2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has managed to get almost everyone mad at her by coming out for a new statute that would ban flag burning, with veterans, peace protesters and even the New York Times blasting the top Democrat for pandering.
"The only effective use of [such a] statute has been by those who -- like Senator Clinton -- want to evade [a constitutional flag burning] amendment, but give the impression to constituents that they are doing something to protect the flag," the American Legion said in a press release yesterday.
The group said Clinton's proposal was "dead on arrival."
On Monday, the former first lady announced that she was backing a law sponsored by Utah Republican Sen. Robert Bennett, with her spokesman telling the New York Post that she's following through on a promise she made last year.
At the time, Clinton said: "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag-desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer."
Over at the New York Times, however, Clinton's latest bid for bipartisanship is being dismissed out of hand.
"It's hard to see this as anything but pandering," the Old Gray Lady fumes on today's editorial page, saying there's no "urgent need" to protect the flag.
Iraq war opponents have hardly been soothed by Hillary's pro-flag pronouncements, with protesters heckling her for a second time in a week before a speech yesterday in Saratoga Springs.
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Dean Comment Treasonous
Michael Reagan, son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is blasting Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for declaring that the U.S. won't be able to win the war in Iraq, saying Dean ought to be "hung for treason."
"Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" Reagan told his Radio America audience on Monday.
Reagan was reacting to Dean's comments earlier in the day, when the top Democrat said that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
In a Texas radio interview, Dean predicted a rerun of the Vietnam debacle, where U.S. forces had to withdraw after Congress voted to cut support for South Vietnam's government.
"This is the same situation we had in Vietnam," the top Democrat said. "Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
Dean said he favored a plan to immediately withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops - with all military personnel slated to be out of Iraq within two years.
Michael Reagan, son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is blasting Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for declaring that the U.S. won't be able to win the war in Iraq, saying Dean ought to be "hung for treason."
"Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" Reagan told his Radio America audience on Monday.
Reagan was reacting to Dean's comments earlier in the day, when the top Democrat said that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
In a Texas radio interview, Dean predicted a rerun of the Vietnam debacle, where U.S. forces had to withdraw after Congress voted to cut support for South Vietnam's government.
"This is the same situation we had in Vietnam," the top Democrat said. "Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
Dean said he favored a plan to immediately withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops - with all military personnel slated to be out of Iraq within two years.
Monday, December 5, 2005
Sen. Kerry Accuses U.S. Troops of 'Terror'
A full year after losing the presidential election to President George W. Bush, Senator John Kerry still seems to be stuck in duplicitous campaign mode.
Speaking Sunday as a guest on CBS’ Face The Nation program, Kerry tried to have it both ways, again, by saying he supports the U.S. troops in Iraq, but accusing them of doing despicable things.
Said Sen. Kerry in response to a question by host Bob Schieffer about the progress of the war in Iraq:
" ... And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs."
The remark was eerily reminiscent of Kerry’s comments about U.S. troops in 1971 upon his return from duty in Vietnam.
" … They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
As reported by NewsMax during the 2004 presidential election, Kerry’s tendency to bash the troops has a long and not-so-proud history.
This, again, from a Senator who "voted for the war, before I voted against it.”
A full year after losing the presidential election to President George W. Bush, Senator John Kerry still seems to be stuck in duplicitous campaign mode.
Speaking Sunday as a guest on CBS’ Face The Nation program, Kerry tried to have it both ways, again, by saying he supports the U.S. troops in Iraq, but accusing them of doing despicable things.
Said Sen. Kerry in response to a question by host Bob Schieffer about the progress of the war in Iraq:
" ... And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs."
The remark was eerily reminiscent of Kerry’s comments about U.S. troops in 1971 upon his return from duty in Vietnam.
" … They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
As reported by NewsMax during the 2004 presidential election, Kerry’s tendency to bash the troops has a long and not-so-proud history.
This, again, from a Senator who "voted for the war, before I voted against it.”
Sunday, December 4, 2005
Hillary Clinton Heckled in Chicago
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton was heckled by a crowd of high school and college-age students in her hometown of Chicago yesterday, with ABC News reporting that security guards eventually "dragged some of the protesters out of the auditorium."
The former first lady was onstage only a few seconds when the crowd erupted with shouts of "Troops out now! Troops out now!"
As anti-war leaflets poured from one balcony, umbrellas were unfurled from another displaying the message "Out of Iraq."
Mrs. Clinton initially tried to bargain with her critics, pleading, "Give me a chance and I'll address that if you'll then be quiet."
But as the heckling continued, security guards pounced on at least two protesters and dragged them away.
After delivering her prepared remarks, Mrs. Clinton returned to the subject of Iraq.
"I disagree with those who believe we should immediately pull out," she told the crowd. "And I disagree with those who say we should stay there forever."
Then, looking pained and closing her eyes briefly, the former first lady said: "It would be wonderful if we could turn the clock back – but we cannot."
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton was heckled by a crowd of high school and college-age students in her hometown of Chicago yesterday, with ABC News reporting that security guards eventually "dragged some of the protesters out of the auditorium."
The former first lady was onstage only a few seconds when the crowd erupted with shouts of "Troops out now! Troops out now!"
As anti-war leaflets poured from one balcony, umbrellas were unfurled from another displaying the message "Out of Iraq."
Mrs. Clinton initially tried to bargain with her critics, pleading, "Give me a chance and I'll address that if you'll then be quiet."
But as the heckling continued, security guards pounced on at least two protesters and dragged them away.
After delivering her prepared remarks, Mrs. Clinton returned to the subject of Iraq.
"I disagree with those who believe we should immediately pull out," she told the crowd. "And I disagree with those who say we should stay there forever."
Then, looking pained and closing her eyes briefly, the former first lady said: "It would be wonderful if we could turn the clock back – but we cannot."
Saturday, December 3, 2005
Poll: Bush's Approval Rating Rises
A new Fox News poll shows President Bush’s job approval numbers on the rebound.
Bush’s approval rating jumped six points over last month’s result to 42 percent among Americans surveyed. His disapproval numbers still outpace that figure, however, with 48 percent dissatisfied with his job performance, primarily centered on the war in Iraq.
Roughly equal numbers of Americans surveyed think the president either shared the best information available regarding pre-Iraq war intelligence or that he intentionally misled the country on that intelligence.
Democrats are trying to pound away at this apparent uneasiness with attacks on the president’s credibility coming from the usual suspects, such as Senators Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden, as well as Reps. Nancy Pelosi and, surprisingly, Rep. John Murtha.
The White House has taken measured steps to move forward with its policy agendas on the war on terrorism and Iraq, immigration reform, the U.S. economic policy and other issues.
Earlier this week, President Bush spoke on U.S.-Mexico border patrol issues in Texas and Arizona. He later addressed the U.S. Naval Academy with a fresh outline on the strategy for victory in Iraq and, Friday, made comments regarding the recent positive economic news.
Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News on November 29-30.
A new Fox News poll shows President Bush’s job approval numbers on the rebound.
Bush’s approval rating jumped six points over last month’s result to 42 percent among Americans surveyed. His disapproval numbers still outpace that figure, however, with 48 percent dissatisfied with his job performance, primarily centered on the war in Iraq.
Roughly equal numbers of Americans surveyed think the president either shared the best information available regarding pre-Iraq war intelligence or that he intentionally misled the country on that intelligence.
Democrats are trying to pound away at this apparent uneasiness with attacks on the president’s credibility coming from the usual suspects, such as Senators Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden, as well as Reps. Nancy Pelosi and, surprisingly, Rep. John Murtha.
The White House has taken measured steps to move forward with its policy agendas on the war on terrorism and Iraq, immigration reform, the U.S. economic policy and other issues.
Earlier this week, President Bush spoke on U.S.-Mexico border patrol issues in Texas and Arizona. He later addressed the U.S. Naval Academy with a fresh outline on the strategy for victory in Iraq and, Friday, made comments regarding the recent positive economic news.
Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News on November 29-30.
Friday, December 2, 2005
Dems Back Saddam Hussein in New Poll
Democrats have given Saddam Hussein a shocking vote of confidence in the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey, with a solid plurality saying the world would be better off if the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power.
Forty-one percent of Democrats gave Saddam a thumbs up, while just 34 percent said Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone, reports the New York Post.
In stark contrast, 78 percent of Republicans said toppling the mass-murdering leader left everyone better off. Just 10 percent said they wished Saddam still ruled Iraq.
On the question of whether President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, 72 percent of Democrats say he did.
Seventy-nine percent of Republicans disagreed, however -- saying that Bush gave the American people the best intelligence he had at the time.
Democrats have given Saddam Hussein a shocking vote of confidence in the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey, with a solid plurality saying the world would be better off if the Butcher of Baghdad was still in power.
Forty-one percent of Democrats gave Saddam a thumbs up, while just 34 percent said Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone, reports the New York Post.
In stark contrast, 78 percent of Republicans said toppling the mass-murdering leader left everyone better off. Just 10 percent said they wished Saddam still ruled Iraq.
On the question of whether President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, 72 percent of Democrats say he did.
Seventy-nine percent of Republicans disagreed, however -- saying that Bush gave the American people the best intelligence he had at the time.
Thursday, December 1, 2005
Rep. John Murtha: U.S. Army 'Broken, Worn Out'
Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
Two weeks ago, Murtha created a storm of comment when he called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The Democratic congressman spoke to a group of community and business leaders in Latrobe on Wednesday, the same day President Bush said troops would be withdrawn when they've achieved victory, not under an artificial deadline set by politicians.
Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year.
"I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said, referring to Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."
Murtha, 73, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq's stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don't always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites.
He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war.
"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war," Murtha said. "I'm looking at the future of the United States military."
Murtha, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, said the Pennsylvania National Guard is "stretched so thin" that it won't be able to send fully equipped units to Iraq next year. Murtha predicted it will cost $50 billion to upgrade military equipment nationwide, but says the federal government is already reducing future purchases to save money.
Murtha, who represents a western Pennsylvania district that includes Latrobe, was first elected to Congress in 1974.
Lt. Col. Chris Cleaver, spokesman for the Pennsylvania National Guard at Fort Indiantown Gap, said "there are some deployment concerns."
Cleaver said some guard units had to leave equipment in Iraq when they returned to the United States, which could cause training problems here.
But Cleaver also said most of the 2,100 Guard troops now deployed with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team can't be sent back to Iraq for a second tour of duty anyway, because of regulations that limit redeployment.
Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
Two weeks ago, Murtha created a storm of comment when he called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The Democratic congressman spoke to a group of community and business leaders in Latrobe on Wednesday, the same day President Bush said troops would be withdrawn when they've achieved victory, not under an artificial deadline set by politicians.
Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year.
"I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said, referring to Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."
Murtha, 73, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq's stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don't always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites.
He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war.
"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war," Murtha said. "I'm looking at the future of the United States military."
Murtha, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, said the Pennsylvania National Guard is "stretched so thin" that it won't be able to send fully equipped units to Iraq next year. Murtha predicted it will cost $50 billion to upgrade military equipment nationwide, but says the federal government is already reducing future purchases to save money.
Murtha, who represents a western Pennsylvania district that includes Latrobe, was first elected to Congress in 1974.
Lt. Col. Chris Cleaver, spokesman for the Pennsylvania National Guard at Fort Indiantown Gap, said "there are some deployment concerns."
Cleaver said some guard units had to leave equipment in Iraq when they returned to the United States, which could cause training problems here.
But Cleaver also said most of the 2,100 Guard troops now deployed with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team can't be sent back to Iraq for a second tour of duty anyway, because of regulations that limit redeployment.
